Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East
Examination in Public
March – April 2006
Panel Report
July 2006 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East
Examination in Public March – April 2006
Report of the Panel July 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CONTENTS FOR THE NORTH EAST
Contents
CHAPTER Page PREFACE i 1 PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 RSS VISION AND STRATEGY 13 3 SPATIAL STRATEGY 19 4 CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS 27 5 ECONOMY 55
6 URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METRO CENTRE 73 7 HOUSING 79 8 THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 97 9 TRANSPORT STRATEGY 119 10 MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION 133
APPENDIX A TIMETABLE, MATTERS and PARTICIPANTS A1 APPENDIX B EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS B1 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES i) INDEX TO THE SUBMISSION DRAFT POLICIES, THE PANEL’S MODIFICATIONS TO POLICIES AND NEW C1 POLICIES
ii) POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF POPULATION C4 PROJECTIONS
iii) NEW STUDIES - CITY REGION HOUSING MARKET C5 AREAS iv) PANEL’S MODIFICATIONS TO POLICIES AND NEW C7 POLICIES APPENDIX D SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS D1 APPENDIX E GLOSSARY E1
PANEL REPORT
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
Preface
i. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East Submission Draft (June 2005) covers the period to 2021 and is intended to replace the existing Regional Planning Guidance for the North East. Throughout this Report ‘the Submission Draft’ has been used to refer to the Submission Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (June 2005) and ‘the RSS’ to refer to the final Regional Spatial Strategy and its successors. The term ‘Approved RPG’ is used to refer to the Regional Planning Guidance for the North East to 2016 (RPG1) approved in November 2002. This has subsequently been adopted as the approved Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (RSS1).
ii. The Submission Draft was placed on deposit from 13 July 2005 to 5 October 2005. As a result, responses were received from individuals, organisations, interest groups and local authorities generating approximately 640 separate responses and a total of 2431 representations.
iii. We were appointed by the First Secretary of State1, to conduct an Examination in Public (EiP) of selected issues arising out of the Submission Draft. Based on the objections and representations received, eight matters for examination were selected by the Panel in consultation with the North East Assembly (NEA) and the Government Office for the North East (GONE). We selected the participants to be invited to appear at the EiP also in consultation with the NEA and the GONE. In total 97 individuals or organisations were initially invited, and all but a few accepted. Subsequent invitations were extended to additional participants, resulting in 98 separate organisations and individuals participating in the EiP.
iv. The timetable, matters and participants and the various up-dates are reproduced as Appendix A to this Report. All participants were given the opportunity to submit statements prior to the commencement of the EiP and these were circulated before the EiP opened. Statements prepared by the North East Assembly were likewise circulated. Written statements put in by those who were invited but unable to attend, as well as those who were not invited, have also been taken into account. A library was available both before and during the EiP where copies of core documents, participants’ documents and other EiP documents were available for inspection. The library documents list is at Appendix B and we refer to some of the core documents in this Report. A glossary of abbreviations and clarification of terms used in this Report is at Appendix E. v. The independent EiP web site www.northeasteip.co.uk, was regularly updated to provide information on the progress of the EiP. This contained summaries of the representation received organised by policy number, and copies of the participants’ written statements. The documents library contained many of the documents in electronic format for viewing over the internet.
1 John Prescott MP; Deputy Prime Minister.
PANEL REPORT i
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST vi. Preliminary meetings took place at the Swallow Hotel, Gateshead on 13 December 2005 and 31 January 2006. The purpose of these meetings was to explain the nature of the proceedings and to allow an opportunity for the Panel to address any questions on how the EiP would be run. The EiP was held over a period of five weeks, between 7 March and 7 April 2006. vii. We spent a number of days prior to the EiP touring the Region, including visiting locations relevant to the matters being examined. Further visits took place during the EiP. viii. The approved Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (RSS1), together with its subsequent Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), provided an important policy context for the Submission Draft RSS, and has formed the background for the Panel’s Report. ix. We offer the following comments on the three different types of Recommendations for changing the Draft RSS that are contained in our Report. We also draw attention to the fact that as a result of our Recommendations there may be a further need to modify or delete policies and / or text throughout the Strategy as necessary.
Modifications to Policies and New Policies
• Modifications to policies and new policies are contained in our Recommendations throughout this Report.
Amendments to the Supporting Text and Diagrams
• We use the term ‘supporting text’ to describe text that is in the Submission Draft but is not policy. Any amendments we propose to the supporting text are normally also contained in our Recommendations. In some cases amendments to the diagrams will be precipitated by our recommended modifications to policies.
Further Work or Studies • Whilst these are strictly outside the scope of the Panel’s remit, the Panel hopes that these will assist the future planning of the North East Region. x. To assist in reading our Report we have included at Appendix C the recommended RSS policy changes (which are set out in full in Appendix C iv), and a link to the Recommendations in our Report. xi. All of the sessions at the EiP were recorded on mini-disc; copies can be made available, on request, from the Regional Spatial Strategy Team, Government Office for the North East, Citygate, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4WH.
PANEL REPORT ii
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
Changing circumstances and comments on the soundness of the Plan
Changing circumstances xii. The material submitted to us and the discussions at the EiP have made us aware that the preparation of the Submission Draft of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East has had to accommodate a changing context, which could not have been anticipated at the start of the process. We understand that discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, during the summer of 2004, on the possible outcomes of the emerging Northern Way Growth Strategy resulted in a request from the Minister for Planning to delay consultation to enable the implications of this Strategy to be taken into account. We note that this delay brought the preparation of the RSS within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and required a judgement on the scope of the response to the Directive. As a result the validity of the NEA Sustainability Appraisal document has been questioned. In our view the NEA took the correct approach in deciding that it was not appropriate to restart the process to allow the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA)/Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process to influence the complete development of the RSS. We base this view on the following factors: • the NEA had already made considerable efforts to ensure that sustainable development principles would be taken into account by linking the process to the Integrated Regional Framework; • we were made aware of considerable support from a wide range of major stakeholders for this course of action; • a restart of the process would have involved considerable delay and could have resulted in the Local Development Framework (LDF) process advancing without the benefit of an updated strategic framework; • the uncertainty generated by such delay could have prejudiced the economic recovery and the regeneration process; • the EiP process, through the Panel Report mechanism, can address any policy failures; • any changes proposed by the Secretary of State will require a further stage of the Sustainability Assessment; and • the Review process will ensure that any emerging problems can be addressed. xiii. In March 2005 the Government published Securing the Future, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. This raised questions as to the degree to which the draft RSS already reflected the guidance in the new Strategy and generated pressure for a more specific response on climate change. xiv. We are also aware that the North East Assembly was faced with changing policy guidance from Government in the form of consultation drafts and final Planning Policy Statements on matters such as Waste Management, Development and Flood Risk and Planning for Housing Provision. This changing policy context encouraged certain stakeholders to press for changes to the Submission Draft. xv. Our attention has been drawn to the recent publication of Circular 1/2006, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. As the Circular post-dates publication of the
PANEL REPORT iii
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
Submission Draft this is an issue that must be taken on-board at the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes stage or at a subsequent Review, and we deal with housing figures as being exclusive of any gypsy / traveller element. xvi. During the EiP our attention was also drawn to the possible requirement to carry out an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Directive. We concluded that it was unlikely that significant progress could be made on AAs during the EiP, particularly since the necessary guidance was not expected until after the EiP had ended. We have been advised that it would be in order for the AA work to be done following the Panel Report, at the Proposed Changes stage. xvii. In view of these changing circumstances and comments we consider it necessary to set out our view on the adequacy of the plan. We are of the opinion that, despite the Recommendations for changes to the Submission Draft included in this Report, the preparation of the Submission Draft has been carried out in accordance with the relevant guidance set out in PPS11 and other Regulations.
Soundness of the Plan xviii. We considered the Plan in relation to the criteria listed in paragraph 2.49 of PPS11, but structured the EiP around the substantive issues raised by the Plan itself. The comments below must be set in the context of the recommendations set out later in this Report. We offer the following comments on how the Draft Plan meets the criteria. i) whether it is a spatial plan, including in particular, does it properly take into account related policy initiatives and programmes relevant to meeting regional economic, environmental and social needs, where these directly impact on the development and use of land, and does it contain policies which sufficiently link with those related policy initiatives and programmes to deliver the desired spatial change; In general terms this test is met. In particular we note the efforts to set out city region policies and the linkages to the Integrated Regional Framework. ii) whether it meets the objectives for a RSS, as set out in paragraph 1.7 of this PPS; This test will be met if the Draft Plan is changed in accordance with our recommendations. We have identified scope for improvements in the treatment of city region/cross-boundary issues. iii) whether it is consistent with national planning policy and if not whether the case has been adequately made for departing from national policy; The Draft Plan is broadly consistent with national policy and some of our recommendations will ensure greater consistency e.g. open-cast coal mining. iv) whether it is consistent with other relevant regional strategies for the region, including the regional housing, economic and cultural strategies, and with RSSs for neighbouring regions where cross boundary issues are relevant. Any major inconsistencies will need to be justified;
PANEL REPORT iv
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
We find the Draft Plan to be broadly consistent with the other regional strategies. v) whether the policies in it are consistent with one another; Our recommendations identify the need for further work to ensure greater consistency in the future. vi) whether it is founded on a robust and credible evidence base; We have identified deficiencies in the evidence base, but we are of the opinion that the Draft Plan retains sufficient credibility to provide reasonable guidance for the development plan process until the next Review. vii) whether community involvement and partnership working have been satisfactory, including whether the RPB has taken proper account of the views expressed; While there were criticisms of the degree of public involvement in the SEA process, we also aware of a considerable body of opinion in support of the Regional Assembly’s efforts in this regard. In our view the criterion has been met. viii) whether it is realistic, including about the availability of resources, and is able to be implemented without compromising its objectives; We had some difficultly in establishing the likely scale of available resources, particularly in relation to transportation matters. In broad terms we are of the opinion that the Draft Plan meets this criterion. ix) whether it is robust and able to deal with changing circumstances; We consider that this test is generally met. x) whether it has been subject to a satisfactory SA and whether alternative options were correctly ruled out taking account of the SA findings; As noted earlier in this section, we consider this criterion is generally met. xi) whether in all other respects it has been prepared following the proper procedures, as set out in the Act, Regulations, this PPS and related guidance; and We understand that the proper procedures have been carried out. xii) whether it has clear mechanisms for monitoring and implementation. Monitoring is in place and has been shown to be effective. Our recommendations seek further improvements.
Structure and Content of the Report xix. The chapters in this report address the issues considered at the EiP and generally follow the List of Matters selected. A few changes to some of the policies and text in the Submission Draft were suggested at the EiP, and we have taken them into account. However, these suggested changes do not formally replace the Submission Draft policies and text. Where necessary our recommendations cover both the Submission
PANEL REPORT v
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
Draft policies and the suggested changes. Where we have not commented directly on the suggested changes the Government Office for the North East, in considering our Recommended changes for consultation, will need to consider these residual suggested changes. xx. Our approach to each chapter involves setting out the issues which had been raised for discussion. We have not sought to provide a full account of all the proceedings during the EiP, or to summarise all the representations and participants’ statements. Our Report is based upon the main arguments considered at the EiP and concentrates on setting out the reasoning behind our conclusions and Recommendations. xxi. This Report considers the strategic matters of the RSS vision and strategy; the spatial strategy; the city regions and the rural areas; the economy; urban and rural centres & the MetroCentre; housing; the environment and resource management; transport strategy; and monitoring and implementation. xxii. One of the important aims behind many of our Recommendations is to ensure that the Submission Draft gives clear – and where appropriate prescriptive – guidance to Local Planning Authorities for the preparation of their Local Development Documents. This, it seems to us, fulfils its proper purpose of ensuring the Submission Draft is clear in interpreting the Regional Spatial Strategy at the local level. xxiii. We recommend modifications to the wording of policies including any consequential changes to the supporting text and the diagrammatic maps where this will improve the Submission Draft. We have also identified areas of future work and these are included in italics. The Recommendations appear throughout our Report and are a response to matters under discussion at that point, but they should be read as applying to the Submission Draft as a whole. For ease of understanding, Appendix D contains a summary of all of our Recommendations. xxiv. There are throughout the Submission Draft a number of policy statements that are presently embedded in supporting text. Several of these were the subject of debate at the EiP, and where appropriate we have recommended that they be recast as policy. However, we have not considered those that were not the subject of debate. We thus suggest that those that remain be removed at the Modification stage. We also note that a number of policies contain criteria concerning non-planning issues, or relate to matters that are not the subject of planning control. These `statements of intent' should likewise be removed from policy and, where appropriate, incorporated in supporting text.
PANEL REPORT vi
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY PREFACE FOR THE NORTH EAST
Acknowledgements
To the participants
xxv. We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who participated in the examination process, including the North East Assembly for their help in responding to requests for information.
To the North East RSS Panel team xxvi. We thank those who have assisted throughout the EiP process for their help and support. Brian Cobley (Panel Secretary), Elaine Lamb (Panel Assistant) and Mark Wilson (Higher Planning Officer from the Planning Inspectorate) all made an invaluable contribution to the work of the Panel in each of their roles.
Other persons and organisations xxvii. We thank the staff of the Government Office for the North East who helped to arrange and provided facilities for the Examination. Also those who assisted before and during the EiP: including Gavin Carr on our tours of the North East area; Saville Audio by setting up and recording the EiP sessions and those others in providing general support/information. And finally to icNorthEast for assistance in designing, developing and maintaining the EiP Website throughout the EiP process.
PANEL REPORT vii
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT viii
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1: Panel Overview and Executive Summary
1.1 This Chapter provides a broad overview of our conclusions and Recommendations and offers some general comments on issues which affect the Submission Draft’s implementation and the future planning of the North East Region.
1.2 In preparing a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy (RSS), the Regional Planning Body (RPB) is required by statute to have regard to certain matters covering regional and other strategic planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State and to current national policy1. We have examined the conformity of the Submission Draft’s policies and proposals with Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (PPS11) and with relevant Government policy generally.
1.3 The RPB has also to ensure that the RSS is sound when submitted for examination2. We have thoroughly tested the Submitted Draft through the Examination In Public (EiP) process - with the active assistance of participants - and are satisfied that when our Recommendations are taken into account the RSS will be sounder as a result.
Contextual matters
Format and presentation 1.4 The Submitted Draft follows a different format to that of the earlier adopted RSS1. The format of the Submission Draft has sections on city regions which were introduced to reflect the approach being adopted by the Northern Way Growth Strategy. We regard this as important progress; however, there is more work to be done in adopting this approach in a future review of parts of the RSS, for instance, the analysis of employment land requirements on a city region basis.
1.5 We have become aware of a number of problems of consistency in the Submission Draft. For example, in referring to settlements and retail matters in the supplementary text which will need to attended to at the Proposed Changes stage. Furthermore, in March 2005 the Government published Securing the Future, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. While the Submission Draft was published slightly later, in June 2005, it raises questions as to whether there has been sufficient time to incorporate the main messages. In addition it is evident that parts of the supporting text in the Submission Draft will need to be updated to reflect the publication of new national Planning Policy Statements (PPSs).
1.6 The Submission Draft incorporates a number of diagrammatic maps relating to specific themes throughout the document. However, there would appear to be a lack of consistency between the diagrams which will also need to be attended to at the
1 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, s.5(3). 2 Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies, (PPS11), ODPM, Sept 2004, p 22, para.2.49.
PANEL REPORT 1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Changes stage. For example, there is a Locational Strategy diagram3 but this does not include the Transport Networks or Strategic Public Transport Hubs which are included on the Connectivity diagram4.
1.7 We have highlighted specific parts of the Draft RSS where changes to the strategies or policies, supplementary text and diagrammatic maps are necessary but have not attempted to follow through all the implications of our Recommended modifications for the rest of the document.
Conformity with government policy 1.8 The British planning system is such that policy and policy-related targets are cascaded down from national government through Regional Spatial Strategies to Local Development Documents. Recognising this we looked at strategic problems on the ground that we became aware of.
1.9 We explained at the outset of the EiP process that we would not be considering the merits (or otherwise) of individual sites, on the basis that these were essentially matters for local development documents. However, it became apparent during the EiP that there were strategic matters in the case of employment land, particularly ‘Prestige Employment Sites’, that needed consideration and we have approached this in a strategic context. This approach reflects the strategic dimension for which the RSS is intended.
On assessing soundness 1.10 Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (PPS 11) places particular emphasis on assessing the soundness of the RSS and paragraph 2.49 outlines the main criteria for assessing soundness. The Matters selected for examination, arising from consultation on the Submitted Draft, were the subject of extensive discussion and intensive scrutiny over a five week period during March/April 2006.
1.11 Our conclusions and Recommendations resulting from this process are contained in our Report. These are submitted to the Secretary of State who will take this process forward. This will involve further consultation on the Proposed Changes, before the Secretary of State issues the final RSS.
3 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, Submission Draft June 2005 p 25.
4 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, Submission Draft June 2005 p 147.
PANEL REPORT 2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Strategic matters
Vision and Strategy 1.12 We are of the opinion that the Draft RSS vision should be supported as the foundation of the Strategy, and that the Vision and Strategy provide an adequate framework for the delivery of economic prosperity and growth.
1.13 We support the decision not to restart the RSS process in order to fully benefit from the Sustainability Appraisal process but we recognise the need to assess the contribution made by the Sustainability Appraisal to the preparation of the Submission Draft.
Spatial Strategy – Development Principles 1.14 We are of the opinion that it is important that the Submission Draft is seen to address the climate change issue in a holistic manner rather than on an issue by issue basis. There is an opportunity to insert a section after Policy 2, which would provide a clearer understanding of the regional implications of climate change. We recommend the insertion of a new Policy, 2A, to deal with this.
1.15 Recent trends would appear to give some support for the assumed rate of growth. While we accept that the Submission draft is not clear on the assumed trajectory of growth we are of the opinion that the Review process can deal with any deviations.
1.16 Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets an objective for the RSS to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. In our view there is an opportunity to expand the text leading up to Policy 2 in order to draw out the main messages from Securing the Future, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy published in March 2005.
1.17 It was put to us that the Sequential Approach should be more specific in order to ensure that priority is given to key renewal areas. In our view the Sequential Approach is set out as a development principle and any further direction of development should be in the policies relating to development. We see no need to modify Policy 3 in this respect.
1.18 We have not been able to establish with any certainty as to how ‘front loading’ (whereby the allocation of development for the first period of the Plan assumed that sites with planning permissions in suburban locations would be developed in advance of the strategic brownfield emphasis) influenced the allocation of development between the sub-regions and indeed the local authority areas. We believe this lack of clarity has damaged the credibility of the Submission Draft.
1.19 We are of the view that it is sensible for the Submission Draft to reflect the real functional areas rather than individual local authority areas. While it is important to recognise that different approaches will be required for particular parts of each city
PANEL REPORT 3
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
region, we believe that the city region approach provides a greater opportunity to identify strategic requirements.
1.20 We conclude that the Berwick upon Tweed local authority area can be regarded as separate from the Tyne and Wear city region, but are of the opinion that the Alnwick District area is showing signs of being part of the city region. In view of the evidence on migration and travel to work we conclude that the Teesdale District area and the Wear Valley District area should be regarded as part of the Tees Valley city region.
1.21 We are of the opinion that it is more useful to focus on the economic relationships within the city regions than to be concerned with geographic relationships.
Spatial Strategy – Strategic Elements 1.22 We are of the opinion that the future development of the RSS should be based on an analysis at city region level, and that more consideration should be given to the particular contributions expected from parts of the city region. However, we do not think that it is practical to recommend such a major recasting for the Submission Draft.
Tyne and Wear City Region 1.23 The Submission Draft indicates5 that the Tyne and Wear city region includes the conurbation of the contiguous built up area of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland City and Durham City. For statistical proposes it includes the five unitary authorities of Newcastle, Gateshead, North and South Tyneside and Sunderland, plus the districts of Castle Morpeth, Tynedale, Wansbeck, Blyth Valley, Chester-le-Street, Easington, Derwentside and Durham City. However in our view Alnwick should also be considered part of the city region.
1.24 It was established that past migration from the core areas could best be described as sub-urban drift rather than rural flight, because there had been more movement to suburban housing in North Tyneside than to areas outside the conurbation such as Cramlington or Derwentside. We are of the opinion that past migration was caused by the lack of viable alternatives in the core. In our opinion there is no need to adjust the balance of housing development set out in Policy 6.
1.25 We noted a tendency to justify employment proposals in the context of sub-regional unemployment in neighbouring settlements and then seek housing in the vicinity of the employment. In our view there is a danger that the specific identification of growth points such as Cramlington could threaten the regeneration of neighbouring settlements.
1.26 In our view Policy 6 properly reflects the view that Durham should not be considered as a major growth area and that the scale and quality of development should reflect
5 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, Submission Draft June 2005 p.22 para 2.19 and p 27, para 2.27.
PANEL REPORT 4
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Durham City’s unique character. We are concerned that the designation of the city as a transport hub could conflict with Policy 6 as it could imply intensification of development within the city around the transport facilities.
1.27 We are of the opinion that the Green Belt is an integral part of the policies for the Tyne and Wear city region. We cannot identify any advantages in placing Green Belt policy in a separate section and recommend that Policy 10 should be integrated with Policy 6. We are of the opinion that the Tyne and Wear city region map should illustrate the green infrastructure network.
Tees Valley City Region 1.28 The Submitted Draft indicates6 that the Tees Valley city region includes the conurbation of the contiguous built up areas of Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar and the main towns of Darlington and Hartlepool. It includes the five unitary authority areas of Stockton, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, Darlington and Hartlepool together with the district of Sedgefield, in County Durham, and parts of North Yorkshire. The sphere of influence forms a hinterland stretching from Peterlee in the north, to Northallerton in the south, Richmond in the west, and Whitby in the east. In our view the city region also takes in Teesdale and Wear Valley Districts.
1.29 We considered in particular if Policy 7 a) should be more specific in terms of individual regeneration projects as a means of more clearly setting out priorities. We accept that Policy 7 is intended to set out the broad policies for the city region and are of the opinion that the wording of the policy generally reflects that need.
1.30 We note that Policy 7 c), which deals with local regeneration for sustainable indigenous growth, includes the need to take into account adverse impact on the regeneration initiatives within the Tees Valley conurbation. Policy 6 d) does not require such consideration for the major regeneration initiatives in the core areas of the Tyne and Wear city region. Policy 6 d) includes a reference to the aspirations of the local regeneration areas which could be interpreted as allowing excessive development ambitions. We are of the view that the two policy statements should be consistent.
1.31 The Submission Draft concludes that Green Belt designations are not required in the Tees Valley, but provides no policy guidance on the future of the strategic gaps. We conclude that the Submission Draft should include a policy to prevent urban coalescence in the Tees Valley and contribute to urban regeneration. We are of the opinion that the Submission Draft should include an Environmental Strategy Statement for the Tees Valley. We recommend that it should be linked to the Strategic Gaps Policy.
6 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, Submission Draft June 2005 p.22 para 2.20 and p 41, para 2.77.
PANEL REPORT 5
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rural Areas 1.32 These are the areas of the Region which are rural in character7; within or outside the two city regions.
1.33 The policy framework dealing with the future development of rural service centres and secondary settlements generally meets the needs of the local authorities preparing Local Development Frameworks.
1.34 The most severe impact of the second home problem is along the coastal settlements in Northumberland, particularly in the Borough of Berwick upon Tweed, but problems can be found in a number of rural settlements across the Region.
1.35 We are not persuaded that a second homes allocation to increase the total allocation in affected areas represents the proper solution. We are also concerned that in the areas which are most attractive to second homes buyers there may well be environmental limits to further housing development. We are of the opinion that the innovative use of exception sites may offer a more sensitive local approach to this problem.
Spatial Strategy – Strategic Components 1.36 We have reviewed the strategic components of the Spatial Strategy, namely the themes of employment, centres, housing, resource management and transport.
1.37 We would emphasise the link between the components of employment, housing and transport. If any of these are allowed to develop on their own without regard to the other two, then it is unlikely that sustainability will be achieved. Long-term planning in this context is particularly important, so that development is not directed to less sustainable locations. Employment 1.38 We are of the opinion that employment land requirements should be based on an analysis at city region level, and that more consideration should be given to the contribution expected from particular parts of the city regions. However, we do not consider that it is practicable to recast the Submission Draft at this stage, but we recommend that a city region approach be adopted at the next RSS Review.
1.39 In terms of the demand for employment land we established that past trends are unlikely to be a guide for future provision, particularly in relation to inward investment which is more likely to seek small scale investment sites and that such investment will tend to gravitate to the cores of the city region. In our view this scenario supports the emphasis on urban regeneration opportunities, but questions the role of the large edge–of-town Prestige Employment Sites. When dealing with the subject of employment land supply we noted a degree of uncertainty over the Submission Draft information. The North East Assembly and One Northeast intend to lead on the development of a comprehensive Regional Employment Land
7 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East, Submission Draft June 2005 p.22 para 2.25 and p 53, para 2.126.
PANEL REPORT 6
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assessment. We support this initiative and believe that further work is necessary for the next Review of the RSS.
1.40 We appreciate that Policy 18 refers to making provision up to the levels set in that policy and seeks continuing sub-regional and local employment land assessments. We recommend that this should be strengthened by the requirement to test the supply against a reasonable level of provision e.g. a 25 year supply to allow a level of choice. We recommend that further work should be undertaken for the next Review.
1.41 We also recommend that Policy 18 should be modified to include a requirement to give consideration to the possibility of achieving the employment land allocation through the regeneration of existing sites.
1.42 Additionally, we recommend that Policy 18 should be modified to ensure that sites in adjoining counties are not retained against this component of need. We also recommend that Policy 18 should include a requirement for the Tyne and Wear authorities to seek to meet the shortfall of employment land through intensification proposals around transport hubs and on brownfield sites.
1.43 We are of the opinion that the Submission Draft emphasis on airports as key economic drivers should be tempered. We recommend that the text at paragraph 3.33 should be expanded to reflect the uncertainty over the future role of aviation and the growth forecasts.
1.44 We have examined the various lists of appropriate airport related development including that in paragraph 3.33 of the Submission Draft and consider that there is scope to re-organise the lists in broad categories of related uses. We set out our reconstructed list and recommend that it replace the list in paragraph 3.33. We also recommend that Policy 21 should include a reference to the list.
1.45 In our view there is not enough evidence to support the exceptions policy for non- related uses in Policy 21. We recommend that Policy 21 be modified by the exclusion of the section dealing with non-airport related uses.
1.46 In considering the role of the Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments we considered whether the development ambitions are consistent with the viability of the city and town centres and whether the developments can be regarded as town centre locations. We also examined whether there were any other candidates for this designation. Our attention was drawn to other policies and text within the Submission Draft which acknowledge the contribution other mixed-use developments could make to the regeneration of the Region. We recommend that Policies 7 and 13 and paragraph 3.11 should be modified accordingly.
1.47 We are of the opinion that there is a need to transform the statements in paragraphs 3.30 and 3.7 of the text of the Submission Draft into policy, namely, (i) the Region’s city and town centres and regional brownfield mixed-use development sites are compatible with the principles of sustainability and should be the focus for general economic growth, and (ii) the core areas of the city regions and the main towns should
PANEL REPORT 7
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
be the focus for major office functions. Quite clearly some of the Prestige Employment Sites were initially designated in response to the possibility of attracting major high tech manufacturing plants, and the prospect of such large sites turning their attention to the office market is causing even more concern. We recommend therefore that a new policy statement be inserted into the Submission Draft.
1.48 In our view the key characteristic of these sites is their scale and we are of the opinion that the present policies do not take advantage of that characteristic. The opportunity these sites present should be protected as long as possible to provide the Region with an option that other locations cannot offer. We are concerned that market/commercial pressures are encouraging greater subdivision of a number of the sites. In order to minimise this we recommend that Policy 19 be modified to reflect our concern which focuses on the Prestige Employment Sites located on the edge of the built-up area and beyond.
1.49 In view of our conclusions in relation to the employment land supply and the Prestige Employment Sites there does not seem to be a case to hold sites in reserve. The forecast of demand indicates the scale of demand for this size of site is extremely limited. Furthermore there are other sites available in the supply which can respond to such requirements. On these grounds we recommend that Policy 20 be deleted.
Centres
1.50 In our view the analysis would have presented a clearer picture of retail patterns if it had been more clearly orientated on the main retail catchment areas within the Region, which reflect the city region concept. Future RSS reviews of retailing development matters should adopt a city region approach to analysis and policy development.
1.51 We are of the opinion that there is a need for a more explicit statement dealing with the future of centres at a level below that set out in Policy 25 to provide a context for these strategic choices. We would expect the RSS to include guidance on the future of centres such as Redcar and South Shields, and the balance to be struck between such centres and the major centres set out in Policy 25. Further work should be done to allow the next RSS Review to set out a more extensive hierarchy and provide guidance on the future of the hierarchy.
1.52 We heard evidence of considerable scope throughout the Region to accommodate the additional retail and leisure requirements within the existing centres. We are of the opinion that Policy 26 should be amended to clearly state that no further retail and leisure development is required at the MetroCentre and its surroundings.
1.53 Our attention was drawn by the Regional Assembly to paragraphs 9.12 to 9.17 of the Monitoring Report and to Figure 9.1. The Regional Assembly pointed out that about 30% of the Region’s key centres have vacancy rates above the national average. We consider that this material can be used to demonstrate the specific regional need for Policy 27. We are of the opinion that the text associated with Policy 27 could be
PANEL REPORT 8
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
made more regionally specific by a reference to the problems highlighted by the AMR and that Policy 27 should be reworded to reflect local issues.
Housing
1.54 We conclude that, on balance, we should support the level of housing provision set out in the Submission Draft. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the level of housing proposed in the Submission Draft had been updated to reflect more up-to-date demographic information and improvements in the structure of the model. In our opinion the new 112,000 dwelling forecast should be adopted as the input to Policy 30.
1.55 We recommend that the next Review of housing matters should be based on broad city region housing market areas; take into account the implications of local housing market areas, which cover more than a single local authority area; recognise mobile elements of demand across the city regions and also at the local housing market level; and provide greater transparency on the application of strategic decisions. We conclude there is a need to provide a framework for an approach to the housing requirement assessment for the next Review of RSS1.
1.56 We are of the opinion that the final paragraph of Policy 29 could inhibit sustainable development. In addition to supporting sustainable development this approach should have the effect of increasing the concentration in the core areas and should add some additional flexibility to the overall housing allocation. We recommend that Policy 29 should be modified by the deletion of the final paragraph.
1.57 We believe that investment should be directed to sustainable locations if it is to bring long term advantages. Policy 29 makes no reference to the need to steer such housing initiatives to the most sustainable locations. We recommend that Policy 29 should be modified to indicate that priority should be given to the most sustainable locations in the preparation of strategies for improving the housing stock.
1.58 Our examination of the land supply issues revealed a lack of consistency in the assessment of urban capacity. We are of the opinion that these deficiencies were due to the lack of a consistent regional methodology. We recommend that the next Review of RSS1 should be supported by a consistent approach to the assessment of the land supply, particularly the assessment of urban capacity.
1.59 It is accepted that large parts of the Region are rural, but the extensive urban areas are experiencing a restructuring that should provide plenty of previously developed land opportunities. On this basis we conclude that the regional target for housing development on previously developed land should be increased, and that the sub- regional targets suggested for 2016 should be applied to 2008 as we assume that they reflect the different potential across the Region. There will be a need to provide a similar set of sub-regional targets for 2016.
1.60 We are concerned at the variation in the practice of preparing urban capacity studies within the Region. It is quite clear that greenfield areas of land on the edge of
PANEL REPORT 9
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
settlements were being included in many assessments. In our view the assessment of urban capacity is a critical part of achieving the Locational Strategy. We believe that the approach we have observed is not consistent with national guidance and could distort the preparation of LDDs. In our view there is a need for a consistent approach within the Region. We recommend that a regional approach to the assessment of Urban Capacity be prepared as a matter of urgency to guide the LDF process.
1.61 The uncertainties associated with the economic and housing forecasts stimulated an interest in how those uncertainties could be managed. We are of the opinion that the Review process is capable of responding within a two year period and that is a reasonable response period for most of the changes that are likely to occur. We recommend that the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) should include an assessment of the need for a review of the RSS, taking into account an assessment of the continued validity of the forecasts and any changes in the context of the Plan. An opportunity should be given for a contribution from members of the public to the debate on the conclusions of the AMR.
1.62 It was clear from the statements submitted to us that there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the allocation of the housing requirement to the individual districts had been carried out. We are of the opinion that:
• further consideration should be given to the allocations for Easington and Sedgefield, with a view to ensuring that they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments;
• further consideration be given to the allocation for Blyth Valley with a view to ensuring it is consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments; and
• any consequential adjustments arising from the review of the allocations for Easington, Sedgefield and Blyth Valley should reflect the opportunity to achieve a higher level of concentration of development in the conurbations.
Resource Management
1.63 We considered whether the Submission Draft takes an appropriate stance in dealing with strategic issues of flood risk. The discussions centred on climate change, vulnerability to flooding and coastal defences and we therefore make recommendations to modify Policies 36 and 37.
1.64 We considered matters related to energy and renewable targets and in particular, sustainable construction policy; local size thresholds; targets; consistency with PPS22; broad areas of least constraint; and off-shore wind energy generation. We recommend the formulation of a sustainable construction policy and various modifications to Policies 39 and 40. We are of the opinion that there is a need to better reflect the thrust of national policy concerning renewables and recommend modifications to Policies 41 and 42.
PANEL REPORT 10
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.65 Issues related to opencast coal and brick clay were considered, particularly sustainability, consistency with MPG3 and Fireclay/Brick Clay. We conclude that Policy 45 conflicts with MPG3 and that no case has been made for this departure. The Region requires a policy for opencast coal that provides a positive approach to the process. We are of the opinion that Policy 45 should be modified to be consistent with MPG3.
1.66 Matters relating to waste management were discussed at the EiP, particularly waste minimisation; waste apportionment; targets; national, regional and sub-regional facilities; and hazardous waste. While we accept that the section on Waste Management in the Submission Draft does not fully conform to PPS10, we believe that it would be wasteful to set aside the guidance it provides until the next Review. We are satisfied that the modifications we have recommended to Policies 46 and 47 make it more consistent with PPS10.
Transport
1.67 We are not persuaded that the proposals set out in the Submission Draft reflect the proper balance and that the priorities set out in Table 3 can be justified. We recommend that the content of the transport package be reviewed with a view to achieving a more balanced approach and the priorities set out in Table 3 be reconsidered.
1.68 We conclude that there is a need for a system of scheme selection and priority setting that more adequately reflects the contribution that public transport and demand management measures can make to the overall strategy. We recommend that future reviews of the Regional Transport Strategy should give greater emphasis to the contribution demand management and bus and light rail operations can make to the strategy.
1.69 We were informed that high speed rail proposals were being considered by the Government. Such a facility could have an important economic impact on the Region and could potentially free some of the existing railway assets for more local benefits. The high speed train service could provide an effective alternative to air services to the London area and by reducing air transport emissions could contribute to sustainability and help to mitigate climate change. We recommend that Policy 49 and supporting text be modified to include a recognition of the potential contribution of the high speed line to economic development and the achievement of sustainable development, and an indication of the preference for a routing that served Newcastle City Centre.
1.70 Policy 51 requires Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes to focus on a series of measures many of which can only be progressed effectively on a city region basis. In our view Policy 51 appears to delegate action on the measures identified to local plans and programmes. We are of the opinion that Policy 51 should reflect the need for action at the regional and sub-regional level.
PANEL REPORT 11
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 1 FOR THE NORTH EAST PANEL OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.71 In the current transport and investment and prioritisation climate, where already discouraging funding restrictions are becoming even tighter, demand management in various forms has to become the essential and directing principle. We conclude that there is a need for an additional policy and supporting text to provide a strategic context for Policy 53. There is a need for the policy to stress the regional and city regional dimension of the action required to achieve an adequate demand management regime. A strategic framework could consider the need to vary demand management on the basis of the level of accessibility and provide a vehicle for public communication on the issues.
1.72 In order to reflect the wider city region dimension to the preparation of parking standards, it is considered that the initial sentence in Policy 54 should be expanded to indicate a commitment to the preparation of statements for the two city regions and the rural areas. To be consistent with this approach Policy 54 b) should be modified to reflect the availability of city region standards.
1.73 We were asked to consider whether the Submission draft adequately reflects the needs of the distribution industry. We conclude that the Submission Draft has made adequate provision for road orientated distribution facilities. It was put to us that there was a need for a rail orientated facility to accommodate the movement of containers to and from ports in the south of England. We conclude that Policy 57 h) should be modified to delete the reference to the protection of the Tursdale land and to amend the purpose for protecting the Tweedmouth land.
Monitoring and Implementation 1.74 There was an acceptance that the annual monitoring process together with the production of an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) is working reasonably well; nevertheless, there were requests for improvements to the current approach. We therefore recommend that in the future:
• AMRs should include a wider evaluation of the context of the RSS, including an assessment of the forecasts, to provide an assessment of the need for a partial or total review;
• AMRs should give greater recognition of the city regions in the presentation of findings; and
• consideration should be given to the involvement of the public and other stakeholders in the consideration of the findings of the AMR. 1.75 In addition, we have made some more detailed recommendations and suggestions for further work on contextual and strategic matters. These are aimed at improving the RSS through clarifying the policies and the supporting text by drawing upon suggestions made both by participants and the North East Assembly during the EiP.
PANEL REPORT 12
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
Chapter 2: RSS Vision and Strategy
Matter 1; 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4.
Introduction
2.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s Vision and Strategy, concentrating on the sub matters of sustainability appraisal, climate change and national planning context and growth assumptions.
Background
2.2 We are aware that the RSS has not been prepared in a vacuum. In July 2004 the Region published its first Integrated Regional Framework (IRF). The IRF provides a framework to guide the development of strategies, plans, programmes and policy decisions. The aim of the IRF is to place sustainable development principles firmly at the heart of the Region’s policies, plans and programmes.
2.3 In order to achieve this aim the IRF established a shared vision for the sustainable future of the Region. The IRF also identified a set of values to guide the development of policies, plans and programmes. Paragraph 1.9 of the Submission Draft indicates that following discussions between the North East Assembly, One Northeast and the Government Office for the North East it was agreed that the three main regional strategies – the RSS, the RES and the IRF should share a common vision for a better North East and a set of common values to guide decisions. The vision and the values have been adopted by the Submission Draft.
2.4 A number of participants questioned the consistency of the SA process with the requirements of the SEA Directive. Appendix 1 of Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents sets out the SEA Directive’s requirements. As the critical queries related to the consultation process we set out below the two relevant requirements for consultation:-
1. authorities with environmental responsibility, when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the environmental report (Art. 5.4).
2. authorities with environmental responsibility and the public shall be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before adoption of the plan or programme (Art. 6.1, 6.2).
2.5 Guidance on the application of these requirements is set out in Figure 3 of the above- mentioned document. It indicates that the RPB should follow the advice in PPS11 to ensure that the relevant SA commentary on the likely significant effects of the options for the Draft RSS is available at the same time as the options themselves. Possible methods of public involvement are suggested as follows:
PANEL REPORT 13
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
1. making effective use of web-sites;
2. creating wider groups that include the wider community;
3. sub-regional events; and
4. citizens juries etc.
Issues
2.6 In our view the four groups of issues which arise in this chapter are:
Vision and Strategy • Has the RPB adequately transferred the RSS vision and development principles into strategy and in particular: o will the strategy ensure the delivery of economic prosperity and growth; and o does the strategy ensure that development will occur in the most sustainable locations?
Sustainability Appraisal and Development Options • To what extent has the Sustainability Appraisal process provided a strategic input to the preparation of the Submission Draft? • Have the development options been thoroughly tested and an adequate justification been provided for the selection of the proposed strategy?
Climate Change • In dealing with the global context does the Submission Draft: o adequately recognise the global responsibilities related to achieving reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases and in particular is it consistent with Government targets for the reduction of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; o take the necessary steps to decouple economic growth and the emissions of CO2; and o adequately set a policy framework and what might the content and approach of a climate change policy be?
National Planning Context and RSS Growth Assumptions • How consistent is the Submission Draft with the approach set out in the Northern Way Growth Strategy of building on assets and strengths? • How consistent is the Submission Draft with the RES and what evidence is there to support the assumption that growth will rise from 1.8% in 2001 to 2.8% over the Plan period and what is the assumed trajectory for this growth? • How robust is the Plan to responding to a lower growth trajectory?
Vision and Strategy
2.7 While there were representations that the Vision should be more regionally specific our attention was drawn to the considerable effort that had been put into obtaining a
PANEL REPORT 14
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
consensus. One Northeast placed great emphasis on the fact that the Vision had been developed in partnership with a range of different organisations and individuals. We were advised by One Northeast that the Vision provides an overarching framework for complementary strategies that need to work together to drive forward the success of the Region. Support for the Vision and values was also provided by Friends of the Earth. We are of the opinion that the Vision reflects a high measure of shared intent and should be supported as the foundation of the Strategy.
2.8 There was some concern that the Strategy does not provide the proper context for the delivery of economic prosperity. This concern reflected doubts that the urban cores would be able to attract inward investment. We note however that One Northeast are of the view that the Submission Draft responds positively to the need to maximise the potential of the Region. Our attention was drawn to aspects of national economic policy that are relevant to our considerations, particularly the Public Service Agreement, which seeks to narrow regional disparities and the increasing emphasis by Government on the role of city regions in economic competitiveness. We note that the Regional Economic Strategy places a similar emphasis on the growth potential of the city region core areas and conclude that the RSS Vision and Strategy provide an adequate framework for the delivery of economic prosperity and growth.
2.9 Some representations linked loss of population with a decline in the quality of life. It was suggested that this could reduce the attractiveness of the Region to inward investment and to graduates and entrepreneurs. The evidence available suggests that economic migrants and entrepreneurs have the financial ability to secure a good local environment. We are of the opinion that population loss which is linked to major economic adjustments is difficult to resist. The scale of employment loss linked to major plant closures such as the closure of metal manufacturing at Consett will inevitably have population loss consequences. The subsequent land renewal in that area demonstrates that the planning process provides the means to tackle the resulting decay, dereliction and deprivation. The evidence available also indicates that similar problems have been generated by the loss of manufacturing employment and population from the urban cores to suburban areas. We believe that the Submission Draft provides a framework for action to deal with both problems and thereby to improve the quality of life.
2.10 It was suggested that the emphasis on the core areas of the conurbation could inhibit sustainable development in other parts of the Region. We note the emphasis in the Submission Draft on provision for local indigenous needs and are of the opinion that a reasonable balance has been struck between the opportunities in the core areas and the remainder of the Region.
Sustainability Appraisal and Development Options
2.11 As noted above we support the decision not to restart the RSS process in order to fully benefit from the SA process, but we recognise the need to assess the contribution made by the SA to the preparation of the Submission Draft.
PANEL REPORT 15
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
2.12 We note the criticisms of the SA Report and the process that led up to the preparation of the Submission Draft, but we are also aware from paragraph 3.3 of the SA Final Report that considerable efforts were made to involve stakeholders in a Steering Group and to follow good practice on Sustainability Appraisal. We note in the context of public involvement in the SA process that the Strategic Environmental Assessment was published at the Consultative Draft stage in order to allow wider community involvement. We are of the opinion that this provided an effective opportunity for the public to express their opinion on the Draft Plan and the accompanying Environmental Report before the adoption of the Plan. We were informed by some of these stakeholders that the documentation of the SA process did not fully reflect what had been done, the contribution that the process had made and the degree of influence the SA process had on the preparation process. We are satisfied that appropriate efforts were made to allow stakeholders and the wider community to respond to the Sustainability Appraisal and to influence the development of the Submission Draft.
2.13 It was suggested in particular that the process had not considered a wide enough range of development options. It was put to us that consideration should have been given to a low growth option. The North East Assembly explained that there had been extensive consideration of the appropriate development options, but that the emphasis had been on the development of realistic options. A low growth option had not been considered in the SA process because it was considered unrealistic. This judgement was justified on the grounds that there was a need for growth to tackle the existing problems in the North East. We note in this context that Government policy requires action to narrow the differentials between the North East Region and regions in southern England. In our view the options considered represented a realistic assessment of the choices that needed to be assessed.
2.14 In terms of the detailed assessment, our attention was drawn to the assessment under IRF Objective 7. We note that the conclusions identify the tension between the economic growth objectives and the need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The conclusions also acknowledge the impact of airport expansion on the emission of greenhouse gases. It has been pointed out to us that the Report does not identify a need for action, under the heading of “Possible Further Amendments”, to decouple the proposed economic growth scenario from increased energy use. We are of the opinion that this is a significant deficiency and we reflect this in our recommendations later in this Report.
2.15 Participants have also highlighted the assessment/conclusions related to IRF Objective 15. The conclusions acknowledge that the Prestige Employment Sites are less accessible than employment sites in the conurbations or in mixed-use developments. The Report makes no linkage to IRF Objective 7 despite considerable evidence that development on such sites will be highly car orientated. We are of the opinion that this is another significant deficiency and we reflect this in our recommendations later in this Report.
PANEL REPORT 16
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
Climate Change
2.16 The Submission Draft does recognise the need to address climate change issues as one of the key challenges to be faced if the Vision is to be realised, and we were informed that 28 policies in the document are aimed at mitigating the causes of climate change or adapting to the consequences.
2.17 We are of the opinion that it is important that the Submission Draft is seen to address the climate change issue in a holistic manner rather than on an issue by issue basis. There is an opportunity to insert a section after Policy 2, which would provide a clearer understanding of the regional implications of climate change. This section should identify the opportunities to mitigate the causes and adapt to the consequences that will be dealt with elsewhere in the document and set them in the wider context of international and national targets.
2.18 It is important that this new section deals with the role the RSS can play in de- coupling economic growth from the emission of CO2. In addition to identifying specific policy areas it would also be important to recognise the contribution that the wider locational policies can make by reducing the need to travel.
2.19 It was pointed out to us that other RSS drafts include a policy on climate change. A number of policies were suggested for inclusion and we have selected one on the grounds that it can provide a satisfactory framework for the more detailed policies in the remainder of the Submission Draft. We are of the opinion that the new section on climate change should include the new Policy 2A. The policy should set out targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. We accept that at this moment in time it is not possible to construct regional targets, but we consider that there is value in including the national targets.
Recommendation 2.1 a) Insert a new section to provide a clearer understanding of the regional implications of climate change; and b) Include a new Policy 2A to deal with climate change as indicated in Appendix C.
2.20 Some participants sought to have a requirement for the establishment of Energy Service Companies within the Submission Draft. In our view the establishment of such organisations is well outside the scope of the RSS and may more properly be a matter for the Regional Renewable Energy Strategy.
National Planning Context and RSS Growth Assumptions
2.21 The evidence put to us demonstrates that national policy requires action to close the economic gap between the north and the south of England. We were advised that there is a Public Service Agreement, which is intended to stimulate action to generate
PANEL REPORT 17
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 FOR THE NORTH EAST RSS VISION AND STRATEGY
growth within the Region and to narrow regional disparities with other regions. The support for the Northern Way Growth Strategy is regarded as a further indication of that commitment. It was also pointed out that there is increasing emphasis in the governmental agenda called New Deal for Cities and Regions on the role city regions can play in economic competitiveness. In our view this emphasis on city regions is likely to have a positive impact on the growth prospects of the two city regions in the North East and must be taken into account.
2.22 Some participants suggested that the achievement of higher economic growth could threaten the regional quality of life. It was also put to us that the achievement of a higher quality of life can be divorced from economic growth. Given the evidence provided showing high levels of deprivation and unemployment across the Region we are of the opinion that higher economic growth is required to improve the quality of life for many.
2.23 The discrepancy between the growth rate set out in the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and that suggested in the Submission Draft was highlighted by some of the participants. It was suggested that the Submission Draft should be based on the higher level of growth set out in the RES and that there were no risks associated with over-provision of land. We note that One Northeast indicated that the level of growth proposed in the RES was intended to be aspirational and that the growth rate in the Submission Draft was acceptable. We were reminded that the employment land supply within the Region provides an adequate land bank for higher levels of growth. It was pointed out however that an over supply of housing land could have significant adverse effects on the housing regeneration proposals. On balance we are of the opinion that the balance of risk lies with the lower level of growth adopted in the Submission Draft.
2.24 Some participants expressed concern that the Submission Draft growth rate may prove too ambitious in the light of longer term trends within the Region. It was suggested that the proposed rate could lead to overprovision of housing land which, as noted above, would generate problems in the regeneration areas. Despite some querying of the assumed growth rate, there was considerable support for the selected rate. Recent trends would appear to give some support for the assumed rate of growth. It was pointed out that the North East Gross Value Added per head over the last four years has been higher than the national average in three of those four years. We are of the opinion that the balance of evidence supports the proposed rate and that any under performance can be dealt with through the Plan Monitor and Manage and Review processes. While we accept that the Submission Draft is not clear on the assumed trajectory of growth, we are of the opinion that the Review process can deal with any deviations.
PANEL REPORT 18
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
Chapter 3: Spatial Strategy
Matter 2; 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4.
Introduction
3.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s spatial strategy – development principles, concentrating on the sub matters of sustainable development, sequential approach, consistency (planning & transport assumptions and locational strategy), and the city region concept.
Background
3.2 In 1999 the Government set out a strategy to help deliver a better quality of life through sustainable development. In March 2005 the Government published Securing the Future, the UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy following a review of the 1999 strategy. The Submission Draft acknowledges this new strategy in paragraph 1.31 and indicates that it contains a new integrated vision, with stronger international and social dimensions; five principles, with more explicit focus on environmental limits; four agreed priorities – sustainable consumption and production, climate change, natural resource protection and sustainable communities; and a new indicator set which is more outcome focused.
3.3 The Integrated Regional Framework (IRF) for the North East (2004) provides an integrated, co-ordinated plan of action to work towards sustainable development in the Region. The IRF underpins all regional strategies and as a result Policy 2 of the Submission Draft embeds the 17 IRF objectives within it.
3.4 The sequential approach to development concept and the re-use of previous developed land are set out in a number of Policy Guidance Notes and Statements including the following: • PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development; • PPG3 Housing; • PPS3 Planning for Housing Consultation Draft; • PPG4 Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms; • PPS6 Planning for Town Centres; • PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; • PPS11 Regional Spatial Strategies; • PPG13 Transport; • PPG25 Development and Flood Risk; • PPS25 Development & Flood Risk Consultation Draft. 3.5 The statement by the Government Office on the Sequential Approach indicated that the emphasis on this and the use of previously developed land accords with the Government guidance set out above.
PANEL REPORT 19
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
Issues
3.6 In our view the four groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Sustainable Development • Does the Submission Draft adequately embed the principles of sustainable development? • Does the requirement for a Sustainability Statement in Policy 2 represent a duplication of effort when there is already a requirement for the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment?
Sequential Approach • Will the emphasis on the Sequential Approach and the use of Previously Developed Land: o support or prejudice the coming forward of investment in the Region; and o threaten the regeneration process in many communities within the Region?
Consistency • Are the main themes of the strategy carried into the other policy areas in the Submission Draft so that policies are consistent with one another and the overall approach is coherent? • Are the planning assumptions for housing, employment land, retail expenditure and transportation consistent with the strategic economic growth assumptions? • Does the term “Regeneration Area” convey the appropriate sense of priority and clarity when applied to extensive parts of the North East Region?
City Region Concept • Does the city region approach adequately address the different pressures and needs of the various parts of the Region or are there alternative sub-regional approaches which better reflect these needs and pressures? Should there be greater clarity about: o the geographic extent of the two city regions; o the broad scale of development they should accommodate; and o their role in relation to each other and to the areas beyond the city regions such as Berwick upon Tweed?
Sustainable Development
3.7 It was argued that paragraph 1.31 of the Submission Draft under-plays the importance of Securing the Future, the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. We agree with those who suggested that there is an opportunity to expand the text leading up to Policy 2 in order to draw out the main messages from Securing the Future, the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. In doing so any addition to the text should deal in particular with the two guiding principles that are most relevant to the RSS. These in our view are “Living within Environmental Limits” and “Achieving a Sustainable Economy”.
PANEL REPORT 20
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
3.8 Much was made of the difference between the aim relating to economic growth in the 1999 strategy and the guiding principle in the 2005 strategy relating to achieving a sustainable economy. In our view both are seeking prosperity and opportunities for all and are not in conflict with the Submission Draft aspirations to achieve a higher level of economic growth in the Region.
3.9 Our attention was drawn to Policy 2 f) and it was suggested that, in view of the large amount of demolition implied by the Submission Draft, this objective should be expanded to clarify its application to the built fabric. We agree with this suggestion as it makes Policy 2 more relevant to regional circumstances.
3.10 A number of participants drew our attention to the guiding principle in the 2005 strategy dealing with achieving a sustainable economy and suggested that the economic objectives in Policy 2 should be amended to reflect it. It was drawn to our attention that this guiding principle includes a reference to the polluter pays principle and the need to incentivise efficient resource use. We note that Policy 2 w) is concerned with the impact of economic growth on global communities but that there is no objective dealing with regional impact. We propose that an additional objective be inserted before w) and that it should ensure that environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them and efficient resource use is incentivised.
3.11 The Submission Draft includes a proposal in Policy 2 that planning authorities should require the submission of a Sustainability Statement with major planning applications. This proposal had many supporters in the EiP discussions, but there was a lack of clarity on the application of the Sustainability Statement. It was argued that it was not clear how the requirement would apply to proposals in the Submission Draft, which had already been through the Sustainability Appraisal process. There is also potential conflict with Environmental Impact Assessment requirements.
3.12 We were advised by the Government Office that “it is not usual practice for a draft RSS to formulate policy on procedural matters and we consider that this approach should not be made mandatory”. It was suggested to us by the Government Office and others that the Submission Draft might commend the approach as good practice. We acknowledge that local authorities can determine what additional information is required as part of the development control process, but we are not convinced that the Sustainability Statement will provide additional value and are of the opinion that it will be perceived as another confusing hurdle. We recommend that Policy 2 be amended to remove any reference to a requirement to submit a Sustainability Statement.
Recommendation 3.1
a) Amend the supporting text leading up to Policy 2 to:
i) Draw out the main messages from “Securing the Future”; and
PANEL REPORT 21
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
ii) Include reference to the two guiding principles most relevant to the RSS; namely “Living within Environmental Limits” and “Achieving a Sustainable Economy”. b) Modify Policy 2 f):
To make better use of our resources, including the built fabric. c) Insert an additional objective before 2 w) as follows:
To ensure that environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them and efficient resource use is incentivised; and d) Delete all reference to a requirement to submit a Sustainability Statement.
Sequential Approach
3.13 There was no support for the proposition that the application of the Sequential Approach would affect inward investment. We are of the opinion that the broad forecasts of the nature of economic growth supports a high degree of concentration of development in the core areas. We see no reason to query the general application of the Sequential Approach as set out in Policy 3.
3.14 It was put to us that the Sequential Approach should be more specific in order to ensure that priority is given to key renewal areas. In our view the Sequential Approach is set out as a development principle and any further direction of development should be in the policies relating to development. We see no need to modify Policy 3 in this respect.
3.15 It was difficult to obtain a clear view of the overall scale of previously developed land and buildings within all of the settlements in the Region. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the definition of ‘urban areas’ in paragraph 2.9 would exclude sites in smaller settlements such as Rothbury. It was argued that Policy 3 could distort the planning of the more rural areas. We are of the view that the combination of Policy 2 and Policy 3 implies the acceptance of such sites. We recommend that Policy 3 should be modified to allow local authorities the opportunity to extend the definition of ‘urban areas’.
3.16 It was suggested to us that the Sequential Approach should be applied across functional urban areas rather than individual local authority areas through the Local Development Framework process. We accept the view that joint LDDs cannot be imposed but we recommend that the supporting text should be amended to commend joint action where it would maximise the development of previously developed land.
PANEL REPORT 22
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
Recommendation 3.2
Delete Policy 3 and a) substitute the following Policy
Local Development Frameworks should adopt a sequential approach to the identification of land for development to give priority to previously developed land and buildings in the most sustainable locations. All sites should be in locations that are, or will be, at lowest risk from flooding, having particular regard to the vulnerability of the proposed development to flooding. Locations should be selected in the following priority order:
a) Suitable previously developed sites and buildings within urban areas, particularly around public transport nodes;
b) Other suitable locations within urban areas not identified as land to be protected for nature or heritage conservation or recreational purposes;
c) Suitable sites in locations adjoining urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings; and
d) Suitable sites in settlements outside urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings
For the purposes of this policy, urban areas are defined as the conurbations, main towns, towns in regeneration areas and rural service centres and other settlements identified in Local Development Frameworks as providing a significant opportunity in terms of previously developed land and buildings.
All sites identified for development should be in locations that are, or will be, well related to homes, jobs and services by all modes of transport, particularly public transport, walking and cycling. b) Amend supporting text to commend joint action where it would maximise the development of previously developed land.
3.17 Our attention was drawn to the guidance set out in the Consultation Draft PPS25, which indicates that a sequential approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas should be applied at all levels of the planning process. We note that Policy 3 includes a reference to the need to take into account the risk of flooding and that Policy 37 is quite strong on the application of a sequential risk- based approach to development and flooding. In these circumstances we do not see a need to recommend a change to Policy 3 in this respect.
PANEL REPORT 23
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
Consistency
3.18 It was suggested to us that the main themes of the strategy had not been adequately carried over into the other policy areas in the Submission Draft. The EiP discussions highlighted the fact that any effort to concentrate growth in more sustainable locations must consider the impact of sites with planning permissions in sub-urban locations. It was explained to us that the allocation of development for the first period of the Plan assumed that these sites would be developed in advance of the strategic brownfield emphasis. While this assumption seems reasonable, it displays in our view a lack of belief in the competition that the brownfield sites might offer to the more suburban locations. It seems to us equally valid to argue that the availability of good quality brownfield proposals could reduce the rate of development in the suburban locations. We have not been able to establish with any certainty as to how this “front loading” of the allocation process influenced the allocation of development between the sub- regions and indeed the local authority areas. We believe this lack of clarity has damaged the credibility of the Submission Draft.
3.19 It was also put to us that the planning assumptions for a number of the major policy areas such as housing, employment land, retail development and transportation were not consistent with the strategic economic growth assumptions. It was acknowledged in the EiP discussions that a lower rate of growth had been adopted in the housing forecasts. We were advised that the adverse impact on the overall strategy of a potential housing over-supply was considered to be greater than that of an under- supply. The Regional Development Agency indicated that the level of housing proposed would not inhibit the economic growth assumed for the Region. There was considerable support for this position from other participants. On the basis of this consensus we are content to support the lower housing growth assumptions in the Submission Draft.
3.20 The evidence presented to us indicates that future economic growth is expected to be generated by the knowledge economy and this growth is likely to be generated by small and medium sized enterprises. It was also explained that a significant amount of the growth was expected to arise in the core areas of the conurbations and could be accommodated in high density accommodation in core areas and at Transportation Hubs. It was not possible to ascertain the extent to which the contribution of this type of development had been taken into account in the assessment of the need for industrial land in the preparation of the Submission Draft. Our conclusion is that there is an inconsistency between the need assessments of both scale and type of employment development and the broader assumptions on the expected sources of new employment. This question will be considered further later in our Report.
3.21 We were assured by the North East Assembly that the retail study by White Young Green Planning Ltd. took into consideration all the latest assumptions that are within the Submission Draft. However it was suggested at the EiP that the retail study did not fully reflect the economic growth forecasts. It is clear from an examination of the retail study that the growth forecasts for convenience and comparison goods are based on Mapinfo forecasts for UK consumer spending. The study does set out significant annual growth rates for convenience and comparison shopping and derives forecasts
PANEL REPORT 24
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
of per capita expenditure. These estimates of future expenditure levels are then applied to Submission Draft population forecasts to derive potential expenditure levels. It is unclear how consistent the UK derived growth rates are with the broader economic forecasts for the North East, but we are content that the retail study gives a reasonable assessment of the broad retail requirements within the Region.
3.22 We sought at the EiP to establish the extent to which the transportation assumptions used in preparing the Submission Draft reflected the economic forecasts in the document. We were informed that increasing car ownership had been observed and was expected to continue. It was stated that these trends had been reflected in assessments made by outside agencies such as the Highways Agency, but it was not clear that there was any direct linkage between the assumptions used and the broader economic growth assumptions of the Submission Draft. We were advised that one of the most significant problems with the transport assessment was the use by the Highways Agency of total allocations to generate trips on the highway network. It was indicated that it was generally accepted that all of the land would not be developed within the Plan period. We were advised that work was on-going to resolve the problem. Most of the transportation assessments seem to be concerned with highway issues, although there was some reference to multi-modal studies. In our view there is a need for a more comprehensive transportation assessment that can be seen to be more clearly linked to the core assumptions. We do not believe that this need take the form of “big land-use transportation type of modelling” but should be founded on a more comprehensive transport assessment that can be seen to be linked to the core assumptions.
3.23 We sought to establish whether the term ‘Regeneration Area’ as used in the Submission Draft conveyed the appropriate sense of priority and clarity when applied to extensive areas. It was established that much of the regeneration action required was focused in urban areas and that a considerable amount of that action did not involve a land-use /development contribution. We are convinced that the blanket regeneration approach adopted in the Submission Draft does not reflect reality on the ground and could distort policy. In our view a more selective approach is required, but do not have the information to put forward an alternative proposal. We would expect such a proposal to identify those areas where a unique combination of action is required to implement the strategy. We do not believe that this applies to all of the ‘12 towns’ identified by Durham County Council. We thus recommend that consideration be given to the identification of more specific regeneration priorities.
Recommendation 3.3 a) Future reviews of the Regional Transport Strategy should be founded on a more comprehensive transport assessment that can be seen to be linked to the core assumptions. b) Consideration be given to the identification of more specific regeneration priorities.
PANEL REPORT 25
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 3 FOR THE NORTH EAST SPATIAL STRATEGY
City Region Concept
3.24 The city region sections of the Submission Draft were introduced to reflect the approach being adopted by the Northern Way Growth Strategy. We were informed that the city region concept is not an invention of that Strategy and the Senior Report on local government reform was quoted as evidence of the longevity of the concept. We agree with the Northern Way that urban concentrations have a reach into their economic hinterlands which can be said to correspond with travel to work areas, shopping catchment areas and housing market areas. We are of the view that it is sensible for the Submission Draft to reflect the real functional areas rather than individual local authority areas. While it is important to recognise that different approaches will be required for particular parts of each city region, we believe that a city region approach provides a greater opportunity to identify strategic requirements. We accept that the city region ‘reach’ will differ for different functions such as shopping and housing and accept the lack of formal boundaries in the Submission Draft. We are of the opinion, however, that it is likely to be necessary to define city region boundaries in terms of local authority areas in order to express certain policy outcomes.
3.25 The EiP discussion accepted that the two city regions identified in the Submission Draft were a reasonable reflection of the functional reach of each conurbation. There was some discussion on the role of the more remote parts of the Region in relation to the two city regions. We conclude that the Berwick upon Tweed local authority area can be regarded as separate from the Tyne and Wear city region, but are of the opinion that the Alnwick District area is showing signs of being part of the city region. In view of the evidence on migration and travel to work we conclude that the Teesdale District area and the Wear Valley District area should be regarded as part of the Tees Valley city region.
3.26 We also considered whether functional sub-regions can be identified within the two city regions. The evidence from the Housing Market Assessment work in both Northumberland County and Durham County would appear to confirm that from a housing point of view there are functional sub-regions involving groups of authorities.
3.27 Some of the submitted material referred to the need to focus economic growth on the city regions. As the city regions comprise a large proportion of the Region such a statement has little meaning. A number of participants suggested that the real meaning of such statements was a concentration on the cores of the city regions. We are of the opinion that it is more useful to focus on the economic relationships within the city regions than to be concerned with specific geographic components.
PANEL REPORT 26
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Chapter 4: City Regions and the Rural Areas
Matter 3; 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5.
Introduction
4.1 In this Chapter we consider strategic elements of the Submission Draft spatial strategy, with particular regard to the city regions of Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley and the Rural Areas.
4.2 The Panel have in Chapter 3 recognised that the strategic elements of the Spatial Strategy comprise the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley city regions, and the Rural Areas. Strategic policies for these areas are contained in Submission Draft Policies 6, 7 and 8 respectively. While the city region approach was accepted in principle by the overwhelming majority of respondents, each of these policies attracted a range of representations relating to both their detail and direction.
4.3 The Panel recognise the close inter-relationship between Policies 6, 7 and 8, together with the need for inter-policy consistency. Thus, rather than attempt to present proposed modifications on a piecemeal basis at various points throughout this Chapter, and in order to avoid duplication and excessive cross-referencing, the Panel’s recommended modifications to Policies 6, 7 and 8 are presented in their entirety in Appendix C of our Report. However, we are aware that, despite our efforts, there remain some inconsistencies between the policies in terms of their minor criteria, for example, criteria 7.3.b) – 7.3.d) and 7.5.b).iii) which do not appear in our recommended Policies 6 and 8.
Background
4.4 The First Growth Strategy Report Moving Forward: The Northern Way, prepared by the three northern Regional Development Agencies and published in September 2004 as a means to unlock the potential for faster economic growth and to bridge the £29 billion output gap between the North and the rest of the UK, identified eight city regions as key to the economic rebirth of the North. These are the areas where most people live and work, and where most businesses are located.
4.5 The North East contains two of the city regions identified in The Northern Way; the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations. The Submission Draft carries the concept of these two polycentric city regions forward as the basis for its Regional Spatial Strategy.
4.6 The Tyne and Wear city region is the main economic driver within the Region. It includes the contiguous built-up area of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Durham. Whilst there are no precise boundaries in terms of policy application, for statistical purposes it includes the five unitary authorities of Newcastle, Gateshead, North and South Tyneside and Sunderland, plus the districts of
PANEL REPORT 27
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Castle Morpeth, Tynedale, Wansbeck, Blyth Valley, Chester-le-Street, Easington, Derwentside and Durham City. However, it was agreed at the EiP that in terms of housing markets and employment the Tyne and Wear city region’s influence extended to include Alnwick.
4.7 The Tees Valley city region is smaller and comprises the five unitary authority areas of Stockton, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Darlington and Hartlepool, together with the district of Sedgefield, and the rural service centres of Barnard Castle, and Northallerton and Richmond in Yorkshire. Although there is no definitive boundary, it has been agreed that for policy and statistical purposes the city region does not extend into North Yorkshire. However, in the light of evidence presented to us, we have concluded that the Teesdale and Wear Valley District areas should also be included in the Tees Valley city region.
4.8 Both city regions include extensive areas that are rural in character. These rural areas extend beyond the city regions throughout the North East. Two thirds of the Region, primarily to the north and west, is rural in character, and includes small isolated settlements, small settlements which are important as service and employment centres, market towns, towns in the former coalfield areas, commuter villages and areas of urban fringe. Neither are the rural areas homogenous in character. Large areas are sparsely populated with extensive swathes of attractive upland countryside. Elsewhere there are attractive areas of farm-land, and stretches of some of the UK’s most attractive coast.
4.9 The RSS seeks to build upon the strengths of both city regions and the rural areas in order to deliver economic prosperity and growth throughout the North East, whilst conserving and enhancing the Region’s diverse natural and built environment. The Panel consider a range of issues appertaining to those policies that seek to achieve this objective below.
Issues
4.10 The three main groups of issues relating to the two city regions and the rural areas considered in this Chapter are:
Tyne and Wear City Region • Does the Submission Draft adequately establish realistic proposals and priorities for the future development of the city region, and in particular: o is undue weight given to the needs of the urban core areas such as the Pathfinder Areas and insufficient emphasis given to other regeneration needs; o should Policy 6 identify strategic growth points throughout the city region and, if so, where should they be; and o is proper recognition given to the role of Durham City?
Green Belt & Environment Strategy • Should the Green Belt be an integral part of the set of policies for the Tyne and Wear city region?
PANEL REPORT 28
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
• Does Policy 10 in the Submission Draft adequately identify the role and function of the Green Belt in the Tyne and Wear area? • Should Policy 6 include a positive environmental strategy using, amongst others, elements of Policy 9?
Tees Valley City Region • Does the Submission Draft adequately establish realistic proposals and priorities for the future development of the city region, and in particular: o is the identification of Middlesbrough and Darlington as the locations for major retail and leisure development consistent with the scale and function of other centres, such as Stockton and Hartlepool; o is there a need to identify strategic greenfield development areas; and o is the support for the regeneration of the settlements in the Durham Coalfield and East Cleveland consistent with a sustainable approach and the needs of the urban core areas?
Strategic Gaps & Environment Strategy • Does the Submission Draft adequately identify the role and function of the designated strategic gaps and provide for their protection? • Should Policy 7 include a positive environmental strategy, using amongst others proposals from Policy 9?
Rural Areas • Does the Submission Draft adequately identify the range of issues and establish realistic proposals for the rural areas, and in particular: o deal with the future development of rural service centres and secondary settlements/centres as the focus for growth and development in rural areas and as key public transport hubs for the surrounding hinterland; o set out the issues affecting the rural economy and the implications of rural diversification; o address the issues affecting second homes and affordable housing; and o address the issue of connectivity within the rural areas?
Tyne and Wear City Region
4.11 The Panel considered a range of issues concerning the Tyne and Wear city region relating to housing, employment, regeneration and the role of Durham, together with issues relating to the environment and Green Belt.
Housing programmes and the core areas 4.12 We initially considered whether housing development outside of the core areas of the Tyne and Wear conurbation would threaten the regeneration programmes for the urban core areas. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead were of the opinion that local authorities throughout the Region need to recognise that housing development outside of the core areas, for example in North Tyneside, Prudhoe or Hebburn, does have an effect on the BNG area. Whilst optimistic that there is now a broad consensus that the
PANEL REPORT 29
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
core areas need to be prioritised, BNG remain concerned that the RSS could undermine BNG initiatives by continuing to support, albeit to a lesser degree, the `urban drift’ of population to suburban areas and beyond. In recent years (2001-2004) Newcastle and Gateshead have lost substantially more people than they have gained to North Tyneside, Derwentside, Blyth Valley, Tynedale and Castle Morpeth, with the `drift’ to North Tyneside exceeding that to the other Districts combined. However, there is now emerging evidence that there has been a reversal of past trends, as development in the core areas is starting to take effect. If this turn-about is to be maintained it will be necessary to build family homes, rather than the plethora of apartments that have dominated the development scene in the recent past, in order to compete with the outlying areas and to attract people who are taking up jobs within the BNG area.
4.13 Northumberland CC concurred with the view that there is a continuing threat from development in the outlying areas to the successful regeneration of the inner areas. Likewise, Durham CC, whilst acknowledging the differences between Newcastle / Gateshead and Durham in terms of scale, recognised that the extrapolation of past trends of housing development in adjoining authorities, and in particular in Derwentside, would pose a threat to the long-term success of regeneration areas.
4.14 In contrast, the Panel heard evidence that development outside of the core areas, for example in Cramlington, would not have an adverse effect on housing regeneration programmes in the core areas. It being argued that such development would, in the main, meet local housing needs, and thereby help to sustain local communities.
4.15 Other participants maintained that a more holistic approach was required in order to obviate the apparent confusion between the Tyne and Wear city region and the Tyne and Wear conurbation. It was argued that Policy 6 and supporting text focus on the future development of the conurbation, with development beyond the conurbation only being dealt with in terms of its potential contribution to the economic growth of the city region. Without a clear holistic view of the inter-relationship between the physical, economic and social elements of the city region, it would not be possible to establish realistic priorities for development.
4.16 The Panel note the high level of past migration from, in particular, Newcastle and Gateshead, and are of the view that if it were allowed to continue unchecked it would threaten regeneration programmes for the urban core areas. However, the Panel recognise that this `urban drift’ occurred in the context of earlier - somewhat parochial - planning policies, the absence of a comprehensive regional spatial strategy, and the lack of viable housing alternatives in the core areas. We also noted evidence of the recent reversal of the outward migration trend, and the success of emerging Pathfinder sites which are helping to attract people back into core areas.
4.17 The Submission Draft seeks to prioritise development in the core regeneration areas whilst providing for sustainable development elsewhere to meet local and other long- term needs. The Panel are satisfied that the Strategy achieves this objective, and are thus satisfied that there is no need to adjust the balance of development priorities set out in Policy 6.
PANEL REPORT 30
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Greenfield employment proposals, major brownfield opportunities and Transport Hubs 4.18 We considered whether greenfield employment proposals within the city region conflict with the development ambitions of the major brownfield opportunities and the intensification proposals around Transport Hubs. Tyne and Wear Authorities were of the view that development within existing urban areas, whether on brownfield land or by means of intensification at or near a transport hub, was unarguably more sustainable, and ultimately more economically and socially productive, than dispersed employment growth on greenfield sites. Peripheral or more remote employment growth would, it was suggested, result in either increased reverse commuting or pressure for housing development nearer to the employment sites. Both would be economically detrimental to the Region and contrary to the sustainable principles of targeting growth within the built-up areas, as advocated in the Northern Way. However, despite the fact that a range of sustainable employment sites are presently, or will shortly become, available in Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead and elsewhere, it was felt that there would not be sufficient brownfield land in Tyne and Wear to fulfil the aspirations of the city region throughout the whole of the RSS period. As a result, it was suggested, there remains a need for the phased release of strategic greenfield sites, for example TyneWear Park in South Tyneside.
4.19 Other participants echoed Tyne and Wear’s view, with the Highways Agency expressing particular concern regarding the impact of B1 development on greenfield sites, specifically the Prestige Employment Sites, on the local highway network. The more sustainable option being growth around transport hubs.
4.20 On the other hand, One Northeast maintained that a balance needed to be struck between greenfield and brownfield employment opportunities. It was submitted that in employment terms the NE is in a very competitive environment and that it would be better to over allocate, rather than under-allocate, employment land. It was also suggested that many of the greenfield sites are suitable for B2 or B8 uses, in addition to B1, as they are in out of town locations with easy access to the principal road network. In contrast, the brownfield sites promoted by Sunderland Arc, together with the Baltic site in Gateshead, the Discovery Quarter in Newcastle and others, are eminently suitable for B1 use. It was suggested that in the long-term, the balance between greenfield and brownfield sites should be maintained by phasing the release of greenfield land.
4.21 The Panel recognise that it is necessary to have a range of sites in various locations available to meet emerging demands for commercial floorspace. However we are concerned that greenfield employment sites, specifically the PESs, pose a threat to the development of major brownfield sites and to the intensification of development around identified Transport Hubs in that they detract from the priority that should be given to those sites, particularly with regard to B1 (office) development. There can be no question that the development of urban brownfield sites and at transport hub locations is the more sustainable option. Accordingly, we have formed the view that the achievement of Policy 6, with its prioritisation of development in the core urban areas, will require the means to manage office development ambitions. But we are not persuaded that it is necessary to modify Policy 6 specifically to achieve this
PANEL REPORT 31
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
objective. Rather the current status and proposed role of the PESs is considered in detail later in our Report, with recommended modifications to Policy 19 which reflect the above conclusion.
Regeneration at Cramlington and Peterlee 4.22 The Panel questioned the meaning of regeneration when applied to settlements such as Cramlington and Peterlee. Northumberland CC confirmed that, as a former new town, Cramlington was now well established as a significant employment centre in south-east Northumberland. It has generated a critical mass of successful economic activity and, notwithstanding the need for some renewal of its urban fabric, is successful in attracting inward investment. The Council suggested that, in order to reflect its ongoing role as a focus for the regeneration of the south-east Northumberland coalfield, Policy 6 should be amended to permit new housing in the town to meet local needs and for Cramlington to be specifically identified as an area of employment growth.
4.23 Other participants supported the promotion of Cramlington as a focus for new housing and employment development which, it was suggested, would help to precipitate a range of improvements to the physical and social infrastructure of the town, including the revitalisation of the town centre.
4.24 In contrast, Durham CC noted that in Peterlee, also a former new town, a range of physical and social problems needed to be addressed. These include some renewal of the urban fabric, worklessness, educational and health problems. A series of consultancy studies are presently being undertaken to address these problems and to provide a regeneration framework that will allow the town to develop and fulfil its role within Easington. Although not confirmed, it is envisaged that physical regeneration will take the form of intensification of the existing built form, rather than expansion beyond the built-up limits of the town.
4.25 Criterion d) of Policy 6 expresses support for the regeneration of eleven towns. Of these only Cramlington and Peterlee are former new towns, and thus exhibit a somewhat different range of regeneration needs from the remaining nine. It was evident that the regeneration needs of Peterlee are more urgent and complex than those of Cramlington, and the Panel do not question the need for the RSS to continue to support its regeneration. Cramlington presents a more dynamic future in terms of housing and employment provision due, in part, to its location close to the Newcastle / Gateshead conurbation, in contrast to Peterlee’s more remote location on the edge of the former Durham coalfield. Nonetheless, the Panel are not persuaded that Cramlington’s potential for further housing and employment development obviates its need to be identified as a regeneration town, or otherwise justifies its identification as a growth point. Rather the Panel is satisfied that paragraph 2.68 properly recognises Cramlington’s role as an area of employment growth to cater, in the main, for local needs, with economic growth being focussed within the town centre and on the West Hartford PES.
PANEL REPORT 32
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.26 The Panel is, however, concerned that the inclusion in criterion d) of reference to regeneration sufficient to meet local aspirations could lead to pressure for development beyond that required to meet local needs. We thus recommend that reference to `aspirations’ be deleted. The Panel is likewise concerned to ensure that criterion d) confirms that development within the regeneration towns does not adversely impact on regeneration initiatives within the Tyne and Wear conurbation. We thus recommend the inclusion of additional policy text to clarify this issue.
Recommendation 4.1
Modify Policy 6 d) by the deletion of `and aspirations’ and the addition of `without adversely impacting on the regeneration initiatives within the Tyne and Wear conurbation’.
‘Corridor of Opportunity’ 4.27 The Panel considered suggestions that additional housing provision should be made at strategic growth points to reflect the economic potential of proposed developments along the `Corridor of Opportunity’, that extends from Woodhorn in the north through South Tyneside and on to Doxford Park via the A189 and A19.
4.28 It is envisaged that the corridor will play a major strategic role for the movement of people and goods in the city region, and provide for some of the future economic expansion needs of the Tyne and Wear conurbation. It will also increasingly provide jobs for populations in the towns of Ashington, Blyth and Cramlington, and thereby help to reduce the significant levels of commuting that currently takes place from these settlements into Tyne and Wear.
4.29 The Panel are not persuaded that it would be appropriate for additional housing provision to be made at strategic employment growth points to reflect the economic potential of developments along the ‘Corridor of Opportunity’, given that the prime purpose of such development is to meet a local need arising from the existing imbalance between population and jobs, and to reduce outward commuting. Additional housing would clearly negate these objectives. Furthermore, in our view there is a danger that the identification of specific growth points could threaten the regeneration of neighbouring settlements by the diversion of limited resources.
Durham 4.30 The Panel considered how the unique role of Durham can best be recognised. Durham’s unique architectural and historic character, with its focus on Castle and Cathedral, is a significant asset to the Region. The City also serves as the administrative centre for the County, contains a university with an international reputation for research, is a major retail and employment centre and is a popular tourist destination. Policy 6 c) seeks to ensure that the scale and quality of development within the City reflects this unique character, whilst also having regard
PANEL REPORT 33
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
to the City’s role as a major service and employment centre for its surrounding hinterland.
4.31 Durham City Council confirmed that the City does not aspire to be a major growth centre, as this would be incompatible with its physical capacity and potentially damaging to the wider setting of the Castle / Cathedral World Heritage site. Rather the City seeks to maximise its potential as a vibrant city without causing harm to its historic and cultural assets. It is possible that this will necessitate development taking place outside of the tightly drawn City boundaries. However, the City Council and others are satisfied that there is no need to consider alterations to the recently established Green Belt boundaries that closely define the built-up City limits. Overall the City Council is satisfied that the wording in Policy 6 respects and reflects Durham’s unique character and aspirations.
4.32 It was agreed that, despite the inconvenience caused by the distance between the railway station and bus depot, Durham had been properly recognised as a Strategic Public Transport Hub (Policy 6 u) and elsewhere). However, it was acknowledged that there was some tension between this and the requirement in policy 52 a) and d) (and elsewhere) that Strategic Public Transport Hubs should be the focus for higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility, given the possibility that such development could be detrimental to the historic and architectural character of the City’s core.
4.33 The Panel is satisfied that Policy 6 properly reflects the view that Durham should not be considered as a major growth area, and that the scale and quality of development should reflect Durham’s unique architectural and historic character. And we note that Policy 9 seeks to maintain and enhance the quality, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and built environment, including (criterion j)) the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site. We remain concerned, however, that the tension between the identification of the City as a Strategic Public Transport Hub and, by implication the focus for intensive development, needs to be resolved. In our view, while Policies 6 and 9 should be able to counterbalance such pressures, we have sought to provide further guidance on this matter for the LDF process in Policy 52 d).
Green Belt & Environmental Strategy
Green Belt as a separate policy 4.34 We questioned whether any benefits would arise from placing Green Belt policy in a separate section of the RSS. The NEA noted that the prime purpose of the Green Belt in the NE is to prevent the coalescence of settlements within the Tyne and Wear conurbation, and of Tyne and Wear with Durham. Policy 10 of the Submission Draft provides a spatial context for this purpose, which is as relevant today as it was when the Green Belt was designated in 1985. The NEA believe that the importance of the Green Belt, both regionally and nationally, justifies a separate policy to provide the requisite detail for its on-going implementation. It would, it was suggested, be confusing to include this level of detail within the already extensive city region policy.
PANEL REPORT 34
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.35 In contrast, Northumberland CC, Tyne and Wear Authorities and others expressed the view that, on balance, Green Belt policies should be included in a comprehensive city region policy, given that the Green Belt is an integral part of the city region, and of particular importance in determining its overall spatial strategy. Furthermore, it was noted that while PPG2, Green Belts, identifies five purposes for including land within a Green Belt, Policy 10 fails to refer to the role of Green Belts in assisting regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This, it was felt, was a particularly important function of the Tyne and Wear Green Belt that required due recognition. We have incorporated such recognition in the recommended modification to Policy 6 Section 5 a (iii) (Appendix C).
4.36 The Panel recognise the significance of Green Belt policy as an integral part of the strategies for the Tyne and Wear city region. We note that its prime purpose is to check the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas and, of particular importance within the Region, to facilitate regeneration. However, we cannot identify any particular advantages of placing Green Belt policy in a separate policy section, given that all of the geographical references in Policy 10 relate to areas or settlements within the Tyne and Wear city region, and that the designated Green Belt does not extend into the Tees Valley city region. In our view, the suite of City Region policies should be as comprehensive as possible, in order to identify all of the policy issues to be taken into account in shaping the Region’s future. We recommend accordingly.
Recommendation 4.2
a) Modify Policy 6, Tyne and Wear City Region and supporting text, to include an additional section titled `Green Belt and Environment’. This to include a Green Belt policy, as indicated in Appendix C.
b) Delete part of Policy 10 relating to the Green Belt and supporting text.
Green Belt boundaries 4.37 The Panel examined whether the existing Green Belt boundaries are capable of accommodating the long-term development requirements of the Tyne and Wear conurbation and Durham. The NEA confirmed that the only proposed deletion of any significance from the Green Belt is that arising from RPG1, Policy EL4, which requires the allocation of a strategic employment site of between 40–200ha in the broad location of `north Sunderland’. Following extensive consultation between relevant authorities and regional stakeholders, and having regard to an analysis of the economic growth potential for the area, an area of up to 90ha north of the A184(T) and east of the A194, the TyneWear Park has been identified to meet a potential shortage of employment land towards the end of the RSS period. However, the deletion of the site from the Green Belt remains subject to final justification and phasing.
4.38 South Tyneside DC and Tyne and Wear Authorities spoke in support of the proposed allocation. Both recognised that, in light of the amount employment land presently
PANEL REPORT 35
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
available, it was unlikely that development of the TyneWear Park could be justified in the short to medium term.
4.39 The Fellgate Residents Group voiced strong opposition to the proposed TyneWear Park, and the removal of the intended site from the Green Belt. The Group maintained that opposition to the proposed allocation was not restricted to local residents, but extended across broad areas of South Tyneside and beyond. Allocation of the site would result in the partial erosion of the Green Belt where it is at its narrowest and, by implication, most fragile, and the ensuing development would result in the loss of locally valuable flora and fauna. Likewise there is no proven need for the development, given the large number of vacant factories and other buildings on industrial estates and business parks nearby and throughout Tyne and Wear, sufficient to meet current and future employment needs. The CPRE likewise opposed the deletion of the proposed site from the Green Belt.
4.40 In the wider context, the planning authorities were satisfied that, with the exception of TyneWear Park, all of the development proposed within Durham and the Tyne and Wear conurbation could be accommodated without the need for further deletions from the Green Belt. And that the maintenance of the existing boundaries would be an important factor in directing new development to core urban areas, and would thereby assist regeneration.
4.41 The HBF were particularly concerned to ensure that decisions concerning Green Belt boundaries are capable of being up-held in the long-term, given that PPG2 confirms that the essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence, and that their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. A decision now to retain the TyneWear Park site within the Green Belt must therefore endure for the life of the RSS, and beyond.
4.42 We give detailed consideration to the arguments surrounding the future need for the TyneWear Park later in our Report, where we conclude that the proposed PES should be deleted and thereby obviate the need for the proposed site to be deleted from the Green Belt. Given that there are no other proposed deletions of significance, and our acknowledgement that the original purpose of the Green Belt, including restricting urban sprawl and facilitating regeneration, remain valid today, we are satisfied that the long-term development needs of Durham and the Tyne Wear conurbation can be accommodated without further deletions from the Green Belt.
Recommendation 4.3
Reference to the deletion of the site of the proposed Tyne Wear Park from the Green Belt in Policy 10, as recommended to be modified by inclusion in Policies 6 and 8, be deleted.
An Environmental Strategy for the City Region 4.43 Finally, with regard to the Tyne and Wear conurbation, we considered whether strategic elements of `green infrastructure’ might be included in a positive
PANEL REPORT 36
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
environmental strategy for the city region. Natural England, CPRE, Nectar, North East Wildlife Trust, Northumberland CC, the Environment Agency and others expressed support for the recognition in the RSS of a strategic network of `green infrastructure’ comprising, in the main, a network of green corridors linking existing and proposed greenspace within and through urban areas to the countryside and coast. The many social and environmental benefits that would accrue from this network, ranging from helping to resist climate change by off-setting carbon emissions, wildlife conservation, social recreation, and flood prevention and control, were recognised by all.
4.44 The Panel acknowledge that the provision of a strategic network of green infrastructure would produce many and varied social and environmental benefits, and as such is worthy of policy support. Policy 10 presently includes such provision, although this appears almost as an afterthought to Green Belt policy. The Panel have above recommended that Green Belt policy be included within a comprehensive suite of city region policies, and are thus likewise of the view that a policy for green infrastructure should be included in the comprehensive Tyne and Wear city region suite of policies. Additional supporting text should likewise be included to distinguish between strategic and non-strategic green infrastructure and its purpose.
4.45 The Panel have had particular regard to the submissions by Natural England concerning this issue, including that dated 3 April 2006 in response to our request for further information. These submissions include policy changes and additional supporting text, suggested additions to Environment Map 2, and a suggested green infrastructure definition for inclusion in the RSS Glossary of Terms, all of which are reflected in our recommended modifications below. The Panel is satisfied that the features identified by Natural England are of a strategic nature, and may thus reasonably be identified in the RSS. They should therefore, where appropriate, also be identified on the Tyne and Wear city region diagram. However, the Panel recognise that, given the varied, occasional small scale and somewhat intricate nature of local green infrastructure proposals, it will not be possible to include a detailed indication of non-strategic networks on the city region diagram. Details of the component parts and linkages that together comprise non-strategic networks should be included in relevant LDDs.
Recommendation 4.4
a) Include a policy concerning strategic networks of green infrastructure in the Green Belt and Environment section of Policy 6, Tyne and Wear City Region, as indicated in Appendix C.
b) Include additional supporting text to distinguish between strategic and non- strategic green infrastructure and its purpose.
c) Modify the Tyne and Wear City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 as appropriate to show:
i) Strategic recreation routes;
PANEL REPORT 37
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
ii) Strategic wildlife corridors in Tyne and Wear, based upon the 1986 Tyne and Wear Nature Conservation Strategy and the more recently adopted UDPs.
d) Delete the part of Policy 10 relating to green infrastructure and supporting text.
Tees Valley City Region
4.46 The Panel examined a range of issues concerning the Tees Valley, including the prioritisation of regeneration schemes, the protection of strategic transport routes, and the possible re-allocation of employment land. We also reviewed various `green’ issues, and considered the possible identification of a Tees Valley Green Belt.
Prioritisation of regeneration projects 4.47 The Panel initially considered whether Policy 7 a) should be more specific in terms of individual regeneration projects as a means of more clearly setting out priorities. One Northeast were of the view that Policy 7 a) should prioritise regeneration schemes in the Tees Valley city region by focussing on those sites which are featured in the approved development plan, the RES and One Northeast’s corporate plan. Specifically there should be reference to Middlehaven, Stockton North Shore, Victoria Harbour, Darlington Central Park and the Tees Valley Living housing programme projects on grounds that they are on brownfield sites, are focussed on the key urban centres, and are priority locations for opportunities to transform the regional economy. Others however, including the TVJSU, were satisfied that the description of sites and areas in Policy 7 a) embraced the most important sites, and that it was thus unnecessary to widen the description further or to prioritise regeneration schemes.
4.48 Policy 7 a) confirms that priority is to be given to the regeneration of both banks of the Tees between Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar; Hartlepool Quays and Central Park Darlington and the links into their town centres for appropriate mixed use developments. It is evident that the Policy is broadly based, and the Panel note that the areas identified include all five Tees Valley regeneration schemes, Tees Valley Living schemes, and the Stockton Middlesbrough initiative. The Panel is thus satisfied that Policy 7 a) and supporting text provide sufficient framework for the more detailed policies that follow. These include, for example, Policy 13, Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments, which specifically identifies several of the sites suggested by ONE for inclusion in Policy 7 a), namely Greater Middlehaven, Northshore, Victoria Harbour and Central Park.
4.49 The Panel is also of the view that it would be inappropriate to prioritise regeneration schemes in Policy 7 a). It is an objective of the Submission Draft that all regeneration schemes will progress. However, it is inevitable that rates of progress will vary, and we are anxious to ensure that none are accorded priority in a manner that could disadvantage schemes with a lower priority. In our view the detailed programming and implementation of regeneration schemes should remain with individual planning authorities by means of their LDF process.
PANEL REPORT 38
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.50 Finally, the Panel note that the prioritisation of schemes in Policy 7 a) would be inconsistent with Policy 6 a).
Inconsistency between Policies 6 d) and 7 c) 4.51 We questioned whether there is an inconsistency between Policies 6 d) and 7 c) in terms of impact on the regeneration initiatives in the respective conurbations and the ability to reflect development aspirations. The Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit and Durham CC did not dispute the principle of supporting the regeneration of the eight towns identified in Policy 7 c), although it was agreed that the regeneration needs of the smaller towns in the east Cleveland area were somewhat different from those of Bishop Auckland and Newton Aycliffe in Co Durham. However, the discrepancy between Policy 6 d) and 7 c) had been noted by several participants, in that Policy 6 d) expresses support for regeneration primarily for sustainable indigenous growth to meet local needs and aspirations whereas Policy 7 c) refers solely to sustainable indigenous growth. Likewise, Policy 7 c) includes the caveat without adversely impacting on the regeneration initiatives within the Tees Valley conurbation whereas Policy 6 d) is unconstrained.
4.52 We have earlier considered Policy 6 d) in detail, and recommended that reference to `local aspirations’ be deleted on grounds that it could precipitate pressure for growth beyond that required for appropriate regeneration. We have also concluded that Policy 6 d) should be further modified to include the caveat that regeneration initiatives within the identified regeneration towns should not adversely impact on regeneration initiatives within the Tyne and Wear conurbation. These modifications effectively bring Policy 6 d) in line with Policy 7 c). However, to ensure complete consistency, Policy 7 c) should be modified to confirm that sustainable indigenous growth is required to meet local needs.
Recommendation 4.5
Modify Policy 7 c) to include `to meet local needs’ following `sustainable growth’ as set out in Appendix C.
East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor 4.53 The Panel considered whether the continued protection of the East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor is strategically important to the future development of the city region. The Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit and Middlesbrough BC drew our attention to the severe congestion experienced on the A172, Stokesley Road - Sunnyfield - Marton Road, and the A171, Ormesby Bank - Orchard Way - Cargo Fleet Lane, particularly at peak hours. These are the main access roads to Middlesbrough town centre from residential areas to the south, and from Guisborough, Stokesley and Great Ayton. We noted that a number of studies, the last in 2001, have consistently highlighted the need to improve access to the town centre from East Cleveland, South Middlesbrough and North Yorkshire; to reduce traffic congestion on major routes into Middlesbrough; and to produce an environmentally sensitive solution to the traffic problem. As a result, since the mid-1970’s, subsequent
PANEL REPORT 39
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Tees Valley Structure Plans have protected a corridor, know as the East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor (EMTC), between Longlands Road and Nunthorpe alongside the existing railway line for transport use. This proposal is presently carried forward in Policy T15 of the approved Tees Valley Structure Plan, as adopted by the five constituent boroughs in 2003.
4.54 At the time the current structure plan was adopted it was generally agreed that the preferred option was a 10m single carriageway road. However, the relevant authorities have subsequently re-considered their position as part of their Local Transport Plan review and submissions. As a result there is now a difference of view; Middlesbrough BC continues to support the proposal, whereas Redcar and Cleveland BC no longer supports the principle of a road, primarily on grounds that there is insufficient space on the A174 between the A171 and A172 junctions to accommodate a further grade separated junction, and that the proposed scheme will encourage additional commuter traffic to use the trunk road network. The Highways Agency agrees that it would be difficult to accommodate an additional junction, although it is possible that this could be overcome by bridging the trunk road.
4.55 Middlesbrough BC’s support for the scheme is based, in part, on their long-term desire to complete the transport infrastructure that was commenced in the 1980’s. At the strategic level, the proposed scheme will have an influence on the development of Middlesbrough town centre and the core of the city region. The BC recognises that there are short to medium term impediments to implementing an all purpose road proposal, but nonetheless still regard it as a strategically important objective. Maintaining the corridor would not be unduly problematic in Middlesbrough as it runs along a green wedge parallel to the railway and is in public ownership. Meantime, increasing car ownership and the opening of the James Cook University Hospital continue to exacerbate problems of congestion throughout the surrounding area. In contrast, Redcar and Cleveland BC confirmed that, following the Council’s decision to abandon support for the proposal, several properties purchased as a result of planning blight arising from the proposed scheme have been resold, although the bulk of the land within the corridor is still in Council ownership. The Council are, however, now anxious to review the potential of this residual land for development as part of the LDF process.
4.56 An additional complication is that the proposed junction with the A174 would require the purchase of part of the ground of Ormesby Hall from the National Trust. The Trust has confirmed that they hold the land inalienably, in perpetuity. This means that it is exempt from normal compulsory purchase powers. A significant length of the proposed road passes through National Trust property, and the Trust have made it clear that it will not release land for the proposed road, particularly as no adequate justification has been provided. The Trust do not, however, object to the EMTC per se. They note that the line follows the existing railway line between Whitby and Middlesbrough which, in their view, offers real potential for public transport commuting within the city region. The Trust thus supports the designation of a corridor for public transport related schemes only.
PANEL REPORT 40
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.57 The Panel have noted the Highways Agency’s and other’s concern regarding the intensity of congestion problems between central Middlesbrough and the residential areas to the south and east and beyond, and the long history of attempts to resolve this problem. We recognise that the key to a solution most likely lies in the utilisation of the corridor between Longlands and Nunthorpe, the EMTC, and note that this has been protected, and continues to be protected, by policy in successive structure plans.
4.58 We note that the EMTC is not mentioned in the Submission Draft, most likely as a result of the rejection of a funding bid in 2002, perceived difficulties of obtaining such funding, the uncertainty surrounding its time-scale, and the withdrawal of support by Redcar and Cleveland BC. Nonetheless, the Panel are satisfied that the EMTC is a strategic corridor of sub-regional importance, linking the heart of the Tees Valley city region with large parts of south Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and into North Yorkshire. Furthermore, emerging proposals include multi-modal and public transport improvements that meet the Government’s shared transport objectives and the Submission Draft’s own connectivity objectives. It is thus appropriate for the EMTC to be considered in the RSS.
4.59 We note that in the past it has generally been thought that the solution to the congestion problem lay in some form of road scheme, possibly in conjunction with other traffic management measures. However, it appears that the focus has recently shifted towards the more intensive use of the existing railway line, possibly by some form of light railway / metro system linked to a park-and-ride scheme. The Panel appreciate that these are purely speculative proposals at this stage, and we do not underestimate the difficulty in obtaining funding for local rail network projects. Nonetheless they indicate a possible way forward that would circumvent several of the obstacles to a road scheme. The Panel are thus persuaded that it is appropriate for the EMTC to be protected in order to provide every opportunity for an appropriate solution to the worsening congestion problems to be found.
4.60 The Panel therefore recommend that the connectivity section of Policy 7 should include reference to the protection of the EMTC as a strategic objective. Additional supporting text should explain that the protection of the corridor will enable a range of alternative solutions to be explored, and confirm that the primary focus will be on public transport schemes.
Recommendation 4.6
a) Modify Policy 7 by the inclusion in the connectivity section of reference to the protection of the East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor, as set out in Appendix C.
b) Include additional supporting text explaining the strategic significance and purpose of the EMTC, and confirming that the primary focus will be on public transport schemes.
PANEL REPORT 41
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Hemlington Grange Employment Site 4.61 We considered whether Submission Draft policies should permit the re-allocation of part of the Hemlington Grange employment site for residential purposes. The Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit and Middlesbrough BC confirmed that the 48ha Hemlington Grange site, which lies on the southern edge of the built-up area of Middlesbrough, has been identified as a potential employment site for a number of years. Policy EMP6 of the adopted Tees Valley Structure Plan identifies Hemlington Grange for development as a business park or other prestige employment uses, while Policy EM4 of the adopted Middlesbrough Local Plan likewise allocates the site for the development of a prestige commercial office or light industrial uses. However, earlier attempts to develop the site, including an attempt in 1998/99 in association with English Partnership, have failed, largely as a result of heavy up-front infrastructure costs, estimated in 1998/99 to be some £10M, and the Government’s reluctance to fund through English Partnership greenfield site development.
4.62 In light of these difficulties, Middlesbrough BC have concluded that the only realistic way forward would be for approximately half of the site to be de-allocated from employment use and re-allocated for residential use. Some (or all) of the income generated by the residential element of the scheme would then be used to finance site infrastructure costs, in particular the provision of a suitable means of access, enabling the balance to come forward for employment use. The BC envisage that the residential part of the site would be developed primarily for middle and upper market family housing in order to provide a better housing type balance within the town and to slow down or reverse Middlesbrough’s continuing loss of population to North Yorkshire, Stockton and surrounding areas. The development of the site would also be linked to the regeneration of the Hemlington residential area to the north, which has been identified as an area of local authority housing in need of attention, and would reflect the recent and successful Coulby Newham development to the east. The proposed employment development would likewise improve the employment land `offer’ available in Middlesbrough by providing an attractive site in a rural fringe location. It is recognised that the de-allocation of half of the site will statistically reduce the amount of employment land available in Middlesbrough. However, de- allocation will, in fact, increase the amount of effective employment land available by enabling the remainder of the site that is presently constrained to come forward.
4.63 Tees Valley Living, Tees Valley Regeneration, and One Northeast expressed some concern that the development of the Hemlington Grange site for a mix of residential and employment uses would harm on-going regeneration schemes in the Middlesbrough / Stockton area. However, these agencies were satisfied that, on balance and subject to the continued policy prioritisation of regeneration schemes, the envisaged housing and employment type mix would not harm their wider objectives. The Highways Agency likewise expressed concern that the scale of development proposed may have an unacceptable impact on the local trunk road network, particularly the A19 / A174 junction.
4.64 The Panel recognise the difficulties surrounding the development of the Hemington Grange site and are satisfied that, in the absence of some form of enabling development, it is unlikely to come forward solely for employment use. We thus
PANEL REPORT 42
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
agree that it would be appropriate to release approximately half of the site for residential use, with the monies so raised being used to meet initial infrastructure costs, thereby enabling the remainder of the site to be developed for employment uses. We are satisfied that the type of housing and employment uses proposed would not adversely impact on regeneration schemes elsewhere, subject to the continued policy prioritisation of those schemes, and note that the complexities of providing a suitable access will ensure that development of the site does not occur within the early part of the RSS period when competition between the Hemlington Grange and regeneration sites would be more critical. In addition, the Panel agree that the type of housing proposed will help to balance Middlesbrough’s housing `offer’ and to slow down or reverse the Borough’s loss of population. While the de-allocation / re- allocation of part of the site from employment to residential use will result statistically in a significant reduction in the amount of employment land available within Middlesbrough, we are satisfied that, in reality, it will result in an increase in available employment land by enabling the balance of the site to come forward for development. Likewise, the Panel are satisfied that there is sufficient employment land available throughout the rest of the city region to counter-balance the loss of part of the Hemlington Grange site.
4.65 In light of the above we raise no objection to the proposed de-allocation of some 50% of the Hemington Grange site from employment use, and its re-allocation to residential use, subject to the aforementioned funding arrangements. We note that the Sub-Regional Breakdown of the Supply of Employment Land contained in Table 1 indicates an opportunity to de-allocate employment land in the Tees Valley, and that Policy 18 b) provides scope for such action. On this basis, we are satisfied that the future of the site can be resolved through the policy framework set out in the Submission Draft.
Strategic Gaps & Environmental Strategy
‘Green Wedge’ and ‘Green Gap’ policies 4.66 The Panel examined how effective the Tees Valley `green wedge’ and `strategic gap’ policies have been in restraining development in the countryside. The Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit confirmed that `green wedge’ and `strategic gap’ policies have been effective in shaping development patterns throughout the Tees Valley city region for many years. They have been welcome and understood by the public and developers alike as an effective policy tool for controlling the spread of urban development, maintaining the separation between towns and villages, providing valuable greenspace, and maintaining the identity of communities within the conurbation. They have been tested at RPG and several structure plan EiPs, and at local plan and planning application inquiries. Proposals for development are treated as departures from the development plan, which ensures a degree of formal protection and has enabled them to stand the test of time with very little erosion. The Tees Valley Authorities are firmly of the view that they should be embedded in RSS policy.
PANEL REPORT 43
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.67 It is important to distinguish between `green wedges’ and `strategic gaps’. Green wedges are open areas extending from the open countryside towards the centre of the conurbation, and into the towns of Hartlepool and Darlington. They generally lie within the built-up area where they provide valuable open amenity space and maintain the identity of separate communities. Policy ENV14 of the adopted Tees Valley Structure Plan identifies nineteen green wedges, the boundaries of which are to be defined in local plans through the LDF process. In contrast, strategic gaps are more substantial in scale, lie outside of the limit of development, and are intended to prevent the conurbation coalescing with neighbouring towns and villages, and to maintain the separation of free standing towns and villages. Policy ENV15 of the adopted Structure Plan identifies fourteen strategic gaps, the boundaries of which are likewise to be clarified through the LDF process.
4.68 The Panel are satisfied that `green wedge’ and `strategic gap’ policies have for many years been effective in influencing settlement patterns and resisting inappropriate development in open and rural areas throughout the Tees Valley city region. We have no doubt that this policy control should be maintained.
4.69 We note that paragraph 2.167 of the Submission Draft makes reference to the fact that strategic gaps perform a similar function to Green Belts. However, recognition of this function is not carried forward into policy. Furthermore, it appears that no mention is made in either policy or text of green wedges, other than the all embracing reference to `green infrastructure’.
4.70 In our view the scale and character of green wedges is such that it would be inappropriate for them to be identified in the RSS, and possibly graphically impossible for them to be shown on either the Environment or City Region Map. While we are satisfied that it continues to be appropriate for the boundaries of green wedges to be defined in detail through the LDF process, we are of the view that their contribution to green infrastructure should be recognised in policy. We deal with this in more detail below. In contrast the Panel are firmly of the view that the scale and strategic importance of strategic gaps is such that it is entirely appropriate for them to be specifically identified in the RSS, with precise boundary definition forming part of the LDF process. We likewise deal with this in more detail below.
Recommendation 4.7
Modify policies and supporting text to include reference to green wedges and strategic gaps, as set out in the following sections of our Report and Appendix C.
Green Belt or Strategic Gaps 4.71 We questioned whether Green Belt policy would be more effective than strategic gap policy, and what role it could play. The CPRE were of the view that the designation of a Tees Valley Green Belt would provide strategic strength to city region policies, not only by preventing urban coalescence and sprawl but also by driving regeneration within the conurbation. A Green Belt would serve to resist peripheral development on or beyond the existing edge of the urban area, and would thereby focus new
PANEL REPORT 44
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
development within the heart of the conurbation. The Tyne and Wear Green Belt demonstrates how the application of Green Belt policies has helped to stimulate inner- city regeneration.
4.72 In contrast the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit were strongly opposed to the concept of a city region Green Belt, and drew attention to para. 2.14 of PPG2, Green Belts, which requires local planning authorities proposing to establish a new Green Belt to demonstrate why normal planning and development control policies would not be adequate, and whether any major changes in circumstances had made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary. Tees Valley local authorities contend that existing strategic gap and other relevant policies have been effective in restraining development in the countryside, have contributed to a compact form of urban development, and have maintained a sustainable form of development by concentrating development on the edge of the conurbation and main towns. Furthermore, there have been no major changes in planning circumstances to justify the establishment of a Green Belt. A Green Belt would also require the support of both North Yorkshire CC and the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly, as it would almost certainly have to cross the regional and county boundary south of the conurbation. If too narrow, it would also be likely to generate pressure in Northallerton and possibly beyond by reason of development attempting to `leap-frog’ the Belt.
4.73 Durham and North Yorkshire CCs, English Heritage and Tees Valley Living likewise opposed the concept of a Tees Valley Green Belt. All expressed support for the retention of existing strategic gap policies which had proven to be effective and sufficiently flexible to permit appropriate development that would otherwise have been constrained by more draconian Green Belt policies. TVL also disputed the suggestion that the Tyne and Wear Green Belt had facilitated regeneration; it being suggested that it had so constrained the Tyne and Wear conurbation that as a result housing development for upper and middle income families that should by right have taken place on the edge of the urban area had `leap-frogged’ the Green Belt to Hexham, Corbridge, Alnwick and Morpeth and thereby put pressures on rural areas that would not otherwise arise. In contrast, policies in Tees Valley have been sufficiently flexible to allow constrained peripheral development and thereby keep life and vitality in and around the conurbation, rather than driving it to North Yorkshire or elsewhere.
4.74 The Panel have considered the relative merits of strategic gap and Green Belt designations, and are satisfied that strategic gap policies have proven themselves to be adequate to meet the five purposes outlined in PPG21 for including land in a Green Belt. Furthermore, we are satisfied that there has been no major change in planning circumstances in the Tees Valley city region sufficient to justify or otherwise make the adoption of this exceptional policy measure necessary. Hence we have formed the
1 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. 2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging one with the another. 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. 5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
PANEL REPORT 45
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
view that any proposal to designate a Tees Valley Green Belt would fail to meet the strict requirements of PPG2, and that accordingly control over urban sprawl and coalescence should continue to be exercised by strategic gap policies.
4.75 Notwithstanding the above, the Panel are concerned that the strategic gaps identified in the adopted Tees Valley Structure Plan may be somewhat selective and, as outlined above, have concluded that strategic gaps should be recognised in RSS policy. We have also concluded that additional supporting text should be included to clarify the role of strategic gaps, with particular emphasis on their purpose in restraining development. In response to discussions on the need for a policy statement the Tees Valley Joint Strategy unit put forward a suggested addition to Policy 10. We note that this goes further than the Tees Valley Structure Plan in that it identifies strategic gaps around Darlington. However, on the basis of our Panel tours and the evidence of proposals throughout city region area, we are of the opinion that there is a need for further strategic gaps to be identified between Eaglescliffe and Middleton St George and between Middleton St George and Darlington. We thus recommend that the RSS should include a strategic gap policy to prevent urban coalescence and sprawl and to contribute to urban regeneration. We have earlier recommended that Policy 10 be deleted, and that relevant policies be consolidated in a single suite of policies for each city region. Hence we recommend that the policy wording suggested by the Joint Strategy Unit, modified as suggested, be adopted as part of a reconstructed Policy 7. We also recommend that strategic gaps should be identified on the Tees Valley city region diagram, and that for ease of interpretation this be by means of geographic areas rather than symbols.
Recommendation 4.8 a) Modify Policy 7, Tees Valley City Region, to include an additional section titled `Strategic Gaps and the Environment’. This to include a policy concerning the identification and function of strategic gaps, including additional strategic gaps, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Modify the City Region diagram to show the geographic extend of strategic gaps.
An Environmental Strategy for the City Region 4.76 Finally, with regard to the Tees Valley conurbation, we considered whether strategic elements of `green infrastructure’ might be included in a positive environmental strategy for the city region. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit and Natural England spoke strongly in support of the recognition in RSS of a strategic network of `green infrastructure’, similar to that advocated for Tyne and Wear and comprising, in the main, a network of green corridors linking existing and proposed greenspace within and through urban areas to the countryside and coast. The many social and environmental benefits that would accrue from this network, ranging from helping to resist climate change by off-setting carbon emissions, wildlife conservation, social recreation, and flood prevention and control were once again recognised by all. Concern was, however, expressed that it would be necessary to ensure that a proper
PANEL REPORT 46
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
balance was struck between those elements of green infrastructure that are of sufficient strategic importance to justify recognition in the RSS, and those of less strategic significance, but still of local importance, that need to be identified through the LDF process.
4.77 Following on from our consideration of similar proposals for the Tyne and Wear City Region, the Panel are still of the view that the provision of a strategic network of green infrastructure would produce many and varied social and environmental benefits and as such is worthy of policy support. Policy 10 in the Submission Draft includes mention of green infrastructure. However, the Panel have above recommended that Green Belt policy be included within a comprehensive suite of city region policies, and are thus likewise of the view that policy for green infrastructure should be included in the comprehensive Tees Valley city region suite of policies. Additional supporting text should also be included to distinguish between strategic and non-strategic green infrastructure and its purpose.
4.78 The Panel have again had particular regard to the submissions by Natural England concerning this issue, including that dated 3 April 2006 in response to our request for further information. These submissions include policy changes and additional supporting text, suggested additions to Environment Map 2, and a suggested green infrastructure definition for inclusion in the RSS Glossary of Terms, all of which are reflected in our recommended modifications below. The Panel are satisfied that the features identified by Natural England are of a strategic nature, and may thus reasonably be identified in the RSS. They should therefore, where appropriate, also be identified on the Tees Valley city region diagram. However, the Panel recognise that, given the varied, occasional small scale and somewhat intricate nature of local green infrastructure proposals, it will not be possible to include a detailed indication of non-strategic networks on the city region diagram. Details of the component parts and linkages that together comprise non-strategic networks should be included in relevant LDDs.
Recommendation 4.9 a) Include a policy concerning green infrastructure in the Strategic Gaps and Environment section of Policy 7, Tees Valley City Region, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Modify supporting text to include a broad environmental strategy statement, clarifying the role of strategic gaps, and their relationship with green wedges and green infrastructure. c) Include additional supporting text to distinguish between strategic and non- strategic green infrastructure and its purpose. d) Modify the Tees Valley City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 to show:
i) Strategic wildlife corridors in Tees Valley, as identified in the adopted Tees Valley Structure Plan.
PANEL REPORT 47
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
Rural Areas
4.79 The Panel are aware of the economic and environmental significance of the Region’s rural areas, and for them to be accorded equal status in terms of policy promotion and protection as the conurbations. We considered various issues of particular significance to the rural areas, including the scale of development required to maintain rural vitality; the social and economic impact arising from the purchase of rural dwellings as second or holiday homes; and the importance of rural tourism and culture, including major leisure developments.
The use of the word `main’ in Policies 8 and 56 4.80 We initially considered whether the inclusion of the word `main’ in Policy 8 a) and 56 a) implied an additional tier of rural service centres. The Regional Assembly confirmed that this was a typographical error, and that `main rural service centres’ and `rural service centre’ are one and the same thing. Given that the Submitted Draft refers to `secondary settlements’ below rural service centres in the settlement hierarchy, the word `main’ is superfluous.
Recommendation 4.10
Delete the word `main’ from Policies 8 a) and 56 a).
The scale of development required 4.81 Policy 8 b) requires LDFs to identify a settlement hierarchy in rural areas, and to identify the appropriate scale of development that is sufficient to sustain settlements and a vibrant rural economy. However, there was a consensus view amongst participants that because of the wide diversity of rural settlements in terms of scale, character and need, and the complexities of the rural economy, it was not possible to suggest a range of criteria that could be used to identify the scale of development required. Rather this was a matter for local judgment as different amounts and types of development would be required for different settlements. It was generally agreed that, on balance, the criteria contained in Policy 24, Delivering Sustainable Communities, provided the level of guidance required by local planning authorities to enable them to develop their LDF development strategies, particularly with regards to the distribution of housing allocations.
4.82 It was noted that the range of problems associated with maintaining sustainable rural communities cannot be divorced from the prioritization of urban core regeneration which, to be successful, requires constraint throughout the rural areas. However, none of the participants suggested that urban core prioritization should be relaxed; it being recognized that rural sustainability problems were a consequential issue that had to be dealt with.
4.83 It was accepted during discussion, and the Panel concurs, that any formula or range of criteria that sought to determine the amount of development necessary to ensure sustainability of individual or a collection of rural settlements would be likely to
PANEL REPORT 48
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
generate a cumulative requirement significantly in excess of that which could be reconciled with any reasonable assessment of housing need, or district housing allocation. The Panel is thus persuaded that it would be inappropriate to seek to identify criteria to be used to determine the scale of development sufficient to sustain settlements and a vibrant rural economy. Furthermore, we are of the view that Policies 3 and 24 provide adequate guidance for local planning authorities to determine a hierarchy of rural settlements as required by Policy 8 b), and the distribution of housing allocations throughout their area. These are clearly matters for the LDF process.
4.84 During discussion concern was expressed that under the hierarchical approach to rural settlements insufficient priority may be given to the development of emerging brownfield sites in small settlements, possibly resulting in the allocation of greenfield land at the main rural service centres despite the availability of PDL. Policy 3 has been modified to overcome this problem.
Second Homes 4.85 The Panel reviewed available evidence concerning the scale of second home provision across the Region and its impact on the rural economy. We received evidence of problems generated by the increasing number of dwellings being purchased in the more remote rural areas of the Region as second / holiday homes. These problems are particularly acute in the Berwick-upon-Tweed and Alnwick areas, and parts of Tynedale. However, similar problems are emerging in other parts of the Region, including the conurbations where flats are being purchased as `crash pads’ for commuters.
4.86 Evidence indicates that in those areas where there is a demand for second homes and a constrained supply of new dwellings there is a decline in affordability and new entrants to the housing market are displaced to lower priced areas. As a result, local employers face difficulties in recruiting staff, rents in the private sector increase, there is an increase in demand for social housing and an increase in reverse commuting. In time communities become unbalanced as younger residents and those in lower income groups move away and the age profile moves upwards. Of particular concern is that traditional rural employers such as small manufacturing businesses may be particularly affected, and it becomes difficult to recruit relatively low paid staff for the tourism industry which in many parts of the Region is a key element of the rural economy.
4.87 It is also recognized that the scale of the problem is increasing. Second homes presently qualify for a reduction in Council Tax, and records indicate that, for example, within Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough 9.43% of the housing stock are second / holiday homes, with a predicted annual increase of over 10%. Likewise, it is estimated that in Alnwick District some 60 dwellings per year are being ‘lost’ from the housing stock to second homes. This is a significant proportion of the District’s annual housing allocation.
PANEL REPORT 49
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
4.88 The Panel fully appreciates the affordability and other consequential problems caused by the purchase of second homes in rural areas. It is evident that these problems are most severe along the coastal settlements in Northumberland, particularly in the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, but similar problems can be found in a number of rural areas across the Region. We are in no doubt that the loss of housing stock to second homes can result in a severe shortage of affordable homes of the type needed by the working population of the areas concerned, and that this shortage has a detrimental effect on the viability of the rural economy and social structure of rural communities. There is no reason to believe that the rate of increase in the number of second homes will diminish, and thus it appears inevitable that these problems will worsen.
4.89 We note that the recently adopted Northumberland Structure Plan includes provision for an allowance to be made above total housing allocations to compensate for the loss of dwellings to second homes, if a need can be demonstrated in this respect. We are aware, of course, that there is no planning control over the use of a dwelling as a second home, and indeed there is some question as to the definition of a `second home’. Against this background, adjusting housing allocations to compensate in retrospect for a reduction in available low cost housing is to use a very blunt planning tool. And we are not persuaded that it offers a long-term solution. It is evident that the need is for accommodation that local people can afford to buy, and that the second home market tends to focus on the existing housing stock with purchasers, in the main, looking to buy small cottage type properties in attractive locations. Nonetheless, we fear that a raw increase in the total number of new low cost dwellings in a rural settlement or area where the second homes problem is most acute would simply feed the demand and result in the loss of even more properties to the second home market. We are also concerned that in those areas that are most attractive to second home buyers there may be environmental limits to further housing development. Likewise, we noted that the provision of affordable housing by means of Registered Social Landlords was unlikely to fully address the problem because of financial restrictions on that type of provision.
4.90 The Panel is aware that the social, economic and environmental problems generated by the second homes issue are not unique to Northumberland or the North East, and that to date no entirely satisfactory workable solution has been found. If a solution is to be found - and we are not entirely persuaded that it is possible to find a solution that would be acceptable to all - it probably lies somewhere in a combination of legal and planning controls reinforced with tax disincentives. All of which is clearly well beyond our remit, and well beyond the RSS’s control. We note, however, that the Submission Draft does not include in its district housing allocations an allowance for second homes, and are satisfied that at the strategic level this is the correct approach. In our view it would be more appropriate for Borough and District Councils to argue their housing needs through the LDF process, and to adopt an innovative approach to the release of `exception sites’ in rural areas. Draft PPS3 requires local planning authorities that have small rural communities to include a rural exception site policy in relevant development plan documents, enabling them to release small sites within and adjoining small rural communities which are subject to polices of restraint and would not otherwise be released for market housing. Draft PPS3 confirms that
PANEL REPORT 50
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
development plan documents should set out the criteria against which `exception sites’ will be considered, and that these sites should only be released for affordable housing in perpetuity. In applying their exceptions policy, local planning authorities are advised that they should have regard to the need to meet the needs of the rural economy, and in particular the need of households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection in order that rural communities remain sustainable, mixed, inclusive and cohesive. The Panel endorses this approach which, they believe, provides the most effective way of exercising some sort of sensitive control over the provision of affordable housing in rural areas, and of overcoming problems arising from use of available housing stock as second homes. As this solution lies within the LDF process, no modification to RSS policy is required. However, we recommend that additional supporting text be included supporting our suggested way forward.
Recommendation 4.11
Include additional supporting text supporting the innovative use of `exception sites’ as a sensitive approach to the problems associated with the increase in second homes in the more remote rural settlements.
Tourism and Culture 4.91 We considered whether there is a need for a Tourism and Culture section in Policy 8. Several participants drew our attention to inconsistencies in the contents of Policies 6, 7 and 8, including the absence of a section concerning Tourism and Culture in Policy 8. We note that each of the policies contains sections on Regeneration, Economic Prosperity, and Sustainable Communities. However, Policy 6 includes an additional section on Tourism and Culture and Policy 7 an additional section on Environment. Taken at face value, this could lead to the strange conclusion that the environment is only important in the Tees Valley, that tourism and culture is only important in Tyne and Wear, and that neither is important in the rural areas. Fortunately we are not so easily led.
4.92 The Panel recognize the many differences – from marked to subtle - between the two city regions and the rural areas, together with the fact that many issues are common throughout the Region. We have earlier recommended that the city region Policies 6 and 7 be reconstructed to better accommodate other proposed modifications, and recommend that a similar approach be taken to the format of Policy 8, as illustrated in Appendix C.
4.93 It is evident that Policies 6 x) and 6 y) duplicate Policy 9 j), and should therefore be deleted. And in our view, Policy 6 z) would be better incorporated within the Economic Prosperity section of that policy. These recommended modifications effectively remove the Tourism and Culture section from Policy 6.
4.94 We are, of course, fully aware of the importance of tourism to the rural economy. However, the importance of culture and tourism extends throughout the Region and embraces an extensive range of activities and destinations. To attempt to divide these
PANEL REPORT 51
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
between the city regions and rural areas would in our view be counter productive and result in needless duplication. In our opinion, culture and tourism issues are best dealt with by means of overarching regional Policy 16, with more local issues, where relevant, being dealt with by means of the LDF process.
4.95 We have sought, where possible, to achieve consistency in terms of issues between Policies 6, 7 and 8. As shown in Appendix C, the sole remaining significant discrepancy is the omission of an Environment section from Policy 8. However, the environment sections in Policies 6 and 7 are concerned with Green Belt and Strategic Gap issues which are specific to the city regions concerned, and to the provision of green infrastructure through urban and suburban areas. None of these policy issues are of relevance to the rural areas, and thus it is inevitable that there is no Environment section in Policy 8. We are satisfied that the wide range of environment issues arising in the rural areas can be satisfactorily dealt with by overarching regional Policies 33, 34, 35, 38 and other subject specific policies.
Recommendation 4.12
Modify Policy 6 by the deletion of parts x) and y), and part z) be incorporated in the Economic Prosperity section, as illustrated in Appendix C.
Rural Leisure Developments 4.96 The Panel note that Policy 27 proposes an absolute restriction on new out-of-centre retail and leisure developments of regional or sub-regional significance. We appreciate that Policy 27 reflects PPS6 advice which confirms that it is unlikely that a new out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centre will meet the Government’s key objective concerning sustainable development. We also appreciate that the range of uses to which PPS6 applies includes leisure, entertainment, arts, culture and tourism. However, we are concerned that Policy 27 may unnecessarily restrict the development or beneficial exploitation of specific activities that by virtue of their history, eg Alnwick Gardens, or character, eg water sports lakes and theme parks, require a rural location, and which could (and do) make a valuable contribution to the rural economy.
4.97 Paragraph 3.54 recognises that this form of leisure activity may require land to be made available outside city, town and rural centres. And in our view the differences between regional / sub-regional out-of-centre retail developments, where the emphasis is on retailing, and free-standing regional / sub-regional leisure developments, are so great as to justify them being the subject of separate policy considerations.
4.98 Paragraph 3.54 also confirms that leisure activities of this type will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach and locational strategy, and suggests that this is undertaken as part of the LDF process. In our view, given that the emergence of this form of development is somewhat unpredictable, this approach should be accorded over-arching policy status in the RSS. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that consideration must also be given to the manner in which development proposals assist rural regeneration and local communities. This will enable the
PANEL REPORT 52
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 FOR THE NORTH EAST CITY REGIONS AND THE RURAL AREAS
objectives of modified Policy 27 to be carried forward in the LDF process where existing developments or current proposals require more detailed policy provision, whilst providing a firm policy framework for any regional or sub-regional leisure developments that may emerge during the Plan period.
Recommendation 4.13
Modify Policy 27 as shown in Chapter 6 (recommendation 6.3) to read. a) No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new urban and suburban out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub- regional significance. b) Proposed regional and sub-regional rural leisure developments will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach (Policy 3) and locational strategy (Policy 5) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and having regard to the manner in which they assist rural regeneration and local communities.
PANEL REPORT 53
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT 54
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Chapter 5: Economy
Matter 4; 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5
Introduction
5.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s economy section. During the EiP process we sought to examine whether the Draft contains sufficient clear and explicit guidance on the major economic development and regeneration priorities. We also considered questions relating to the overall provision of employment land, land allocations at airports, brownfield mixed use developments and the Prestige and Reserve employment sites.
Background
5.2 The economic restructuring of the 1970’s and 80’s resulted in the decline of industry and manufacturing sectors towards a service based economy. This hit the region hard and the loss of key industries such as ship building, mining and the decline of manufacturing have had a profound effect on the social and physical fabric of the Region.
5.3 While other regions, particularly in the North, have also suffered a similar fate, the rate of economic recovery experienced by other Northern regions has generally been better than the North East. However, recently the North East has shown signs of a more sustained and increased rate of economic growth, which has narrowed the gap between the North East and other English regions. While the level of unemployment has fallen, the quality of jobs created in the recovery is at the lower end, typically in call centres and other low paid work and a significant wealth gap between the Region and particularly the South East Region persists. Therefore the challenge for the future of the North East is not only to create jobs, but to attract the right calibre of jobs so that the Region is able to retain and attract high earners and entrepreneurs.
5.4 One Northeast is one of the driving forces behind the regeneration of the North East economy and provides financial support and expertise to enable the development and regeneration of employment land and premises.
The Northern Way
5.5 The wealth and opportunity gap between the North and the South has resulted in a concerted effort to build on the strengths of the northern regions in a more co- ordinated way through the Northern Way.
5.6 The Northern Way has arguably changed the way in which we look at the regeneration of the North’s economy. In particular it has responded to the emphasis placed on spatial planning under the new planning system by identifying city regions, as already discussed in Chapter 4. The identification of the two city regions is intended to allow
PANEL REPORT 55
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
a more holistic approach to be adopted towards meeting the economic needs of the Region, particularly the conurbations. To a certain degree it should also provide an opportunity to plan the city regions in a more consistent manner without arbitrary political barriers to cloud the regional economy. But this can only be achieved where there is the political will to acknowledge the economic realities that are evident within the city regions, and the desire to shape the future growth of the Region’s economy in a sustainable way.
Regional Economic Strategy (RES)
5.7 The consultation draft RES was published in April 2006 and seeks to set down the economic context within which the RSS and other regional strategies and agencies will operate. The RES and RSS share a common evidence base which has been developed through the Shaping Horizons in the North East (SHINE) process. This process contributed towards identifying an aim of raising the Region’s GVA to 90% of UK GVA by 2016.
5.8 Three economic scenarios were identified; Gold, Silver and Bronze, with the Gold scenario being the most optimistic, equating to a GVA growth rate which exceeds all but the best performing regions of the UK and EU states at an annual average growth rate of 4.9% to 2016. The Silver scenario of attaining an annual average growth rate of 3.4% was chosen by the Assembly as an aspirational target which was more achievable. While there was a degree of scepticism by some participants at the EiP that the Silver scenario was achievable, the consensus supported a more positive approach which would build on the improvement in the Region’s economic performance that has been experienced in recent years. As discussed in Chapter 2 the Panel agree that the ambition for a higher level of growth will act as a driver to stretch expectations and aspirations in the Region and in so doing provide an impetus to improve the social and physical fabric of the Region’s cities, towns and rural areas.
5.9 The RSS can clearly make a significant contribution to meeting the aspirations of the RES by ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of employment land, and this is identified in paragraph 1.4 of NEA Technical Paper 2 (Delivering Economic Prosperity and Growth). The reliable supply of good sites in the right locations is critical in shaping the economic landscape of the Region over the RSS plan period. Finding the right balance between the demands of business, the need to improve the attractiveness of the Region and the need to promote sustainable growth, is the key to success.
5.10 In the light of a recommendation in the RPG1 Panel Report the Regional Assembly commissioned a review of available employment land and land take-up. This was undertaken by King Sturge and published in 2003. The review confirmed an oversupply of employment land in the Region. It also found that there were a number of areas of mismatch, including potential gaps in the market where the land and premises available fall short of future demand requirements. In particular there is a recognised shortage of high quality office (B1(a)) accommodation in the Region.
PANEL REPORT 56
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
5.11 In short it is clear that a more sophisticated, spatially aware allocation of employment land across the Region is now required. Perhaps the adage “less is more” is appropriate in this context. The Panel were sympathetic to this view.
Issues
5.12 In our view the five groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & Employment Provision • In dealing with economic development issues does the Submission Draft: o contain sufficiently clear and explicit guidance on the major economic development and regeneration priorities; o set out clearly enough how the transport, housing and infrastructure proposals integrate with and support the economic needs of the Region; and o demonstrate that the approach will deliver sustainable development?
Provision of Employment Land • Is the employment land portfolio fit for the purpose to meet the economic aspirations of the Region? • Is there an oversupply of employment land in the Region and does this matter? • Are the de-allocation proposals adequate?
Land Allocations at the Airports • In dealing with the land requirements of the airports does the Submission Draft: o set out an adequate definition of airport related development; o provide an adequate justification for non-airport related development; and o satisfactorily set the proposals in the context of the general availability of employment land within convenient travel time from the airports?
Brownfield Mixed - Use Developments • In considering the role of the Regional Brownfield Mixed-use Developments: o are the office floorspace (B1) ambitions consistent with the viability of the city and town centres; o can any of these developments be regarded as town centre locations; and o are these the only candidates?
Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites • To what extent is the designation of the sites consistent with the Sequential Approach? • Will the uses being considered for the sites conflict with the prospects of the City and Town Centres and the Regional Brownfield Mixed-use Developments within the two city regions? • Is there a meaningful difference between the Prestige and Reserve categories and are these the only candidates? • Does the release mechanism for sites under Policy 20 provide a realistic basis for speedy response to inward and mobile investors’ needs?
PANEL REPORT 57
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
• How important is the potential for rail servicing in identifying priority locations for inward and mobile investment?
Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & Employment Provision
5.13 Some participants argued that the Submission Draft should give more prominence to the city regions in terms of development. It was established during the discussions that this could not relate to geographic prominence as the majority of the Region falls within the two city regions.
5.14 At the EiP many participants explained how the NE economy was in transition to a knowledge/service based economy, centred on the two city regions where the greatest concentration of economic activity is focussed. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the analysis of the economy has centred on the four sub-regions (Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, County Durham and Tees Valley) and that this has tended to obscure the role of the city regions in terms of economic development. Another participant argued that while it was important to acknowledge the reality of the city regions, the Submission Draft should have set out more clearly the contributions that different parts of the city regions were expected to make to the overall development programme.
5.15 We acknowledge, as some participants did, that the city region concept was imposed upon the RSS at a rather late stage. The NEA explained that the publication of the draft RSS was delayed so as to take on board the city region concept advocated in the Northern Way. We concede that the city region concept is evolving and the RSS will have to take on board changes to the spatial framework of the Region as the concept develops and becomes more sophisticated.
5.16 The Panel accept that having to accommodate new policy guidance at a late stage in plan preparation is an occupational hazard and that there comes a point when a wholesale recasting of the evidence base and strategy is not desirable in the interests of expediency. As such we do not think that it is practical to recommend such a major recasting for the Submission Draft.
5.17 It is apparent to us that there has been some confusion generated by the inter- changeability of terminology between “city regions” and the “core agglomerations”. Notwithstanding this Section 2, which sets out the RSS locational strategy, including the city regions, describes the economic traits of each city region and their major developments and priorities. In particular, paragraphs 2.50 to 2.55 and Policy 6, criteria e) to j) consider the land and type of premises that will be required to cater for the demand arising from the Tyne and Wear city region economy as a result of the economic strategy. Paragraphs 2.93 to 2.100 and Policy 7, criteria d) to l) perform this function for the Tees Valley.
5.18 We are of the opinion that the future development of the RSS should be based on an analysis at city region level and that more consideration should be given to the particular contributions expected from particular parts of the city regions.
PANEL REPORT 58
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Recommendation 5.1
The next RSS review should adopt a City Region approach to the analysis and allocation of employment land.
5.19 We were advised that future economic development is likely to be based on the knowledge economy; feature small and medium sized businesses and would tend to focus on the cores of the city regions. It was put to us that this scenario did not fit easily with policies that advocated the focussing of development at Prestige Employment Sites, which are largely on greenfield sites at the edge of the conurbations. Many participants felt that the role allocated to such sites in terms of employment uses of regional and sub-regional significance did not fit easily with the overall locational strategy and the development principles. On the other hand, some participants stated that the Region needed to respond more quickly to the demands of business and that this could be achieved through the flexibility that is provided by maintaining a wide ranging portfolio of employment sites to meet a range of needs. Any potential oversupply of employment land in the Region must be viewed in this context.
5.20 The extent of oversupply in the Region as a whole is such that we do not envisage that the de-allocation of some of the less sustainable and/or viable sites should present any problems to the overall offer. It was put to us by a number of participants that the North East needed to provide a counter-weight to the peripherality of the Region by gaining a competitive advantage in other areas. The inference was that a more relaxed approach towards the locational strategy of employment land allocations should be considered. In general terms the Panel were strongly opposed to this view and consider that the relatively low cost of labour and the existing availability of land, allocated and with planning permission, means that the Region already has significant incentives which make it an attractive location for businesses across all sectors. The Panel considered that abandoning sustainability principles in a rush to attract investment would result in the Region undermining the engines of economic recovery, namely the core cities and urban areas. It would also generate more problems than it would solve by degrading the environment and creating obstacles to movement as a result of increased congestion.
5.21 It was suggested that Policy 12 should include a reference to the future of the unique petro-chemical complex in Tees Valley. Our attention was drawn to a number of policy references dealing with specific employment sectors throughout the Submission Draft. We are of the opinion that Policy 12 has been drafted for a particular purpose and deals with the spatial aspects of economic development. We do not think that it would be appropriate to insert a reference to a particular industrial complex, however important that complex is to the Tees Valley city region.
5.22 It was suggested that Urban Regeneration Company (URC) sites should be prioritised over other brownfield developments. Our attention was drawn to valuable regeneration sites which were being developed outside the URC mechanisms. We are aware that all of the urban sites will face competition for office development from a
PANEL REPORT 59
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
wide range of employment sites across the Region. We have been advised that the URC sites represent the best current opportunities. It is our opinion that the URC sites should be able to compete with other brownfield opportunities and hence we do not recommend any modification to the Submission Draft.
Provision of Employment Land
5.23 In our view it would have been better if the analysis of employment land requirements had been done on a city region basis. As noted above, we do not consider that it is practical to recast the Submission Draft at this stage but we recommend that a city region approach should be adopted at the next RSS Review.
5.24 In terms of demand for employment land we established that past trends are unlikely to be a guide for future provision, particularly in relation to inward investment. We were advised that inward investment is more likely to seek small scale sites and that such investment will tend to gravitate to the cores of the city region. In our view this scenario supports the emphasis on urban regeneration opportunities, but questions the role of the large edge-of-town Prestige Employment Sites. The 2004 Annual Monitoring Report has already anticipated this problem by suggesting that there may be a need to sub-divide these sites. We are of the opinion that there is a need for greater clarity on the role of Prestige sites, which will be discussed later, but recognise that development may be required on such sites.
5.25 When dealing with the subject of employment land supply, we sensed a degree of uncertainty over the validity of Submission Draft information. In this context we note in paragraph 3.29 that the Assembly and One Northeast intend to lead on the development of a comprehensive Regional Employment Land Assessment. We support this initiative and believe that further work is necessary for the next Review of the RSS.
5.26 Our attention was drawn to the scale of the employment land supply in Tees Valley. We note however that a large component of the land is restricted land associated with the chemical, steel and port activities. We accept that the de-allocation of this type of land would not produce beneficial outcomes in terms of land restoration or transfer to other uses. No information was provided on how the de-allocation decisions were arrived at, but we were left with the impression that a degree of negotiation was involved.
5.27 We are of the opinion that the scale of de-allocation proposed in the Submission Draft does not reflect the fact that, apart from the Tyne and Wear area, the available employment land can provide a supply for many years beyond the Plan period. This is particularly true of the Northumberland sub-region where the land supply is stated in Technical Background Paper 2 to be equivalent to 84 years supply at past rates of take up. We appreciate that Policy 18 refers to making provision up to the levels set in that policy and seeks continuing sub-regional and local employment land assessments. We recommend that this should be strengthened by the requirement to test the supply against a reasonable level of provision e.g. a 25 year supply, to allow a level of choice. We consider that this process is unlikely to provide a consistent
PANEL REPORT 60
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
output. However we consider that it will provide a much needed yard stick for districts to measure their land supply/take up against.
5.28 We got the impression from the discussions and evidence submitted that improvements in the quality of the employment land supply tended to be sought through the identification of more greenfield land. Our Panel Tour allowed us to observe locations such as the industrial estate at Newton Aycliffe where there was evidence of derelict property. We also heard about the need for the regeneration of employment land at Peterlee. We are of the opinion that upgrade options should be considered in advance of greenfield options. We thus recommend that Policy 18 should be modified to include a requirement to give consideration to the possibility of achieving the employment land allocation through the regeneration of existing sites.
5.29 Considerable confusion arose at the EiP over the statement in paragraph 3.28 of the Submission Draft concerning the potential contribution of sites in Northumberland and Durham to meeting the employment shortfall in the Tyne and Wear sub-region. We endeavoured to establish the extent to which consideration had been given to the potential employment space that might be generated by the intensification proposals around transport hubs. Although it proved impossible to clarify this point, the Tyne and Wear representative assured us that there were further brownfield opportunities within the conurbation, which would provide a more sustainable option than reliance on more remote sites. On one of the Panel Tours we were taken to Sunderland Port, which was described to us as the largest brownfield site in England. With large brownfield sites such as this situated at the heart of the urban core it would seem perverse to retain or allocate further greenfield sites in more peripheral locations around Tyne and Wear for longer term growth.
5.30 Given that we have been advised that employment growth will gravitate to the urban cores, we consider that the Tyne and Wear approach is more sustainable. We recommend that Policy 18 should be modified to ensure that sites in the both of the adjoining counties are not retained against this component of need. We also recommend that the modification to Policy 18 should include a requirement for the Tyne and Wear authorities to seek to meet the shortfall of employment land through intensification proposals around transport hubs and on brownfied sites.
5.31 Overall, subject to our recommendations, we are satisfied that the RSS land provision strategy can accommodate the broad thrust of the RES.
Recommendation 5.2
Modify Policy 18 so that the paragraph and criteria read:
“In determining the land portfolio in accordance with the provision set out above, planning authorities should undertake sub-regional and local employment land assessments based on a 25 year level of supply and take up, taking into account:
PANEL REPORT 61
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
a) the need to protect employment land and premises from redevelopment to alternative uses where they are an essential part of the long-term employment land and premises portfolio;
b) the potential of existing employment allocations no longer required for employment purposes for reallocation to alternative uses or de-allocation;
c) a presumption in favour of regenerating and upgrading existing employment land and premises in advance of allocating new sites on greenfield land;
d) the need to ensure that peripheral sites in the counties around the Tyne and Wear conurbation are de allocated, commensurate with the supply of sites within the urban core; and
e) the need for the Tyne and Wear authorities to seek to meet any shortfall of employment land supply through the intensification of sites around transport hubs and on previously developed land.”
Land Allocations at the Airports
5.32 We deal with the relationship between the Submission Draft and the Air Transport White Paper in Chapter 9, Transport Strategy. In this section we confine our consideration to the economic aspects of the airport development policies in the Submission Draft.
5.33 Some participants suggested that the emphasis on airports as key economic drivers is inconsistent with the need to mitigate the causes of greenhouse gases. It was also pointed out that air transport was an industry that could be particularly affected by likely increases in the price of oil. We note that Securing the Future does highlight the serious threat that continued growth in the aviation sector would represent in terms of climate change impact. Securing the Future refers to a statement in the Future of Air Transport White Paper (2003) concerning the Government’s commitment to press for an international emissions trading regime. However Securing the Future does not take the opportunity to question the main findings of the White Paper, and so we must conclude that the Government is not yet minded to directly curtail the airport expansion framework set out in the White Paper. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to assume from Securing the Future that continued action will have to be taken to reduce emissions and that as a result, over the period of the Plan, the aviation industry will have to bear additional costs.
5.34 There is also an acceptance that increasing global demand will cause increases in the price of oil, which will have to be passed on to airline customers. The representative of Newcastle International Airport acknowledged that in this context high speed rail links may replace, in part, some domestic air services. On that basis it is likely that current growth expectations may have to be modified. We accept the case for business connectivity and recognise that there may be regional advantages in accommodating a
PANEL REPORT 62
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
higher proportion of locally generated trips. We are of the opinion, however, that the Submission Draft emphasis on airports as key economic drivers should be tempered somewhat. We recommend that the text at paragraph 3.33 should be expanded to reflect the uncertainty over the future role of aviation and the growth forecasts.
5.35 Paragraph 3.33 includes a list of appropriate airport related development. Newcastle International Airport proposed some additions to the list and our attention was drawn to the list of airport related uses in PPG13. We have examined the various lists and consider that there is scope to re-organise the lists in broad categories of related uses. We note that the lists all include a range of uses that fall into the broad category of operational infrastructure, such as runways, taxiways, airport apron, control tower and fire station. Other uses could be grouped under the general heading of ‘terminal facilities’. In order to achieve greater clarity and understanding we are of the opinion that the list should be modified as set out below, and recommend that it replace the list in paragraph 3.33. We also recommend that Policy 21 should include a direct reference to the list. Airport Related Development
Development Category Specific uses Operational Infrastructure Runways Taxiways Aircraft Apron Control Tower Fire Station Internal Highways Service Vehicle Maintenance etc Aviation Fuel Farm Vehicle fuel storage Terminal facilities Airline Sales, Reservations and Booking Passenger Facilities, including Catering Passenger Retail Facilities Public Transport Facilities Car Facilities Car Hire Public Car Parking Staff Parking Petrol Filling Station Maintenance Facilities Aircraft Maintenance Avionics Maintenance and Supply Offices Ancillary Uses Supporting Functions Warehousing/Distribution Freight Forwarding Freight Agents In-flight Catering Facilities Flight Packaging and Provision Facilities Training Centres Airline Training Centres Related Training Centres Hotel Accommodation Conference Ancillary Activities 5.36 Some participants suggested that the hotel grouping, retailing, the petrol filling station and offices are less directly related to the functioning of the airport. We are content that these uses form part of a modern airport and are prepared to leave it to the relevant local planning authority to take a judgement on the appropriate scale.
PANEL REPORT 63
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
5.37 It was put to us that there are economic activities outside the scope of the definition of related uses which would not locate elsewhere in the Region. In particular it was stated that there was significant demand for small scale office accommodation at Newcastle Airport and that office space at the Airport was fully occupied. Tees Valley Airport explained that the allocation of logistics related development at the Airport would compliment the work of Teesport and strengthen the position of Tees Valley more generally in this highly competitive industry. Other participants claimed that the section dealing with non-airport related uses on allocated undeveloped land is unjustified in the context of the general availability of employment development facilities elsewhere within convenient travel time of the airport. No real evidence of development that might be lost to the Region was brought to the EiP. We do not accept the references to different practices at other European airports as relevant evidence, as the planning circumstances may be totally different in those localities.
5.38 Our attention was drawn to the fact that there is an oversupply of employment land in both Northumberland and Tees Valley. It was also acknowledged by the Assembly that there is a wide portfolio of sites and premises in locations conveniently accessible to both airports. We also heard about the specific availability of land and accommodation at Newcastle Great Park, which is close to Newcastle Airport, and it was pointed out that consideration was being given to a direct link road. In a similar vein Newburn Riverside Business Park is also a short drive to the Airport via good road connections. We were informed that Proctor and Gamble had located a European and African headquarters function in Cobalt Business Park, North Tyneside, because of its proximity to Newcastle Airport. We believe this demonstrates that a much wider range of locations is regarded as convenient to the Airport by international companies.
5.39 In a similar vein Tees Valley Airport emphasised the potential for logistics businesses locating on land allocated near the Airport. The list of airport related uses includes freight handling facilities and warehousing and we feel that this should be adequate to meet any logistics needs arising out of the Airport.
5.40 In our view there is not enough evidence to support the exceptions policy for non- related uses in Policy 21. The criteria in the policy which seek to control proposals for non-airport related uses would be difficult to apply on a consistent basis and are open to abuse. In particular, the definition of what constitutes a “robust business case” as referred to in criterion g) is unclear. Notwithstanding criteria g) to k), in the context of an abundance of employment land in the areas immediately adjoining the airport complexes it would be irresponsible to provide further possibilities for greenfield peripheral employment development. We feel that the allocation of, in effect what would amount to general employment land at the airports, could seriously undermine the realisation of the brownfield mixed use and Prestige Employment Sites. We recommend that Policy 21 be modified by the exclusion of the section dealing with non-airport related uses and the deletion of paragraph 3.34.
PANEL REPORT 64
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Recommendation 5.3
a) Amend paragraph 3.33 by the inclusion of additional text which acknowledges likely environmental constraints and the resulting uncertainty over the future role of aviation and growth forecasts.
b) Replace the list of airport related uses under paragraph 3.33 with the table of Airport Related Development above.
c) Modify Policy 21 by the inclusion of reference to the list of Airport Related Development, and the exclusion of the section dealing with non-airport related uses.
d) Paragraph 3.34 be deleted.
Regional Brownfield Mixed - Use Developments
5.41 In considering the role of the Regional Brownfied Mixed-Use Developments we considered whether the development ambitions are consistent with the viability of the city and town centres, and whether the developments can be regarded as town centre locations. We also examined whether there were any other candidates for this designation.
5.42 Our attention was drawn to other policies and text within the Submission Draft which acknowledge the contribution other mixed-use developments could make to the regeneration of the Region. Examples that were given included Lingfield Point in Darlington, land between the River Tyne and MetroCentre in Gateshead and the Pallion/South Hilton area in Sunderland. We are of the opinion that the Submission Draft should more clearly acknowledge the contribution these areas can make to the achievement of the locational strategy. This could be secured by expanding paragraph 3.11 to cover such areas and to link with elements of Policies 6, 7 and 24. The expanded paragraph should also give a clearer explanation for the selection of the key regeneration projects listed in Policy 13.
5.43 In our view the title of Policy 13 should be changed to a more generic title such as “Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments” to encompass other brownfield sites which could come forward during the Plan period. The wording of the first paragraph in Policy 13 should also be modified to encourage local planning authorities to give favourable consideration to large mixed-use developments on previously developed land whenever opportunities arise in sustainable locations. We are content to leave the list of key regeneration projects in the Policy, but consider that the first paragraph should be redrafted to shift the scope and emphasis of the Policy so that it is not tied solely to the promotion of the sites listed and to enable it to be used to give impetus to bring forward other large mixed-use brownfield opportunities.
PANEL REPORT 65
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
5.44 We also note that Policy 7 a) could be read as excluding the regeneration of other significant locations in Darlington. We were made aware of the considerable potential at Lingfield Point and, while we accept that negotiations are on-going concerning that site, we are of the view that Policy 7 a) should be phrased in more general terms for Darlington. We recommend that Policy 7 be modified as shown in Appendix C, and paragraph 3.11 be modified accordingly.
5.45 It was explained to us that the Major Mixed-use Developments were to be phased in order to minimise the impact on adjoining town centres. It was also put to us that several of the projects could be considered as extensions to the town centres. Other participants pointed out that in order to be consistent with PPS6 criterion d) of Policy 13 should cover the full range of town centre uses. In view of the wide range and scale of development proposed in these projects we recommend that Policy 13 d) be amended by deleting the term “retail” and inserting the words “of town centre uses” after “development”.
5.46 Our attention was drawn to proposals for mixed-use developments at large sites in rural areas, such as Eastgate and Boulmer. We are of the opinion that the circumstances of such sites are so different that it is not possible to draft a policy to deal appropriately with all potential proposals. In our view the broad policy context in the Submission Draft should be able to deal with such proposals.
Recommendation 5.4
a) Modify Policy 7 a) by the deletion of reference to “Central Park Darlington” and replaced with “brownfield opportunities in Darlington”, in accordance with Appendix C.
b) Amend paragraph 3.11 by the inclusion of a sentence which emphasises the consistency between the development of the brownfield mixed-use sites and the locational strategy. In particular, the focus on city regions and the objective of creating sustainable communities as set down in Policy 24.
c) Modify the title of Policy 13 by the deletion of “Regional”.
d) Modify the first paragraph of Policy 13 so that it reads, “Strategies, plans and programmes should support brownfield mixed use developments in sustainable locations throughout the Region and in particular continue to support and promote the following Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments as major mixed-use regeneration projects in the conurbations and main towns:”.
e) Modify Policy 13 by deleting the word “retail” from criterion d) and the inclusion of the words “of town centre uses” between the words “development” and “associated”.
PANEL REPORT 66
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites
5.47 We examined the extent to which the designation of these sites is consistent with the sequential approach and the principles of sustainable development. We also considered the extent to which the uses being considered for these sites were in conflict with the viability of the city and town centres and the Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments. Consideration was also given to their justification in terms of the changing needs of inward investment, and whether there is a need to include a sequential test to ensure that development on these sites does not prejudice the viability of city and town centres and is consistent with the ambitions of the Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments.
5.48 In terms of the sequential approach, we are of the opinion that the Prestige Employment Sites set out in Policy 19 cannot be treated as a consistent group. We are satisfied that the Baltic Business Park in Gateshead is consistent with the sequential approach and the principles of sustainable development. Newburn Riverside is a reclaimed brownfield site and it is possible to regard Newcastle Great Park as a sustainable urban extension, but the other sites would appear to conflict with Policies 2 and 3 and are inconsistent with the broad locational strategy. These other sites are all on the edge of the built up area and involve greenfield sites. In the cases of the North East Technology Park at Sedgefield and Wynyard in Stockton/Hartlepool the sites are remote from the major built-up areas. We were advised that these sites will generate higher levels of car traffic and will be difficult to serve by public transport.
5.49 Paragraph 3.30 suggests that these sites are being developed for particular strategic functions. West Hartford is described as being marketed as a bio-science park, but the discussions at the EiP revealed that this concept may have little substance. TyneWear Park is described as providing a flexible response to attract regionally significant investment in emerging growth sectors, which in our view could be considered to be the target of the major regeneration sites and the transport hubs. Our understanding of the justification to release the site from the Green Belt was to accommodate major inward investments and a prestige business cluster development of national or regional significance. In this context we note that the Annual Monitoring Report 2003/04 at paragraph 5.28 suggests that a more flexible approach might be taken to larger sites so that they could more closely match current and future market requirements.
5.50 Paragraph 3.30 indicates that Wynyard is being developed for the prestige electronics and high technology sectors, but more recent information from the developer indicates that the site is now being marketed for warehousing. We conclude that little value can be placed on the purposes put forward in paragraph 3.30, but we are concerned that the apparent flexibility of purpose that emerges from the EiP discussions could pose a threat to more sustainable locations. We have established that many of these sites have aspirations for some form of business park development, which could compete directly with much more sustainable locations such as those being provided by Sunderland ARC and Tees Valley Regeneration.
PANEL REPORT 67
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
5.51 The North East Technology Park (NetPark) is described in paragraph 3.30 as a regional centre for technology transfer, creating a bridge between research work and product development. We understand that phase 1 of this proposal covers 13ha, involves the development of brownfield land and has been developed for research and development, business incubator units and commercial offices. In this context we note that the NetPark website refers to “business growth space,” Phase 2 is stated in Technical Background Paper 2 to be greenfield land, and the total amount of land involved is described as 77ha. The Technical Background Paper also indicates that the total area being considered for this project could be as high as 1,200 acres. The NetPark website indicates that an area of 700 acres is being considered and reference is made to the Research Triangle Park near Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. We note that this development is quoted as international best practice in the Regional Economic Strategy and involves 6,900 acres.
5.52 We do not consider that this development model or the longer term ambitions of NetPark are consistent with the locational strategy or the sustainable development principles. In any application of the sequential approach it is difficult to see how this location would emerge as the choice for the functions described. We are of the opinion that the R&D potential of the universities in the region can be fully exploited in more sustainable locations such as the Baltic Business Park, North Shore in Stockton, Durham Science Park, the Discovery Quarter in Newcastle City Centre and Newcastle Great Park. The latter site is described in EiP Information Note 16 as a focus for research and development and high tech industries. We note that only the first phase of NetPark has any formal planning status.
5.53 Paragraph 3.30 of the Submission Draft indicates that the Region’s city and town centres and Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Development sites are compatible with the principles of sustainability and should be the focus for the majority of general economic growth. Paragraph 3.7 indicates that the core areas of the city regions and the main towns should be the focus for major office functions. Our Panel Tours and the evidence submitted to the EiP demonstrated the scale of the ambitions for B1 development across the Region. It was also clear that those responsible for the Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments were concerned at the impact such development might have on the viability of their projects. Quite clearly some of the Prestige Employment Sites were initially designated in response to the possibility of attracting major high tech manufacturing plants, and the prospect of such large sites turning their attention to the office sector is causing even more concern.
5.54 We are of the opinion that there is a need to transform the statements in the text of the Submission Draft into policy. We suggested a potential policy for discussion at the EiP and we had responses that suggested that: it duplicates the sequential approach set out in the Submission Draft; it was difficult to interpret in terms of the use of “prime location”; and sub-paragraph b) of the suggested policy was ambiguous and unduly onerous as the information may not be in the public domain.
5.55 In our view the suggested policy does not duplicate PPS6 or Policy 3, the Sequential Approach; rather that it complements and interprets them. We accept that Policy 25, a) could be said to deal with this matter in general terms, but in our view there is a
PANEL REPORT 68
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
need for a more specific statement to deal with the B1 ambitions on employment land, particularly in the case of the large Prestige Employment Sites. The response from Sunderland ARC confirms our view that such action is necessary and proportionate.
5.56 We are of the opinion that the term “prime location” used in our suggested policy is a reasonable interpretation of the term “focus” used in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.30 of the Submission Draft. We believe that it is capable of reasonable interpretation. However, we accept that the term “strategy” used in sub-paragraph b) is not specific enough and propose to insert the words “in any approved Local Development Document or Master Plan” after the word “out”. This will ensure that the information will be in the public domain and accessible. Accordingly we recommend that new Policy 18A: Office Development outside of City and Town Centres, as set out in Appendix C of this Report, is inserted into the Submission Draft.
5.57 We are uncertain about the justification for the identification of Prestige Employment Sites in the Submission Draft. Paragraph 3.30 states that “To assist in the Region’s accelerated economic growth, unique opportunities within specialist growth sectors of the economy should be maximised. As the city and town centres and regional brownfield mixed-use sites may not be the most suitable locations to accommodate these opportunities, economic investment should also be directed towards Prestige Employment Sites.” No information is given as to why the alternative locations might not be suitable, despite all the information provided that suggests the majority of this type of development will seek such locations.
5.58 The scale of opportunity in the large greenfield Prestige Employment Sites on the edge of or beyond the urban limits does not easily fit with the concept of “unique opportunities within specialist growth sectors”. In our view the key characteristic of these large sites is their scale, and we are of the opinion that the present policies do not take advantage of that characteristic. The scale of opportunity at these sites should be protected as long as possible to provide the Region with an option that the other locations cannot offer. We are concerned that market/commercial pressures are encouraging greater subdivision of a number of the sites. In order to minimise this we recommend that Policy 19 be amended as shown in Appendix C.
5.59 As noted above our concern focuses on the Sites located on the edge of the built-up area and beyond. These Sites are West Hartford, TyneWear Park, North East Technology Park and Wynyard. Our views on these Sites are set out below.
Prestige Sites
West Hartford 5.60 We understand that considerable investment has taken place to make this Site developable. We have been informed that proposals are being considered for the subdivision of this large site. Our Panel Tour of Northumberland demonstrated the investment that has been put into other sites such as the Northumberland Business Park in order to cater for smaller developments. As the planning situation is uncertain, we are of the opinion that this site should not be used as an opportunity for
PANEL REPORT 69
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
another large business park and should be retained to provide a limited number of large development opportunities for manufacturing industry.
TyneWear Park 5.61 As yet no investment has been made on this Site. It is also a strategic part of the Green Belt. In view of the availability of other opportunities in the Region we are of the opinion that the designation should be withdrawn from this Site and that it should remain as Green Belt.
North East Technology Park 5.62 We appreciate that the “First Phase” of this Site has planning permission, but we do not believe that this is a suitable location for a large concentration of employment. One of its claimed advantages is that it lies midway between the two Durham University Campuses, but this means that it is in a relatively remote location. All the evidence that has been provided confirms our view that this is an unsustainable location. We believe the development opportunity should be restricted to the existing site of 13ha.
Wynyard 5.63 This Site is an amalgamation of a number of sites with a complex planning history. We are of the view that this is an unsustainable location, but recognise that there are limitations on the scope for action at the moment. The scale of development that has been released in this area is not consistent with the proposed strategy for the city region in which it falls, and the potential use of all of this land for B1 purposes would pose a considerable threat to the town centres and Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments in the area. With this in mind we support the allocation in the Hartlepool Replacement Local Plan for B1, B2 and B8 uses associated with the electronics industry for the North Burn part of Wynyard. This will minimise the threat to the centres and other projects in the area. In our view every opportunity should be taken to restructure the consents in this area to limit the opportunity to large scale development.
5.64 As result of the conclusions set out above we recommend that Policy 19 should be modified to direct investment towards selected Prestige Employment Sites as set out in Appendix C. The final paragraph of Policy 19, which refers to the deletion of Green Belt land in South Tyneside to make way for the TyneWear Park, should be deleted.
Reserve Sites 5.65 In view of our conclusions set out above in relation to the general employment land supply and the Prestige Employment Sites there does not seem to be a case to hold additional sites. Forecasts indicates that the scale of demand for this size of site is extremely limited. Furthermore there are other sites available in the supply which can respond to such requirements. The Reserve Sites are all located in the south of the
PANEL REPORT 70
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Region, in the Tees Valley city region. They are not particularly well related to the urban core of Teeside and are relatively remote from Tyne and Wear.
5.66 Several of the participants argued that some of the Reserve Sites should be specifically reserved for use by logistics companies. It was explained to us that the Tees Valley city region was becoming increasingly popular with logistics operators who can serve the North East and Yorkshire/Humberside along the A1(M) corridor. For example, the Argos development at Faverdale at the edge of Darlington was quoted as an example of the need for large sites close to the motorway. However, it is also obvious from the examples of ASDA/Walmart at Teesport and the development at Wynyard that such developments are less sensitive to motorway locations than is suggested.
5.67 We now look at each Reserve Site in turn and briefly summarise the factors which have been taken into account in reaching our overall decision.
Heighington Lane West, Sedgefield/Darlington 5.68 This is a greenfield site located at Newton Aycliffe, to the North of Darlington, off the A1(M). The site is intended as a location for a small number of major investor projects. It lies next to an existing Business Park (Heighington Lane Business Park) and an existing older Industrial Estate (Aycliffe) which is in need of regeneration/refurbishment. We were told at the EiP that this Reserve site had attracted significant interest from logistics operators. The Panel also heard that the development of a logistics facility was underway at Wynyard, as mentioned above. Given this we are firmly of the opinion that with so much land available with planning permission at Wynyard, there is no justification for retaining this site as a reserve site over the RSS Plan period. We also refer to our Recommendation in respect of Policy 18 c), which states a presumption in favour of regenerating and upgrading existing employment sites, before bringing forward new employment land.
South of Seaham, Easington 5.69 Seaham is a small coalfield town on the Durham Coast in the District of Easington. The town has attracted a number of call centres, however, on our Panel Tour we noticed that there were a number of large units which were standing vacant. According to the County Durham Land Supply Survey the site is intended for a single user and is unlikely to come forward in the current climate for large inward investors. At the EiP the representative from Durham County Council stated they would consider subdivision of the site to make it more attractive to smaller “supply-chain industries” so that they could co-locate next to a major user. It is clear to the Panel that this represents a less than subtle drift from its original purpose, and that in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 2.5.18 of the County’s Employment Land Study (Feb 2006), which states that the site should be reviewed, we recommend deletion.
PANEL REPORT 71
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 5 FOR THE NORTH EAST ECONOMY
Faverdale Reserve, Darlington 5.70 This greenfield site lies next to an existing employment site where Argos has developed a large logistics operation, to the North of Darlington. The Panel understands that a business park has recently been given planning permission next to the Reserve Site on allocated land. The site is intended for only a small number of large investor projects, however it is clear that in the current climate there is limited scope for this type of provision. As mentioned above, there are already ample opportunities in the Tees Valley city region to satisfy the needs of the logistics sector.
5.71 In the light of the above we recommend that Policy 20 be deleted.
Recommendation 5.5 a) Insert a new Policy 18A: Office Development outside of City and Town Centres, as set out in Appendix C. b) Modify Policy 19 to direct appropriate investment towards selected Prestige Employment Sites, as set out in Appendix C, and delete the symbols from the appropriate diagrams. c) Delete Policy 20 and the supporting text in paragraph 3.32.
PANEL REPORT 72
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
Chapter 6: Urban and Rural Centres & the MetroCentre
Matter 5; (Part) 5/1,
Introduction
6.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s urban and rural centres and the MetroCentre as part of sustainable communities.
Background
6.2 Government policy on planning for town centres is set out in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6). The Government’s key objectives for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability by:
• planning for the growth and development of existing centres; and
• promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.
6.3 PPS6 also draws attention to the need to deliver more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring that locations are fully exploited through high density, mixed use development and promoting sustainable transport choices, including reducing the need to travel and providing alternatives to car use.
6.4 Paragraph 1.6 of PPS6 indicates that regional planning bodies should:
• develop a hierarchy and network of centres;
• assess the need for further main town centre uses and ensure that there is capacity to accommodate them; and
• focus development in, and plan for the expansion of, existing centres as appropriate.
6.5 PPS6 stresses the need for positive planning and advocates a plan led approach. To support this approach paragraph 2.1 of PPS6 indicates that regional planning bodies should:
• actively promote growth and manage change in town centres;
• define a network and a hierarchy of centres each performing their appropriate role to meet the needs of their catchments; and
PANEL REPORT 73
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
• adopt a pro-active, plan-led approach to planning for town centres, through regional and local planning.
6.6 Paragraph 2.13 advises that, in preparing revisions to their regional spatial strategy, the regional planning body should:
• develop a strategic framework for the development of a network of centres and, where appropriate, for any identified sub-regions taking into account the need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres;
• make strategic choices about those centres of regional and, where appropriate, sub-regional significance:
o where major growth should be encouraged; and
o where appropriate, the need for new centres in areas of major planned growth.
• in broad terms, assess the overall need for additional floorspace over the regional spatial strategy period, especially for comparison retail, leisure and office development, and for five-year periods within it, and, having regard to capacity and accessibility of centres, identify where the identified needs would best be met having regard to the Government’s objectives.
6.7 Paragraph 2.14 of PPS6 indicates that the expansion of an existing regional or sub- regional out-of-centre shopping centre can harm the vitality and viability of existing centres and that it is unlikely that such new development will meet the requirements of the Government’s policy. It also indicates that were a need for an expansion of an existing out-of-centre regional or sub-regional to be identified, it should be addressed through the regional spatial strategy. The paragraph states that proposals to renew or replace existing facilities in out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres, where this would involve neither additional floorspace nor additional car parking facilities, may, however, be appropriate. The paragraph confirms that, while there maybe a need to improve public transport to an existing regional or sub-regional shopping centre, this need will, in itself, not justify extending it.
Issues
6.8 In our view the three groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Urban and Rural Centres • Are the policies in the Submission Draft relating to urban and rural centres appropriate and are they consistent with the principles of sustainability and the spatial strategy? • Is there a need for a more detailed retail strategy on the allocation of the growth potential identified in the White Young Green Planning Ltd report, particularly in the Tyne and Wear City Region?
PANEL REPORT 74
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
The MetroCentre • Would the further extension and redevelopment of the MetroCentre be consistent with the intention to concentrate retail and leisure within defined urban centres? • Is the future development of the MetroCentre a strategic matter which should be dealt with by the RSS?
Out-of-centre retail and leisure developments • Does the policy on out-of-centre retail and leisure developments conform with PPS6? • How should the major retail component in the brownfield developments be assessed in terms of PPS6?
Urban and Rural Centres
6.9 The assessments of future retail requirements set out in Technical Background Paper 3 and the North East Retail Study prepared by White Young Green Planning Ltd are based on 5 sub-regions. It was suggested by the Regional Assembly that these sub- regions represent functional retail areas, but the sub-regions do not ‘nest’ within the catchments of the main retail centres in each city region. The ‘Rural West’ sub- region covers rural areas from the Hexham area in the north to the Barnard Castle area in the south. These areas have little in common in terms of retail orientation. It is known that the population in the Hexham area looks more to Newcastle and the MetroCentre for higher level shopping trips and that the Barnard Castle area looks to Darlington and other centres for such trips.
6.10 The Durham sub-region is also split in terms of retail orientation. The January 2006 White Young Green report, in paragraph 13.19, notes that the Durham sub-region experiences significant leakage of retail expenditure to the Tyne and Wear area and to the Tees Valley. Paragraph 13.22 also notes that “it is evident that much of the population within the Durham Sub-Region are well located to other major centres in the Region, within both the Tees Valley and the Tyne and Wear Sub-Regions”. The same paragraph notes that “despite a significantly high potential catchment, Durham City Centre is not identified to be performing a strong sub-regional role.”
6.11 In our view the analysis would have presented a clearer picture of retail patterns if it had been more clearly orientated on the main retail catchment areas within the Region, which reflect the city region concept. It would avoid too much emphasis being placed on “leakage” from a somewhat artificial retail area such as Durham County, when it may be adequately served by centres outside the County. We recommend that future RSS reviews of retailing development matters should adopt a city region approach to analysis and policy development.
6.12 Policy 25 b) and c) set out a broad hierarchy of retail centres. Given the demise of Structure Plans and Policy RD1 in RPG1, it would seem that the Submission Draft should have identified which centres should be the focus of retail development. LXB properties and Sunderland Arc indicated that more detailed guidance was required to provide confidence for the development industry. It is accepted that the centres
PANEL REPORT 75
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
identified in Policy 25 b) and c) cater for the majority of the Region’s non-food retail and leisure needs, but the identification of Durham City Centre as a major centre would appear to conflict with the evidence in the White Young Green report and evidence heard at the EiP of the limitations of the urban fabric to accommodate more development.
6.13 The Government Office drew our attention to paragraph 1.05 in the White Young Green report which sets out a hierarchy of centres. This hierarchy is also set out in Table 1 of Technical Background Paper 3. Paragraph 3.50 of the Submission Draft indicates that town centres within the regeneration areas should be given particular priority. Peterlee is identified as a centre where retail-led regeneration should be encouraged, but it is not identified as an important shopping centre in Table 1 of Technical Background Paper 3. Ashington, which is one of the identified Regeneration Centres, does not feature in the list of “Other Important Shopping Centres” in Table 1. South Shields, which has a significant shopping centre, is not explicitly mentioned in Policy 25 or in the text, but is identified as an “Other Important Shopping Centre” in Table 1. In our view there is a lack of clarity, which provides little assistance for the local planning process.
6.14 PPS6 indicates that in preparing their regional strategy the regional planning body should develop a strategic framework for the development of a network of centres in their region and, where appropriate, for any sub-regions taking into account the need to avoid an over-concentration of growth in the higher level centres. We note that White Young Green indicate in paragraph 13.28 that strategic choices will have to be made to shape the future of centres outside those identified in Policy 25.
6.15 We are of the opinion that there is a need for a more explicit statement dealing with the future of centres at a level below that set out in Policy 25 to provide a context for these strategic choices. We would expect the RSS to include guidance on the future of centres such as Redcar and South Shields and the balance to be struck between such centres and the major centres set out in Policy 25. We do not have the information to make such judgements and therefore conclude that this should be the subject of the next Review. We recommend that further work should be done to allow the next RSS Review to set out a more extensive hierarchy and provide guidance on the future of the hierarchy.
Recommendation 6.1
a) Future RSS Reviews of retailing development matters should adopt a city region approach to analysis and policy development.
b) Further work should be done to allow the next RSS Review to set out a more extensive hierarchy and provide guidance on the future of the hierarchy.
PANEL REPORT 76
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
The MetroCentre
6.16 Policy 26 hands responsibility for decisions on the future of the MetroCentre to the Gateshead Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework. It was established at the EiP that the Policy would not only apply to the large purpose built shopping centre but also to the surrounding retail and leisure developments. In our opinion the scale of this area provides great scope for intensification. Paragraph 3.53 indicates that additional out-of-centre retail and leisure facilities of regional or sub- regional significance would put at risk the continued vitality and viability of existing city and town centres, which represent the most sustainable locations for these functions. We believe that this must also apply to the MetroCentre and its surroundings.
6.17 We heard evidence from Newcastle City Council, Sunderland Arc and the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit of considerable scope throughout the Region to accommodate the additional retail and leisure requirements within the existing centres. Newcastle City Council also pointed out that the MetroCentre adjoins the A1 Western Bypass, which is generally acknowledged as the Region’s most pressing congestion problem. We are of the opinion that Policy 26 should be amended to clearly state that no further retail and leisure development is required at the MetroCentre and its surroundings.
6.18 It was put to us by Gateshead Borough Council that there was always a need for minor adjustments of the fabric as a result of changes in the occupancy of parts of the wider complex. In our view these changes should not involve significant additional floorspace and could be dealt with through the LDF process or development control procedures. We recommend that Policy 26 should be recast accordingly.
Recommendation 6.2
Modify Policy 26 as follows:
No provision should be made for additional retail or leisure development at the MetroCentre or the surrounding retail complex.
Out-of-Centre Retail and Leisure Developments
6.19 It was suggested by a number of participants, including the Government Office, that national guidance renders Policy 27 superfluous. We note that the Annual Monitoring Report for 2004/05 identifies a significant decline in the vitality and viability of centres within the Region and the Regional Assembly linked this to the absorption of trade by out-of-centre developments. Durham County Council emphasised the fragility of some of the town centres and argued that the policy should be retained as it reflected local circumstances.
PANEL REPORT 77
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 6 FOR THE NORTH EAST URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES & THE METROCENTRE
6.20 Our attention was drawn by the Regional Assembly to paragraphs 9.12 to 9.17 of the Monitoring Report and to Figure 9.1. The Regional Assembly pointed out that about 30% of the Region’s key centres have vacancy rates above the national average. In our view this material can be used to demonstrate the specific regional need for Policy 27.
6.21 We are of the opinion that the text associated with Policy 27 could be made more regionally specific by a reference to the problems highlighted by the AMR and that Policy 27 should be reworded to reflect local issues. We thus recommend that the text of the Submission Draft be expanded to include reference to the material in the Annual Monitoring Report 2005/06, paragraphs 9.12 to 9.17 and Figure 9.1.
Recommendation 6.3 a) Modify supporting text to include reference to the material in the Annual Monitoring Report 2005/06, paragraphs 9.12 to 9.17 and Figure 9.1; and b) Modify Policy 27 to read:
a) No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new urban and suburban out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance.
b) Proposed regional and sub-regional rural leisure developments will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach (Policy 3) and locational strategy (Policy 5) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and having regard to the manner in which they assist rural regeneration and local communities.
PANEL REPORT 78
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Chapter 7: Housing
Matter 5; (Continued) 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/9, 5/8, 5/9, 5/10, 5.11, 5/12, 5/13.
Introduction
7.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s housing part of sustainable communities including: the scale of housing provision; housing market restructuring; housing types and density; affordable housing; housing land supply; previously developed land & greenfield land; phasing & plan, monitor and manage; and housing distribution.
Background
7.2 Current policy guidance is set out in PPG3. However the Government has issued a consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement 3 (Draft PPS3), which reflects its response to the Barker Report. Draft PPS3 is not currently policy, but it indicates the Government’s revised approach to housing provision. Our attention was drawn to a letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which outlined the implications The Government’s Response to Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply has for the preparation of regional spatial strategies. The letter stresses the need to increase the housing supply in England over the next decade to 200,000 net additions per annum. No guidance is given on the equivalent figure for the North East.
7.3 Draft PPS3 indicates that regional spatial strategies should set out:
a) the level of housing provision for the region for 15-20 years, expressed as net additional dwellings (and gross if appropriate);
b) the sub-regional housing market areas, and identify which local planning authorities these include;
c) for each sub-regional housing market area and each local planning authority within the market area, the level of housing provision, expressed as net additional dwellings (and gross if appropriate) for the plan period;
d) the approach for each sub-regional housing market area, which reflects the particular market circumstances of the sub-region, including any arrangements for managing release of land between local planning authorities within the market area;
e) the region’s brownfield target;
f) the region’s density target and/or the region’s density range/s;
PANEL REPORT 79
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
g) where appropriate, the region’s approach to meeting affordable housing needs, including the affordable housing target for the region and for each sub-regional housing market area. Such targets should be consistent with the region’s level of housing provision;
h) the region’s approach to achieving an appropriate mix of household types to meet need and demand; and
i) the region’s approach to meeting rural housing needs.
7.4 Paragraph 6 of Draft PPS3 states that regional spatial strategies should also set out the region’s approach to provision for Gypsies and Travellers. Since Draft PPS3 was issued a new Planning Circular Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites (Circular 1/2006) has been published. This Circular requires the Regional Planning Body to ensure that policies are put in place to address the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. It states that the RSS should set out a strategic view of needs across the region, with an allocation of pitches to each planning authority.
7.5 Paragraph 7 of Draft PPS3 sets out an approach to determining the regional level of housing provision. It indicates that the regional planning body should take into account the Government’s overall ambition for affordability, the Government’s latest published household projections and the needs of the regional economy, having regard to economic growth forecasts.
Issues
7.6 In our view the eight groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Scale of Provision • Is the scale of housing provision consistent with the overall growth assumptions, the RHS, the RES and the Northern Way? • What consideration should be given to geographic housing market areas as relatively self contained elements? • Is a zero net migration projection a reasonable measure of local housing demand? • Is there a need to consider future changes in the balance of demand between market housing and social housing? • Does the scale of provision meet the various housing needs of the Region?
Housing Market Restructuring • What are the factors generating the need for housing market restructuring and what are the appropriate responses? • What is the scope for RSS to influence market restructuring in relation to existing and new stock and will the Submission Draft achieve this?
PANEL REPORT 80
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
House Type and Density • Are certain dwelling types under-represented in the existing housing stock and is there a need to provide a greater range and choice of dwelling, even if this results in a conflict with density guidance in PPG3 (Draft PPS3)?
Affordable Housing • Does the Submission Draft adequately consider the balance between market and affordable housing and contain appropriate guidance to assist in the provision of an adequate level of affordable housing in both urban and rural areas?
Land Supply • Do the Urban Capacity Studies provide a reasonable and consistent assessment of land availability? • Is the land identified for housing development capable of delivering an effective supply in the light of the Government’s “Planning for Housing Provision” Consultation Paper?
Previously Developed Land • Is the regional target of 60% by 2008 and 65% by 2016 for housing developments on PDL sufficiently challenging? • Should the RSS adopt a more positive approach to windfall brownfield sites? • Should the RSS include a more stringent requirement to review greenfield allocations and consents?
Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage • Do the Phasing and Plan Monitor and Manage proposals in the Submission Draft provide a satisfactory response to the uncertainties in terms of demand and supply, and will they ensure an adequate land supply?
Housing Distribution • Does the overall approach adequately reflect the geographic housing markets in the Region? • Is the process sufficiently transparent: o Should the RSS express a choice between the brownfield opportunities in Blyth and the greenfield opportunities in Cramlington; o Can large isolated brownfield locations such as Boulmer RAF be regarded as sustainable locations; o Is there a justification for a second homes allowance in popular tourist areas; o In what ways could further housing development be integrated with the Metro; o Should brownfield opportunities outside the Pathfinder areas be discouraged to support Pathfinder activities; o What is the scale and nature of the regeneration process that requires additional housing provision; o Are there specific locational priorities for additional housing provision; o Is the scale of provision in Hartlepool B.C. area appropriate given the large brownfield opportunity at Victoria Harbour, or should there be a more balanced allocation across the Tees Valley authorities; and
PANEL REPORT 81
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
o To what extent would major housing proposals at Catterick in North Yorkshire impact on the Tees Valley housing market?
Scale of Provision
7.7 It was clear from the evidence submitted and the EiP discussions that there was a degree of uncertainty over the way the net additional housing component had been arrived at. It was suggested to us that the output had been controlled to set population levels and that there had been interactions between economic growth based migration and demographic growth, which were unclear. We had great difficulty in evaluating these claims as Technical Background Paper 2 did not provide a clear explanation of these interactions, nor did it allow any understanding of how policy decisions had influenced the final requirement.
7.8 Evidence was submitted by Ms. Debbie Shanks suggesting that the Submission Draft significantly under-estimates the impact of the most recent trends and that the 2003 based ONS forecasts do not provide a satisfactory alternative due to a failure to take the most up-to-date information into account. It was pointed out by the Regional Assembly that the evidence from the most recent trends could not be verified and could be a transitory phenomenon. We conclude that the higher forecasts suggested by Ms Shanks were not generally supported and could not be easily verified. Hence we cannot support the use of her forecasts.
7.9 It was put to us by the HBF that there is a need to ensure consistency with the growth ambitions of the RES. The Submission Draft acknowledges that a lower growth rate has been adopted for the assessment of housing provision requirements. We were informed that a forecast based on the RES growth rate could generate a requirement for 170,000 additional houses over the Plan period. The Tyne and Wear (T&W) authorities proposed that the level of provision should be set at a level lower than that proposed in the Submission Draft on the grounds that this would reduce the risk of the over-allocation of greenfield land. One Northeast indicated that there are significant costs associated with both over provision and under provision and indicated support for the Submission Draft level of provision. We consider the proposal by Ms Shanks to be too ambitious when compared with the ONS forecasts, and we are reassured by the support by One Northeast for the Submission Draft forecasts. On balance we conclude that we should support in principle the level of housing provision set out in the Submission Draft.
7.10 Our attention was drawn by the Regional Assembly to the fact that the level of housing proposed in the Submission Draft had been updated to reflect some more up- to-date demographic information and improvements in the structure of the model, increasing the total net additional housing provision from 107,000 to 112,000. The T&W authorities criticised this new estimate and suggested that it was not just a technical adjustment. We are of the view that the most up-to-date information should be used and accept the Regional Assembly’s assurances concerning the absence of any policy input. In our opinion the new 112,000 dwelling forecast should be adopted as the input to Policy 3. Based on a comparison of the population forecasts available to us the 112,000 dwelling forecast exceeds the Government’s latest projections and it
PANEL REPORT 82
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
would appear to meet the needs of the regional economy. We thus recommend that Policy 30 be modified on the basis of the 112,000 forecast (EIP Information Note 2, Addendum 3).
7.11 Our attention was drawn to Policy 28, which sets out the level of total dwelling construction. In our view this is the only level of housing provision that can be related to past levels of construction. We note that Policy 28 is linked to Policy 30, which we have recommended be modified. We recommend that Policy 28 be modified to accommodate the modification to Policy 30.
Recommendation 7.1 a) Modify Policy 30 on the basis of the 112,000 forecast, as set out in Appendix C b) Modify Policy 28 to accommodate the modification to Policy 30, as set out in Appendix C.
7.12 The T&W authorities proposed that the Submission Draft should be modified to give a higher level of concentration of housing development in the conurbation. In our view this request must be considered in the context of Policy 28. We note that the T&W share of total dwelling construction is higher than the share of net additional dwellings over the Plan period, whereas in the case of Durham and Northumberland the share of total dwelling construction is less than that for net additional dwellings. In the T&W area the Submission Draft assumes the construction of 885 replacement dwellings per year over the Plan period, whereas the equivalent levels for Durham and Northumberland are 260 and 55 respectively. In our view this represents a higher level of concentration of development in T&W and must be taken into account. We deal with other aspects of this debate later on in this Chapter.
7.13 The Submission Draft makes repeated references to local demand or indigenous needs, but provides no guidance on what that might be. We requested a Zero Net Migration forecast to provide some context for this aspect of housing need, but accept that it does not represent an adequate assessment. Our attention was drawn to local housing assessments, but we note that the cumulative sum of such assessments would be much greater than the requirement put forward by the NEA. In our view any LDD housing proposals based on such assessments could distort the direction set out by the Submission Draft.
7.14 It was clear from the evidence submitted to us that the sub-regional approach set out in the Submission Draft did not adequately reflect the way the housing markets in the Region operated. Our attention was drawn to the relative isolation of the Berwick area from the Tyne and Wear conurbation. It was also clear from the evidence available that the northern part of County Durham interacted with the Tyne and Wear conurbation, whereas the southern part tended to look to the Tees Valley conurbation. While it was evident that it would be impractical to recast the assessment in the
PANEL REPORT 83
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Submission Draft, we considered the geographic dimensions should be applied to future housing forecasts. (See Appendix C iii)).
7.15 It was accepted that the two city regions were largely self-contained. Our attention was drawn to the fact that it was difficult to draw a precise border, particularly in County Durham where the two city regions interacted. The EiP discussions also considered the extent to which the rural parts of the Region should be considered to be part of the city region housing market areas. There was considerable agreement that the Borough of Berwick-on-Tweed should be regarded as being separate from the Tyne and Wear city region housing market area. There was less certainty over the role of Alnwick District as it was pointed out that there were signs that the area was becoming attractive to commuters from the conurbation. We are of the opinion that this area should be regarded as part of the city region housing market. There was also general agreement that Tynedale District was part of the Tyne and Wear city region housing market area, despite the fact that some parts of the District were remote and did not experience commuting pressures.
7.16 Consideration was given to the role of the districts in the south west of the Region. It was generally accepted that the main urban areas in Wear Valley interacted with the Darlington area in the Tees Valley city region. Evidence was submitted on migration and commuting for Teesdale District. The evidence indicated that the area did have significant links to Darlington and could not be regarded as a separate housing market in the same way as the Berwick area.
7.17 We were advised that considerable work was underway to identify local housing market areas. We were provided with the most recent output from that work in Durham County and Northumberland County. The evidence confirms that there are local housing markets in each of these areas which consist of several District Council areas. Our attention was drawn to the outcomes of recent planning inquiries in Blyth District. In our view the outcome of those inquiries may have been different had the Inspector been able to take into account the land supply in neighbouring areas, which are likely to form part of a local housing market area. In our view the next Review of RSS1 should reflect the reality of such local housing market areas and their implications for matching housing supply and demand at the local level.
7.18 We are of the opinion that past trends demonstrate an element of housing demand, which is mobile across the boundaries of individual local authorities, but which is largely contained within the wider city region housing market areas. The suburban areas have “benefited” from this mobility in the past, but such areas have no strategic “rights” to the continuation of this mobility if there is an opportunity to accommodate the mobile element in more sustainable locations. In our view there is a need to recognise that there is an element of mobility at the city region housing market level. In-migrants taking a job in the core of the city region can be expected to search for a home across a significant part of the city region. Evidence from the local housing market area analysis confirms a degree of mobility within the local housing market areas. We believe that the Submission Draft reflects this approach to some extent, but there is no transparency as to how it has been applied. Evidence was provided by Northern Way of how strategic choices had been made in the Greater Manchester area
PANEL REPORT 84
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
to reduce provision in the Cheshire area and increase provision to the north of Manchester. In our view any housing assessments for the next Review of RSS1 should include specific recognition of how the mobile elements of demand have been treated and applied.
7.19 The conclusions set out above come together to provide a framework for an approach to the housing requirement assessment for the next Review of RSS1. We recommend accordingly.
Recommendation 7.2
The next review of housing matters should:
a) Be based on broad city region housing market areas as set out in Appendix C iii);
b) Take into account the implications of local housing market areas, which cover more than a single local authority area;
c) Recognise mobile elements of demand across the city regions and also at the local housing market level; and
d) Provide greater transparency on the application of strategic decisions.
Housing Market Restructuring
7.20 The term “housing market failure” has been used in relation to the need for housing market restructuring. We accept that the loss of employment and population over a long period has had an effect on housing demand. It is noted however that, despite evidence of low demand in certain parts of the Region, there has been continuing demand for new housing across the Region. We conclude that this is caused by a shift in preferences between housing tenures and housing types generated by increasing levels of income. We acknowledge that the pressures caused by such forces have caused certain areas to become stigmatised and unpopular.
7.21 The evidence available suggests that such areas can provide sustainable and marketable locations. Areas such as West Newcastle and Walker are convenient to sources of employment and the city centre and should be able to compete with other areas of similar geography within the conurbation. There is also evidence from the Gateshead part of the BNG Pathfinder area that new housing areas in similar locations have been developed successfully for market housing.
7.22 Our attention was drawn to recent improvements in the marketability of “failed” housing. It was acknowledged that public sector housing lists had lengthened and that prices in these areas had increased, but it was pointed out that these may be short term features of the housing market. We were advised by BNG and Tees Valley Living that, despite such changes, there remain large areas with no long term future in the
PANEL REPORT 85
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
current housing format and were encouraged not to alter the broad thrust of the strategy. We accept this advice and support the broad thrust of the strategy.
7.23 The BNG Pathfinder Initiative and similar initiatives elsewhere in the Region are evidence of Government support for an increased level of activity to tackle this problem. This support provides additional confidence in the delivery mechanisms, such as site assembly and site treatment. We support the view that the application of Sustainability Principles requires a careful assessment of demolition proposals and recommend an adjustment to Policy 2 f) to reflect this. The evidence from the Panel Tours supports the view that further demolitions will be required to deal with the oversupply of certain housing types and to provide the restructuring opportunities. We also observed the large amount of land that is now available from earlier demolitions in locations such as West Newcastle and are of the opinion that it offers highly sustainable and marketable opportunities.
7.24 We are of the opinion that these sites, with the support of funding for treatment and assembly, should be able to compete with any other windfall brownfield sites that emerge. At the EiP we considered the justification for the Interim Housing Policy of Newcastle City Council. It was drawn to our attention that other authorities had similar policies. While we understand that not all brownfield development proposals will be acceptable, we do not consider that they should be rejected solely on the grounds of protecting the Pathfinder Initiative. We are of the opinion that the final paragraph of Policy 29 could inhibit sustainable development. In addition to supporting sustainable development this approach should have the effect of increasing the concentration in the core areas and should add some additional flexibility to the overall housing allocation. We recommend that Policy 29 should be modified by the deletion of the final paragraph.
7.25 The economic forecasts indicate that growth is likely to focus on the urban cores. We accept that the housing initiatives in the cores of the city regions represent a sustainable approach by providing housing where employment is expected to arise. Our attention was drawn to the possibility that some housing restructuring initiatives could be reinforcing an outdated settlement pattern. In our view some of the priority restructuring initiatives in County Durham as indicated in the Regional Housing Strategy para. 7.5.5 do not reflect the stated priority to direct development to the “12 towns”. We believe that investment should be directed to sustainable locations if it is to bring long term advantages. Policy 29 makes no reference to the need to steer such housing initiatives to the most sustainable locations. We thus recommend that Policy 29 should be modified to indicate that priority should be given to the most sustainable locations in the preparation of strategies for improving the housing stock.
Recommendation 7.3
Modify Policy 29 as set out in Appendix C: a) by the deletion of the final paragraph; and
PANEL REPORT 86
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
b) to indicate that priority should be given to the most sustainable locations in the preparation of strategies for improving the housing stock.
House Type and Density
7.26 Our Panel Tours confirmed that there is an imbalance of house types within the Region and that the average density is high. We note the concern that the imbalance of house types, particularly the shortage of detached houses, could discourage executives and entrepreneurs from considering moving to the area. We are of the opinion that this category of house buyer has usually the ability to purchase acceptable housing. The evidence from the EiP suggests that the market for detached houses is relatively small and that it may not be possible to achieve a large adjustment through the market process.
7.27 Evidence was given that PPS3 requirements can allow the development of a reasonable amount of detached housing within a wider development. It was also pointed out that executive housing need not always be in the form of detached housing Sunderland ARC pointed out that it was their ambition to provide high density executive housing.
7.28 While PPS3 may not inhibit the provision of detached housing, we accept that the particular circumstances in the Region justify the provisions made in Policy 30.
Affordable Housing
7.29 The discussion on the Rural Areas dealt with some aspects of affordable housing, particularly the impact of the purchase of second homes. As noted above we are of the opinion that the provision of additional allocations is not the appropriate approach. Our attention was drawn to paragraph 3.81, which indicates that additional provision can be made against the loss of property to the second homes market. In view of our earlier response to this matter we are of the opinion that this paragraph reads like a policy and hence requires modification. We recommend that paragraph 3.81 should be modified to exclude reference to the opportunity to increase local provision due to the loss to second homes.
7.30 Our attention was also drawn by Tynedale District Council to the high level of affordable housing identified in the local housing needs assessment. We are aware of similar assessments in a number of local housing needs assessments. It was put to us that the level of net additions should be increased to allow provision to be made through the planning process. We agree with Tynedale District Council that such an approach if applied across the Region would completely overwhelm the housing requirements set out in the Submission Draft. In our view this approach is unrealistic. We agree with Tees Valley JSU, Tynedale District Council and the Government Office, who pointed out that there is scope to achieve a higher level of provision through existing mechanisms and conclude that there is no need for further modification to the Submission Draft.
PANEL REPORT 87
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Recommendation 7.4
Amend paragraph 3.81 to exclude reference to the opportunity to increase local provision due to the loss to second homes.
Land Supply
7.31 Our examination of the land supply issues revealed a lack of consistency in the assessment of urban capacity. It is clear that some districts included potential development areas around the edge of settlements. Even the update of the land supply included significant greenfield areas within the urban capacity assessment. We also established that the urban capacity for Hartlepool did not include the Victoria Harbour capacity, and that the Lingfield Point capacity did not feature in the Darlington assessment. We are of the opinion that these deficiencies were due to the lack of a consistent regional methodology. We recommend that the next Review of RSS1 should be supported by a consistent approach to the assessment of the land supply, particularly the assessment of urban capacity.
7.32 Our attention was drawn to the performance of Derwentside District in terms of housing completions in the 2004-05 period. We were assured that this performance was due to an unusual surge of interest by developers in opportunities within the District. We accept that this level of development will not be repeated due to the level of land supply available.
7.33 We are concerned that certain districts have a large supply of greenfield allocations that could become the future land supply. It was explained to us that the greenfield allocations in Redcar and Cleveland District included areas of land that were within the urban areas. We were also informed that the allocations in Sunderland District were part of a wider planned development area. We are aware that there are considerable greenfield allocations in the Cramlington area within Blyth Valley District, which could conflict with longer term brownfield land availability. In the case of Sedgefield District we cannot identify a case for the scale of greenfield land allocation. We accept that Policy 31 c) provides the context for the review of such allocations, but we are of the opinion that Policy 31 should be made more explicit by a reference to the Districts where action is most important. We thus recommend that Policy 31 c) should be modified to include a reference to the Districts of Blyth Valley and Sedgefield.
Recommendation 7.5
The next Review of RSS1 should be supported by a consistent approach to the assessment of the land supply, particularly the assessment of urban capacity.
PANEL REPORT 88
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Recommendation 7.6
Modify Policy 31 c) to include reference to the Districts of Blyth Valley and Sedgefield.
Previously Developed Land
7.34 Policy 30 sets regional targets for the development of previously developed land and through the re-use of existing buildings (PDL) of 60% by 2008 and 65% by 2016. The draft of the most recent Annual Monitoring Report indicates that performance in the year 2004-05 exceeded these targets. The actual performance during 2004-05 was 67.8% and at a national level 70% of development in England was on PDL. We are of the opinion that this evidence supports the view that the targets in the Submission Draft are not ambitious enough. It is accepted that large parts of the Region are rural, but the extensive urban areas are experiencing a restructuring that should provide considerable PDL opportunities. On this basis we conclude that the regional target should be increased.
7.35 We are confident that these higher targets can be met. We note that Policy 30 only deals with net additions to the housing stock, but we are aware that the PPS3 guidance on PDL applies to gross development. This means that all housing restructuring activity will be relevant to the achievement of the new targets. As current performance is already achieving 67.8% we judge that a higher level should be set for 2008 and propose the level of 70%. On the assumption that there is to be an increasing emphasis on brownfield development both in policy terms and through the implementation of the housing restructuring initiatives, we are of the opinion that there is scope to seek a higher level of achievement by 2016. We consider that a level of 75% for that year would reflect that potential. We were encouraged to set a target for 2021, but we believe that the 2016 target will set the policy direction and we do not consider that we have sufficient information to set a 2021 target.
7.36 A single target does not easily reflect the wide range of circumstances across the Region. In EiP Information Note 14 the Assembly provided advice on a sub-regional breakdown for the 70% regional target for 2016. As noted above we are of the opinion that a level of 70% could be achieved by 2008. We therefore conclude that the sub-regional targets set out for 2016 should be applied to 2008 as we assume that they reflect the different potential across the Region. There will be a need to provide a similar set of sub-regional targets for 2016. We recommend that Policy 30 b) should be modified to identify the sub-regional targets for housing development on previously developed land and through the re-use of existing buildings as set out below:
PANEL REPORT 89
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Area 2008 2016
Tees Valley 70%
Durham County 65%
Northumberland County 50%
Tyne and Wear 80%
North East 70% 75%
7.37 Meeting these targets will require a greater emphasis on the use of brownfield land within the Region and we have already indicated our commitment to that process by our amendments of Policies 3, 29 and 31 c). We believe that some authorities are seeking to control additional brownfield development because they consider that the housing allocations set out in Policy 30 will not be able to accommodate the housing restructuring initiatives as well as new brownfield proposals. In our view this approach conflicts with the broad thrust of the strategy and with the request of the Tyne and Wear Authorities for a greater level of concentration of housing development in the core areas. We are also conscious that the Tees Valley Authorities have indicated that the allocations may inhibit the progress of windfall sites in that conurbation.
7.38 In our view the purpose of the allocations set out in Policy 30 is to guide the provision of enough land to ensure the level of development required to meet the forecast economic growth. The critical part of that process is the comparison at district level of the known land supply, including the output of the urban capacity studies, with the allocations to take judgements on the need for de-allocation of greenfield sites or the need for additional greenfield sites. We do not believe that the allocations should be used to restrict the development of brownfield sites that have not been identified in the Urban Capacity Studies. Such an approach would inevitably inhibit very sustainable proposals. We recommend that Policy 30 b) should be further extended to confirm that district PDL targets should not be used to provide the justification for the refusal of windfall housing proposals that fall within the guidance set out for Urban Capacity Studies.
7.39 We appreciate the fears that this approach could lead to pressure for the use of unsustainable brownfield sites. We heard evidence concerning proposals for the re- use of remote brownfield sites and we do not wish to provide a justification for such proposals. We are of the opinion that the policy as set out above could be restricted to sites that would otherwise fall within the remit of the guidance on Urban Capacity Studies as set out in national guidance. We are concerned at the variation in the practice of preparing urban capacity studies within the Region. It is quite clear that greenfield areas of land on the edge of settlements were being included in many assessments. We were advised by the Durham County Authorities that the UCS studies included greenfield land which could come forward in order to sustain certain settlements. It was pointed out that in the case of Sedgefield District the greenfield UCS potential will have included greenfield land identified for future development by
PANEL REPORT 90
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
the Newton Aycliffe New Town Development Corporation. In our view the assessment of urban capacity is a critical part of achieving the Locational Strategy. We believe that the approach we have observed is not consistent with national guidance and could distort the preparation of LDDs. In our view there is a need for a consistent approach within the Region. We recommend that a regional approach to the assessment of Urban Capacity be prepared as a matter of urgency to guide the LDF process.
7.40 This approach should limit the use of greenfield sites. Some participants suggested that greenfield sites provided an important contribution to the regeneration of some areas. We are aware of proposals within the Region that include greenfield elements, which are justified on the basis of a regeneration “package”. In our view the cumulative effect of such developments on the Locational Strategy needs to be taken into consideration. We do not consider that such proposals provide a reason to modify our approach.
Recommendation 7.7
Modify Policy 30 b) to identify the sub-regional targets for housing development on previously developed land and through the re-use of existing buildings, as indicated in Appendix C.
and be further extended as follows:
To achieve the above targets the District Allocations set out above should not provide the justification for the refusal of windfall housing proposals that fall within the guidance set out for Urban Capacity Studies.
Recommendation 7.8
A regional approach to the assessment of Urban Capacity be prepared as a matter of urgency to guide the LDF process.
Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage
7.41 The uncertainties associated with the economic and housing forecasts stimulated an interest in how those uncertainties could be managed. We were encouraged to increase the level of provision and then provide the management arrangements to control the release. In our opinion this approach is not required when the Plan is setting out the land provision for the period up to 2021. This should ensure that land can be brought forward to meet any identified increase in demand.
7.42 Proposals were also put forward for the identification of a series of triggers, which would allow the supply to be ‘fine tuned’ in response to changing circumstances. We
PANEL REPORT 91
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
do not consider that the planning process is capable of responding in this way and we are also of the view that the uncertainty implied would not be useful for the development industry. In our view the Review process should be capable of responding within a two year period and that is a reasonable response period for most of the changes that are likely to occur.
7.43 The Review process relies on the annual monitoring regime. We consider that the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) must go beyond the reporting of what has happened on the ground. It should also contain a review of the Plan forecasts and an assessment of any significant changes to the “environment” or context of the Plan. A key element of the Annual Monitoring Report should be an assessment of the need for a review of the whole or part of the RSS. It is also important that the major stakeholders and the wider public should be allowed to participate in the debate on the findings of the AMR. This need only involve a process to allow the views of participants to be publicly sought and reported to the Assembly when the AMR is discussed. We recommend accordingly.
Recommendation 7.9
a) Include in the AMR an assessment of the need for a review of the RSS, taking into account an assessment of the continued validity of the housing forecasts and any changes in the context of the plan.
b) An opportunity should be given for a contribution from members of the public to the debate on the conclusions of the AMR.
Housing Distribution
7.44 It was clear from the statements submitted to us that there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the allocation of the housing requirement to the individual districts had been carried out. Paragraph 3.66 of the Submitted Draft indicates that the distribution has been influenced by housing market restructuring and the availability of previously developed land. Technical Background Paper 4, paragraph 5.30, indicates that the distribution reflects the locational strategy by focussing development on previously developed land within the Region’s conurbations and main towns. It also explains that existing planning consents have influenced the allocations for the initial phases.
7.45 We were provided with a briefing note prepared by NERIP, which relates the scale of each allocation to the scale of the housing stock in that district. An index is generated for each district, which is the ratio of the district share of the regional allocation and the district share of regional housing stock. The conclusions of the paper note that Hartlepool and Blyth Valley Districts have been consistently given a higher share of the allocation than their share of housing stock would suggest. The paper also notes that although Newcastle, Gateshead and Middlesbrough are given lower shares in the early periods there is an adjustment in the later periods. To some extent this analysis
PANEL REPORT 92
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
identifies the impact of the “front loading” of the existing consents, but it provides insufficient understanding of the policy interventions.
7.46 In order to gain further insight we have constructed Appendix C ii). This table takes the changes in population arising from a number of projections as a proxy for the allocations. The ONS 2003 based projections are included to represent a past trends approach. The Zero Net Migration (ZNM) Forecast population outcomes are included as a baseline and the population outcomes from the latest housing allocations (the 112,000 forecast) are used to represent the policy interventions. There are some anomalies that are difficult to explain and they may have arisen from the input data. In the case of Durham City it would appear that the 112,000 forecast is suggesting a level of population lower than the ZNM forecast. As some of this data only became available during the EiP we have not been able to seek verification. Nevertheless we remain confident that the table provides a general indication of policy intervention across the Region.
7.47 Appendix C ii) indicates once again that Hartlepool benefits from a positive intervention and that seems to be consistent with the presence in the area of the large Victoria Harbour project. Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesborough swing from a decline in the ONS forecast to a positive increase in the Submission Draft forecast. We presume this reflects the advice we were given that the migration from these areas to North Yorkshire has been retained. The Table indicates a reduction in growth in Stockton compared to the ONS past trends forecast and we believe that this probably reflects the decline of the greenfield component in this area.
7.48 In the case of Durham County the comparison of the forecasts highlights a decline in growth in the northern districts of Derwentside and Chester-le-Street. We assume that this reflects the intention to reduce suburban growth in favour of more development in the core of the city region. The case of Durham City has been mentioned above, but we are also uncertain about the validity of the Easington comparison. There seems little justification for the relatively large swing from the trend forecast in that district. We also note that Sedgefield District appears to enjoy a significant positive policy intervention and once again it is difficult to reconcile this with the broad thrust of policy.
7.49 It would appear from the net dwelling allocations for the “112,000” forecast that both Easington and Sedgefield are expected to experience a significant decline in the rate of development over the Plan period. The per annum rate of development proposed for Sedgefield in the 2004-11 period is 405, whereas the rate in the 2016-21 period is 135. This could have been explained by a high level of planning consent commitments, but this does not seem to be confirmed by the information on the land supply contained in EiP Information Note 7, Annex A. In the absence of any other information, we are concerned that the large greenfield component in the UCS assessment may have influenced the Sedgefield allocation. We recommend that further consideration be given to the allocations for Easington and Sedgefield, with a view to ensuring that they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments.
PANEL REPORT 93
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
7.50 We assume that the positive treatment of Alnwick and Berwick in Northumberland County reflects migration streams based on retirement, which are to a large extent beyond the influence of strategic policy. The figures for Tynedale reflect a reduction of past rates of development, which is consistent with the Locational Strategy. We note that the Table suggests that Blyth Valley is expected to maintain past trends. This would appear to conflict with the Locational Strategy in so far as this district has experienced commuter growth at Cramlington and other areas. An examination of Annex A of EiP Information Note 2 (Addendum 3) indicates that the total amount of development proposed for Blyth Valley is similar to that for Sedgefield. It also indicates that the rate of development remains relatively high during all phases. Annex A of EiP Information Note 7 indicates that Blyth Valley has a relatively small capacity of planning permissions. We appreciate that recent planning appeal decisions have modified that assessment, but we do not consider that the capacity released is sufficient to sustain the rates of development proposed. We note the large capacity on greenfield allocations in Blyth Valley and are concerned that these may have distorted the forecast. We recommend that further consideration be given to the allocation for Blyth Valley with a view to ensuring they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments.
7.51 Our examination of the forecasts for the Tyne and Wear area suggests that they are broadly consistent with the Locational Strategy. We assume that the decline in the rate of population increase identified in Table C1 of Appendix C in North Tyneside reflects a reduction in the rate of suburban development that has occurred in recent years. This is consistent with the Locational Strategy. The substantial differences between the ONS population forecasts for Gateshead and Newcastle and those in the “112,000” forecasts confirm that the housing allocations for these areas are consistent with the Locational Strategy. We believe that this emphasis will be increased as a result of our recommendation on the use of windfall brownfield sites.
7.52 Our general conclusion is that the updated allocations are generally consistent with the Locational Strategy. We have made recommendations above for further consideration of certain elements of the allocation. We consider that we do not have the means to properly investigate these matters and deal with the consequences of any changes that might arise. Should any reductions in the allocations be justified, we are of the opinion that the consequential adjustments should reflect the opportunity to increase the level of concentration of development in the conurbations. We recommend that any consequential adjustments arising from the review of the allocations for Easington, Sedgefield and Blyth Valley should reflect the opportunity to achieve a higher level of concentration of development in the conurbations.
PANEL REPORT 94
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 7 FOR THE NORTH EAST HOUSING
Recommendation 7.10
Modify Policy 30 as set out in Appendix C, subject to further consideration being given to: a) the allocations for Easington and Sedgefield, with a view to ensuring that they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments; b) the allocation for Blyth Valley, with a view to ensuring they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de- allocation and the UCS assessments; and c) any consequential adjustments arising from the review of the allocations for Easington, Sedgefield and Blyth Valley should reflect the opportunity to achieve a higher level of concentration of development in the conurbations.
PANEL REPORT 95
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Chapter 8: The Environment and Resource Management
Matter 6; 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4
Introduction
8.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s environment section focusing on the sub matters of resource management including flood risk; energy & renewable targets; minerals - open cast coal & brick clay; and waste management.
Background
8.2 At the Rio Summit in 1992 governments from around the world committed to sustainable development. The UK Government published its first national strategy in 1994, and in 1999 outlined how it proposed to deliver sustainable development in A Better Quality of Life which set out a vision of simultaneously delivering a range of economic, social and environmental improvements. In 2005 the Government published a review of that strategy, Securing the Future, the UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. This takes account of changes since 1999, in particular the 2003 Energy White Paper which sets a long-term goal of achieving a low carbon economy, and places greater emphasis on delivery at regional level.
8.3 Securing the Future recognised the inter-relationship between the environment and quality of life, and hence the need to make care for the environment an integral part of policy making from the outset. The RSS seeks to carry the broad objectives outlined in Securing the Future forward by means of an integrated policy framework that combines environmental protection and enhancement with sustainable development.
8.4 The Region’s built and natural environment is recognised as an important resource and a major asset, both in its own right and as a necessary component in contributing to economic growth, regeneration, health and the quality of life. The RSS acknowledges that creating and retaining an attractive environment is important in encouraging tourism; providing leisure, recreational and cultural opportunities; improving health and providing a sense of well-being; as well as being an essential ingredient in successful regeneration and improving the image of the Region.
8.5 The North East has some of the country’s highest quality natural environment, and enjoys an outstanding built, cultural and historic heritage. It is important not only to protect and improve these assets, but also to manage their use so as to optimise their potential for the wider benefit of the Region. However, it must also be recognised that the environment is under constant threat, from climate change, pressure for development, and unacceptable exploitation. The RSS seeks to resist, divert or, where appropriate, mitigate these changes for the benefit of all. The Panel have thus
PANEL REPORT 97
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
considered a range of matters arising from the most serious and / or contentious of these issues.
Issues
8.6 In our view the four groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Flood Risk • Does the Submission Draft take an appropriate stance in dealing with strategic issues of flood risk?
Energy & Renewable Targets • Are the targets for renewable energy set at an appropriate level? • Does the selection of “broad areas of least constraint for wind energy developments” threaten valued landscapes such as the National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
Minerals – Opencast Coal and Brick Clay • Is a more stringent approach regarding opencast coal extraction than that set out in MPG3 justified by; o the likely loss of important environmental assets; o the likely impact of coal transportation on the road network and adjoining settlements; o the lack of a local market for the coal? • Does Policy 45 deal adequately with the issue of brick clay?
Waste Management • Does the Submission Draft go far enough in defining policies and setting targets in planning for waste management, particularly waste reduction and re-cycling? Should it in particular; o set out a locational strategy for dealing with these matters; and o identify and provide broad locational guidance on the appropriate strategic capacity requirements of regional or sub-regional significance?
Flood Risk
8.7 The EiP considered whether the Submission Draft takes an appropriate stance in dealing with strategic issues of flood risk, and in particular does it adequately addresses the flood protection issues related to brownfield proposals. The discussions centred on climate change, coastal defences and vulnerability to flooding.
Climate Change 8.8 The Environment Agency, CPRE, Natural England and others voiced concern regarding the effects of climate change which, it was feared, could have dramatic consequences in terms of coastal, fluvial and flash flooding throughout the Region
PANEL REPORT 98
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
during the Plan period. It was acknowledged that the Submission Draft includes a number of policies that take account of climate change. However, the Draft pre-dates PPS25, Development and Flood Risk, which, whilst still at Consultation stage, provides a clear indication of the Government’s concern over the need to have regard to the effect of climate change on flooding. And, while Policy 37 provides a reasonable basis for assessing and reducing flood risk, a number of amendments are required, including a clear statement that the latest predictions for sea level rise are built into the estimates for tidal flooding.
8.9 The Panel accept that the Submission Draft includes a range of policies that recognize the impact of climate change on fluvial and coastal flooding. We also agree that the Strategy should include specific reference to the sea level changes forecast in Draft PPS25, although the wide range of these predictions (90-690mm by 2080 depending on greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate system) was highlighted. In our view the most up-to-date estimates should be used, and thus recommend that Policy 37 be modified to require the use of the latest predictions of sea level rise as part of the planning process.
Recommendation 8.1
Modify Policy 37 a) as follows:
a) tidal effects around estuaries and along the coast, including the effects of the latest predictions for sea level rise.
Coastal Defences 8.10 Natural England suggested that the RSS should adopt an holistic eco-system based approach to the conservation and recovery of marine and coastal habitats, taking into account changes in sea level, habitat protection, sediment erosion and supply and the like. Specifically, Policy 36 should be amended to reflect the advantages of this approach which is in line with the UK Strategy for Sustainable Development. The Regional Assembly maintained that coastal flooding was not severe, and that other coastal issues, including habitat protection, were not unduly problematic. Nonetheless, policies in the Submission Draft reflect the holistic approach suggested by Natural England, and it was acknowledged that supporting text for Policy 37 could be usefully amended to include reference to coastal defences.
8.11 The Panel accept that coastal defence and potential harm to marine coastal habitats are not, at present, a serious cause for concern within the Region. However, we are of the view that there is value in accepting the amendment to Policy 36 and to supporting text for Policy 37 suggested by Natural England and the Regional Assembly.
PANEL REPORT 99
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Recommendation 8.2
a) Modify Policy 36 e) as follows:
e) set a positive policy framework for delivering plans for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, River Basin Management, Shoreline Management and Catchment Flood Management for the Region’s coastal, estuarine and near- shore zones by adopting an eco-system based approach to promote the recovery and conservation of marine eco-systems, including designated sites, favouring the evolution of the coast, estuaries and near-shore zones through natural processes wherever possible.
b) Modify Paragraph 3.113 by the inclusion of reference to coastal defences.
Vulnerability 8.12 The Environment Agency encouraged us to give a clearer steer on the policy conflicts that may arise with flooding issues, particularly in respect of policies seeking to maximise the role of brownfield development. It was recognized that Draft PPS25 states that flood risk should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns, and introduces the concept of vulnerability. While acknowledging that it is unnecessary to duplicate the requirements of the PPS, the Agency suggest that Policy 37 c), be amended to include reference to vulnerability.
8.13 Stockton on Tees BC drew our attention to the Exceptions Test in PPS25, which is to be applied only after the Sequential Test has been applied and in those circumstances when `more vulnerable’ development cannot be located in Flood Risk Zones 1 or 2, and when `highly vulnerable’ development cannot be located in Zone 1. It was acknowledged that Policy 37 j) reflects the Exceptions Test in that it indicates that development will only be permitted where it has been established that any necessary protection or management measures can and will be provided and are consistent with relevant management plans. However, it was felt that, whilst avoiding duplication, Policy 37 should provide a more explicit link to PPS25.
8.14 The Panel recognize that Policy 37 was drafted prior to the publication of Draft PPS25. Nevertheless we believe that the Submission Draft could be improved by a recasting of Policy 37, as set out in Appendix C, to better reflect the principles in the emerging PPS25. Specifically, given that the sequential risk-based approach to development and flooding needs to be informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments, and in order to make that linkage more explicit, Policy 37 d) should be incorporated within the introductory text above 37 c). We also recommend that priority be given to criterion f) and that criterion c) be reworded to better reflect the concept of flooding vulnerability. Likewise, we recommend that criterion j) (renumbered i)) be reworded to include reference to the Exceptions Test in PPS25. Grammatical modifications are also required to criteria g) and i) (renumbered f) and h)).
PANEL REPORT 100
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.15 Finally, our attention has also been drawn to the need to amend the final paragraph of Policy 3 to reflect the concept of vulnerability. We recommend accordingly in Chapter 3.
Recommendation 8.3
Modify the second part of Policy 37 as set out in Appendix C.
Energy & Renewable Targets
8.16 The EiP considered whether the Submission Draft provides clear guidance with regard to sustainable energy use, renewable energy generation, planning for renewables, and onshore wind development. The discussion focused on a range of issues, including sustainable construction, renewable energy targets, and the identification of areas of least constraint.
Sustainable Construction Policy 8.17 The Northumberland National Park Authority, the Environment Agency, FoE, and others expressed support for the inclusion of a Sustainable Construction policy formed by merging parts of Policies 39 and 40. This would, it was felt, accord with the principles of PPS22, and provide a structured guide capable of being reflected within the core strategy of Local Development Frameworks. It would also, by encouraging the use of more sustainable building practices, contribute towards the de- coupling of energy use and economic growth.
8.18 It was suggested to us that Policy 39 a) puts forward a general principle that should be re-located to the Climate Change Policy 2A. But broad locational guidance is already reflected in the recommended Policy 2A (see Appendix C). However, we are of the opinion that there is a need to reflect the contribution the layout of a scheme can make to sustainable energy use, through matters such as building and room orientation, in addition to building design. It is unclear as to whether the wording of Policy 39 a) is intended to deal with this aspect of energy planning. We thus propose that Policy 39 a) be retained and clarified.
8.19 Policy 40 deals with renewable energy generation and includes a component (criterion c)) dealing with embedded generation. While this component is consistent with Policy 40 in terms of energy generation, it relates to the design of developments and would thus, in our view, be more appropriately contained within the balance of Policy 39. This modification will require a rearrangement of the supporting text; paragraph 3.131 relates to Policy 40 c) and should thus be moved to precede Policy 39.
Recommendation 8.4
PANEL REPORT 101
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
a) Rename Policy 39 Sustainable Construction and modify to consist of Policy 39 a) as recommended to be modified below Policy, 39 b), c) and d) and Policy 40 c) (but see also below). b) Modify Policy 39 a) as follows:
a) ensure that the layout and design of new buildings and developments minimise energy consumption. c) Relocate Paragraph 3.131 to form part of the supporting text for Policy 39. d) Retain the balance of Policy 40 Renewable Energy and supporting text.
Local Level Size Thresholds 8.20 We noted that paragraph 3.131 of the Submission Draft requires local level size thresholds for major new developments to have embedded within them a minimum of 10% energy supply from renewable sources, and questioned whether this should be fully reflected in Policy 40 c).
8.21 Durham CC, FoE, CABE and others expressed support for Policy 40 c) which was generally perceived as a response to the need to decouple economic growth and energy demand. However, it was suggested that some authorities fear that local implementation might put them at a competitive disadvantage against those authorities that adopt a more relaxed approach to the scale of development that would attract the minimum requirement for 10% of their energy supply to be from embedded renewable sources. It was proposed that this might be overcome by the RSS requiring strategies plans and programmes to set local level size thresholds for all major new developments.
8.22 We note that the requirement contained in the final sentence of paragraph 3.131 is reflected in Policy 40 c), but that mention of local level size thresholds has been omitted. In our view it is important to encourage the widest acceptance of this policy approach and thus recommend that Policy 40 c) be amended to more accurately reflect paragraph 3.131. Consistent implementation of the policy throughout the Region will, of course, be reliant on a universal interpretation of `major development’. However, we note that the Glossary does not include a definition of `major development’, whether commercial, retail or residential. In their EiP Information Note 4, the NEA indicated that they define `major development’ under the directions of paragraph 16 of Schedule 6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and use this definition within their RSS Conformity Procedures. These procedures define thresholds and scales (with a degree of flexibility) of development that is regarded as being `major’; or of `regional / sub-regional significance’. We recommend that, to ensure consistent policy interpretation, this matter be clarified in the Glossary.
PANEL REPORT 102
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Recommendation 8.5 a) Modify Policy 40 c) (which we recommend above be included in a recast Policy 39) as follows:
e) set local level size thresholds for major new development and require all relevant developments, particularly major retail, commercial and residential developments, to have embedded within them a minimum of 10% energy supply from renewable sources. b) The Glossary be modified to include a definition of `Major Development’, as it relates to retail, commercial and residential proposals, with explanatory cross reference to the definition of “Regional/Sub-Regional significance.”
Targets 8.23 Several participants commented on the fact that Policy 40 requires Northumberland to provide the largest proportion of future renewable generation. It was suggested that the targets should be re-balanced to provide a more equitable distribution throughout the Region. However, in our view the targets must reflect the opportunities for increased generation which are themselves a reflection of geography, settlement pattern and development potential. Hence sub-regional targets cannot be based on the proportion of existing consumption or any other proportional population based measurement.
8.24 Alnwick DC, CPRE and others suggested that Policy 40 d) should include targets for sub-regional renewable energy generation in the year 2020 in order to reflect the aspiration set out in Policy 40 b) and to set a challenging, but realistic, policy objective. However, we accept the argument that the pace of technological change alone makes judgement on this matter very difficult. We also note that paragraph 3.132 indicates that it is an aspiration to double the installed capacity target by 2020 and that Policy 40 b) indicates an aspiration to further increase renewable electricity generation to achieve 20% of regional consumption by 2020. In our view Policy 40 provides an adequate and realistic indication of the intended direction of travel concerning this issue, and we conclude that there is no need for any modification of the Policy in relation to the setting of targets.
Consistency with PPS22 8.25 PPS22, sets out national policies concerning renewable energy projects and development that need to be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies. The Panel therefore considered whether there was a need to place greater weight on Policy 41 a) in order to increase conformity with PPS22. And whether, given the presence of nationally recognized designations within the Region, there was a need to more fully incorporate the guidance in paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of PPS22 in Policy 41.
PANEL REPORT 103
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.26 Several participants, including GONE, drew our attention to the fact that PPS22 Key Principle (iv) confirms that the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. It was suggested that Policy 41 does not fully reflect the emphasis in PPS22 on the wider environmental and economic benefits arising from the generation of renewable energy, and that the policy emphasis could be improved by the inclusion of criterion a) as part of the introductory text. As presently written, criterion a) appears as only one criterion amongst a number to be taken into account.
8.27 The Panel accepts that criterion a) includes reference to wider social, in addition to environmental and economic benefits, and that these are first in the list of criteria. However, we are of the opinion that there is a need to better reflect the thrust of national policy and, in particular, to confirm that environmental and economic benefits are material considerations that will be accorded `significant weight’.
Recommendation 8.6 a) Delete Policy 41 a). b) Reword the introductory text to Policy 41 as follows:
Strategies, plans and programmes should support and encourage renewable energy proposals and identify renewable resource areas.
In assessing proposals for renewable energy development significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, economic and social benefits arising from higher levels of renewable energy and the following criteria should be considered:
a) anticipated effects ………..etc.
8.28 Our attention was also drawn to paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of PPS22 and the potential conflict with Policy 41 d) and paragraph 3.137.
8.29 Paragraph 11 of PPS22 confirms that in areas with nationally recognized designations, including National Parks, AONBs and Heritage Coasts, planning permission for renewable energy projects will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation will not be compromised, and that any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area had been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits. We are satisfied that Policy 41, as now recommended to be modified, accords with the broad thrust of this advice.
8.30 It was suggested that criterion d), in requiring consideration to be given to the effect of renewable energy proposals on the settings of nationally and internationally designated areas, would, contrary to advice in PPS22, establish ‘buffer zones’ around such designations and that these would place a further constraint upon the
PANEL REPORT 104
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
achievement of targets. It is acknowledged that paragraph 14 of PPS22 advises that regional planning bodies should not create buffer zones around nationally and internationally designated areas, or otherwise apply policies to these zones that seek to prevent the development of renewable energy projects. However, the advice continues by confirming that the potential impact on designated areas of projects close to their boundaries will be a material consideration to be taken into account in determining planning applications. In our view the inclusion in Policy 41 d) of reference to the `setting’ of nationally and internationally designated sites conforms with PPG advice, and conclude that there is no reason to modify the Policy in this respect.
8.31 The Panel’s attention was drawn to the decision by the First Secretary of State on the Whinash Wind Farm proposal, in which he appears to take a view on the wider effects of the proposal and its relationship with surrounding designations. It seems to us that this decision reflects the reference in paragraph 14 of PPS22 of the need to have regard to the potential impact on designated areas of renewable energy projects close to their boundaries, and thereby reinforces our decision that modification of Policy 41 d) cannot be justified.
8.32 We do, however, note an apparent conflict between paragraph 12 of PPS22 and paragraph 3.137 of the Submission Draft. Paragraph 12 advises that small scale renewable energy developments may be permitted within areas such as National Parks, AONBs and Heritage Coasts provide that there is no significant environmental detriment to the area concerned. While following the thrust of this advice, paragraph 3.137 introduces the additional requirement that these projects `deliver significant community benefits’. We note that this requirement is not carried forward into Policy 41, although mention is made of `wider ….. social benefits’. In our view there are clear differences between `community’ and `wider social’ benefits and thus, for reasons of clarity and conformity, recommend that paragraph 3.137 be modified accordingly.
Recommendation 8.7
Modify paragraph 3.137 by the deletion of `deliver significant community benefits and’.
Broad Areas of Least Constraint 8.33 The Panel considered whether there was a need for the RSS to identify areas suitable for onshore wind energy development, and if so, whether there was some confusion concerning the specificity or generality of identification. We also considered whether it was necessary to include radar visibility in the area identification process, and the accuracy of Environment Map 1 in terms of its identification of broad areas of least constraint.
8.34 The Environment Map 1 and Policy 42 indicate the broad areas with least constraints for wind energy developments, as identified by the Regional Renewable Energy
PANEL REPORT 105
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Strategy (RRES). Paragraph 3.141 confirms that these areas offer the greatest potential to accommodate onshore wind developments. However, several participants questioned the need for these areas to be specifically identified in the RSS on the basis that Policy 42 does not imply automatic approval of proposals within those areas, and neither Policy nor Plan remove the need to consider the potential for onshore wind energy developments in other parts of the Region.
8.35 We note that PPS22 Key Principle (ii) states that regional spatial strategies should contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. In our view, while recognizing their limitations, these indicative designations provide a positive steer to the wind energy development industry and thereby reflect the guidance set out in PPS22.
8.36 Our attention was also drawn to the conflict in Policy 42 between the term ‘broad areas of least constraint’ and the specific titles applied to the areas identified. We note that most of the area descriptions are expressed in fairly general terms, for example South and West Berwick upon Tweed and Tees Plain, but particular attention was drawn to ‘Knowesgate’ and ‘Kiln Pit Hill’. We are satisfied that the intention of Policy 42 is to refer to the general area around these locations and not to the villages themselves. In our view this issue can be resolved by the addition of the word ‘area’ to the villages concerned.
Recommendation 8.8
Modify the area descriptions in Policy 42 b) as follows:
• Knowesgate Area,
• Kiln Pit Hill Area.
8.37 A number of participants, including Mr W Short, questioned the position of the ‘W’ symbols on Environment Map 1, identified in the key as ‘medium resource areas’. In response to these concerns the NEA stated that it had re-assessed the position of the symbols and submitted a map showing their modified location. Subsequent discussion revealed that the analysis undertaken by Consultants acting on behalf of the NEA to determine these modified locations did not include an evaluation of the potential impact of wind energy development proposals on radar visibility. The NEA assured the EiP that this level of detailed analysis was not required at this stage, as it would still be necessary for each proposal to be evaluated on its merits. Paragraph 25 of PPS22, which confirms that regional spatial strategies should not include specific policies relating to the impact of wind turbines on airport operation, radar and aircraft, was cited in support of this position. We agree with the NEA’s view on this point.
8.38 Concern was also expressed regarding the positioning of the `W’ on both the original and amended plans, given that an in depth analysis revealed that several of the `W’s are positioned over areas of high landscape value or other areas subject to landscape constraints. We recognise that neither the NEA’s modified plan nor their response
PANEL REPORT 106
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
were sufficient to assuage critics’ concern regarding the validity of the underlying analysis. However, there was a broad level of agreement regarding the suitability of the areas identified for wind energy development, and an acceptance that the graphic identification of these areas by means of a symbol was preferable to shading, as the latter would have indicated firm boundaries rather than the indistinct boundaries suggested by a symbol. We trust that the NEA will again check the location of the `W’ symbols against specific concerns voiced at the EiP. But otherwise we are of the opinion that the amended locations of the symbols should be used on Environment Map 1. Our conclusions on this issue are reinforced by advice in paragraph 1.18 of PPS11 which confirms that, in the event of a conflict between policies and the key diagram, the policies should prevail when interpreting the RSS.
8.39 The Panel’s attention was also drawn to the fact that the key for Environment Map 1 described the W symbol as “medium resource area”. It was clear from submissions that this had caused confusion over the meaning that should be applied to the term. In our view, for clarity and consistency with Policy 42 and supporting text, the key should be modified to indicate that the symbols represent ‘broad areas of least constraint’.
Recommendation 8.9
Modify Environment Map 1 to show: a) the Regional Assembley’s corrected locations of the ‘W’ symbols; and b) the key for Environment Map 1 to show that the ‘W’ symbol represents ‘broad areas of least constraint’.
Small to medium scale development 8.40 The Panel considered whether there was a need for greater clarity in Policy 42 and supporting text concerning the use of the term `medium scale wind energy development’. Policy 42 b) confirms that the areas identified in the Policy have ‘potential for medium scale development’. It emerged from the debate at the EiP that the interpretation that should be put upon the potential of these area is that they are suitable for small to medium scale wind energy development, and that this description was intended to distinguish these area from the potential for large scale wind energy development in the Kielder Forest. It was pointed out that some renewable energy companies believed that this policy implied that the designated areas could accommodate a number of ‘medium scale’ developments. It was established from the NEA in reply that the definition of medium scale set out in paragraph 3.141 (20 - 25 turbines) and carried forward into Policy 42 related to the total capacity of an area and should not be regarded as an appropriate scale for individual proposals. It was also confirmed that work is on-going using landscape capacity techniques to better inform the carrying capacity of the designated areas. We note that this work will be of particular assistance in making judgements on cumulative impact.
PANEL REPORT 107
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.41 In light of the above information we are of the opinion that paragraph 3.141 should be extended to confirm that the scale indications relate to the overall area and not to individual proposals. Likewise we conclude that this extension of the text should be complemented by a modification of Policy 42 b) to clarify that the potential of the identified areas is for small to medium scale development. It would also, in our view, be useful to include a reference to the future contribution of the landscape capacity analysis in terms of cumulative impact.
Recommendation 8.10
a) Amend Paragraph 3.141 to provide an adequate explanation of the scale/capacity issue, and to include reference to the future contribution the landscape capacity analysis study will make to assessing cumulative impact.
b) Modify Policy 42 b) as follows-
b) the following areas have potential for small to medium scale development:
8.42 As an aside, although not raised as an issue, the Panel feel that the use of the term `wind energy development’ in Policy 42 and supporting text would be more appropriate than `wind development’. The latter is imprecise, and possibly open to mis-interpretation.
Off-Shore Wind Energy Generation 8.43 Finally, with regard to energy and renewables targets, the Panel considered whether there would be an advantage in the inclusion of a policy dealing with the onshore consequences of offshore wind energy development. It was established that the geography of the off-shore potential for wind energy developments meant that urban landfalls were anticipated near Blyth and Teesmouth, but that the potential impact was expected to be small. We are satisfied that this issue could thus be adequately dealt with as part of the LDF process. It was also indicated that the development of the strategic off-shore resources was not expected to take place until towards the end of the RSS period. Hence we conclude that there is no justification for any modification to the Submission Draft.
Minerals – Opencast Coal and Brick Clay
8.44 The Panel considered whether the Submission Draft was consistent with the principles of sustainable development and, in particular, Government guidance in terms of opencast coal extraction. The discussion also touched upon issues relating to fireclay working and brick clay extraction.
PANEL REPORT 108
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Sustainability 8.45 We initially considered whether the adoption of a presumption against opencast coal extraction was consistent with the principles of sustainability when coal has to be imported from abroad in order to ensure national power generation. It emerged during the discussion of this matter that coal is being imported through ports in the North East from South Africa, Russia, Columbia, Indonesia, Poland, and elsewhere. It was argued that, given the availability of local reserves, there was a prima facie sustainability objection to the importation of coal from around the world, and that a consequence of a stricter policy control over opencast extraction would be the importation of additional coal from areas where environmental standards of extraction might not be as tight as in the UK. The sustainability deficit inherent in Policy 45 was thus exacerbated when the lack of environmental controls in many of the exporting countries, including their failure to have regard to the interests of local communities, the protection of local landscapes and habitats and the absence of restoration, was factored in to the equation. This could, in turn, be construed as being contrary to Policy 2 w) which seeks to reduce adverse impacts of economic growth on global communities by supporting the use of local labour, materials and produce.
8.46 We acknowledge that MPG3 tacitly accepts the need to import coal by recognising the availability of large quantities of low chlorine coal on the international market for use, either as extracted or blended, by power generators. We also recognise that opencast coal is inherently low in chlorine, and thus competes with imported fuel in this respect. MPG3 also confirms that it is not for the planning system to set limits on or targets for any particular source or level of energy supply, nor to predetermine the appropriate levels of coal to be produced by underground or opencast mining. Nonetheless we are of the opinion that excessive restriction of local supplies of opencast coal would conflict in both a local and global context with the wider sustainability principles of the Plan.
Consistency with MPG3 8.47 We considered whether Policy 45 should be reworded to more accurately reflect the clarification of MPG3 given in response to a Parliamentary Question in May 2005. And also, whether there were grounds for Policy 45 to be deleted. Paragraph 8 of MPG3 confirms that in applying the principles of sustainable development to coal extraction, whether opencast or deep-mine, and to colliery spoil disposal, the Government believes there should normally be a presumption against development unless it meets one of several specific tests. Firstly, is the proposal environmentally acceptable, or can it be made so by planning conditions or obligations. And secondly, if not, does it provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impact to justify the grant of planning permission. Additional tests are set out for proposals in National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs, NNRs and the Green Belt. In a statement to the House of Lords on 24 May, 2005, Baroness Andrews confirmed that “…… there is a presumption against opencast mining unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, but community benefits that offset the environmental impact can also allow a successful planning application. They are alternative tests, not cumulative.”
PANEL REPORT 109
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.48 Participants acknowledged that Policy 45 properly recognises the presumption against opencast coal extraction contained in MPG3. However, those participants representing the coal mining industry pointed out that both paragraph 3.151 and Policy 45 of the Submission Draft conflict with MPG3 in that they require environmental acceptability and the overall benefits to local communities to be cumulatively assessed rather than as alternative tests. Opponents of the Policy also highlighted the fact that Policy 45 differed from Government guidance in that it referred to `benefits to local communities’ rather than to `local or community benefits’ as stated in paragraph 8(ii) of MPG3. GONE likewise confirmed that Policy 45 conflicts with advice in paragraph 8 of MPG3, and indicated that a departure of this magnitude from Government guidance required specific regional justification.
8.49 In reply, Northumberland and Durham CCs, Tyne and Wear Authorities and others sought to justify the requirement for proposals for opencast extraction to be subject to more stringent cumulative tests by highlighting the long history and contentious nature of opencast proposals in the North East, and the environmental legacy of past workings throughout much of the Region. Traditionally the North East had contributed a significant amount of coal to meet national demand since opencast working started in the inter-War period. The wide-spread distribution of these workings, their scale, the intensity of disturbance caused to local communities, and the possibility that disturbance arising from existing and potential future workings would continue well into the future justified a more restrictive approach.
8.50 It was evident from both written and verbal submissions that opencast coal extraction remains a contentious issue throughout the North East, and we are fully aware of the environmental disruption and legacy caused by opencast activities. However, we do not accept that the North East can be regarded as a special case. Our Panel Tours convinced us that there is little difference between the North East and many of the other coalfield areas throughout the country, including the North West, Yorkshire, and the East and West Midlands in terms of the environmental impact of extraction on neighbouring settlements. Furthermore we note that MPG3 was approved after extensive consultation and on the basis of full knowledge of the conditions in the coalfield areas to which it would apply. We conclude, and it is evident, that Policy 45 conflicts with MPG3 and in our view no case has been made for this departure from national guidance. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the policy should be modified to accurately reflect MPG3 advice.
8.51 It was further suggested to us that there was a case for Policy 45 to be deleted, given that if amended to comply with MPG3 it would simply reiterate Government guidance, and thereby conflict with PPS11, paragraph 1.7, in this respect. However, it is clear that proposals for opencast coal extraction throughout the Region continue to be the subject of intense debate. Technological improvements to extraction equipment now enable coal to be extracted from greater depths. As a result proposals continue to come forward for former shallow workings to be re-opened for further deep extraction, with the possibility that these and other potential sites will extend the debate (and potential disturbance) long into the future. On the other hand, evidence from the Mineral Authorities involved in the EiP demonstrates that opencast coal proposals continue to be approved and that occasionally circumstances arise when
PANEL REPORT 110
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
wider community benefits are given greater weight than local impacts. It is also apparent that the preparation of Local Development Frameworks is initiating a more positive approach to the consideration of future extraction areas with operators co- operating with Mineral Authorities in order to identify suitable sites. In our opinion this combination of factors supports the view that the area requires a policy for opencast coal, and that this should promote a positive approach to the process. We are of the view that Policy 45 should incorporate such provision.
Recommendation 8.11 a) Modify Policy 45 as follows –
Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should, in consultation with the coal industry, identify acceptable areas for the opencast extraction of coal.
Prior to an agreement on such areas the Minerals Authorities should adopt a presumption against opencast coal extraction unless:
1. the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations;
2. or the proposals can provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts.
Where opencast coal extraction is acceptable, provision should be made for the extraction and beneficial use of fireclay.
All extracted minerals should be transported by rail whenever possible.
Fireclay and Brick Clay 8.52 Finally, with regard to mineral extraction, we considered whether the Submission Draft adequately reflected local circumstances regarding the supply of fireclay and brick clay. Fireclay is sourced as a by-product of opencast coal extraction and is used predominantly in the production of buff coloured bricks, which are a characteristic of traditional North East architecture. This, in turn, has generated an on-going demand which local brickworks strive to meet. Brick manufacture is a capital intensive industry, and in order to meet this demand manufacturers require a reliable and long- term supply of fireclay. However, unlike other clays used in manufacture, the source of fireclay is outside the industry’s direct control.
8.53 Several participants, including the British Ceramics Federation, suggested that the Submission Draft should better reflect local issues regarding the supply of fireclay, and expressed concern that the restrictive nature of Policy 45, arising from its conflict with MPG3, would seriously hinder supply.
PANEL REPORT 111
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.54 The Panel recognise the inter-relationship between opencast coal extraction and fireclay supply, and appreciate the contribution fireclay makes in maintaining the Region’s architectural traditions. We note that paragraph 3.150 and Policy 45 in the Submission Draft include reference to the extraction and beneficial use of fireclay, and have above recommended modifications to Policy 45 which will, in our view, facilitate the source of supply. We are satisfied that no further policy modifications are required, and that any residual concerns regarding stockpiling, programming of extraction to avoid sterilisation and the like should be dealt with through the LDF process.
8.55 Turning to the issue of brick clay, we note that whilst mentioned in paragraph 3.143, brick clay is not specifically mentioned in Policy 43, Overall Minerals Strategy, which seeks to ensure the prudent use of all of the Region’s natural mineral resources in line with sustainable development objectives. The British Ceramics Federation expressed concern that the Submission Draft did not pay sufficient regard to brick clay manufacture and, in particular, did not reflect emerging Government guidance in the Consultation Papers on MPS1 and Annexes. Paragraph 2.3.6 of Annex 2 advocates that MPAs should normally aim to maintain a stock of permitted reserves of brick clay that reflect the proposed period for operation of individual works; this could, in some cases, be as much as 20 years or more.
8.56 We note that much of the guidance in the Consultation Drafts of MSP1 and Annexes is directed as Mineral Planning Authorities, and while paragraph 13 of Draft MSP1 requires RSSs to provide the strategic framework within which LDFs can be prepared, it is for the MPAs to prepare Mineral and Waste Development Frameworks for delivering the planning strategy for their area. It would thus, in our view, be inappropriate for the RSS to go beyond the strategic level set out in Policy 43, within which criterion a) requires MWDFs and LDFs to ensure that land is made available to provide an appropriate contribution to local, regional and national needs for minerals. We are thus satisfied that Policy 43 a) should ensure that adequate supplies of brick clay will be available.
8.57 The Panel were informed that it was anticipated that MSP1 and Annexes would be published in their final form in mid - 2006. We have no doubt that the NEA and MPAs will have regard to them, together with any significant changes between the draft and final versions, in finalising the RSS and the preparation of MWDFs.
Waste Management
8.58 Several participants, including GONE and the Environment Agency, observed that the section on waste in the Submission Draft fails to reflect national planning policy as set out in PPS10. It was suggested that particular points of inconsistency are:
• Policy 46 should include a locational strategy for the development of sustainable waste practices and facilities, and identify broad locations for them.
PANEL REPORT 112
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
• The Submission Draft should include estimates of need and details of current and planned capacity to address municipal and construction and demolition waste streams, apportioned by Waste Planning Authority areas.
• Policy 47 should require each Waste Planning Authority to identify / allocate sites for waste management facilities or bring forward a joint proposal with a neighbouring authority.
• The issue of waste management facilities of a national, regional and sub-regional level should be addressed explicitly in the Submission Draft, and if necessary a locational policy should be included.
8.59 It was further suggested that consideration should be given to setting targets for recycling and the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill, with consequential amendments to Policy 47, and the possible modification of Policy 48 to identify the broad location of facilities at Waste Planning Authority level required to manage hazardous waste.
8.60 We note that PPS10, Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, was published in July 2005, one month after the publication of the Submission Draft, and that its Draft Companion Guide was published four months later in November 2005. It is thus unreasonable to expect the Submission Draft to fully comply with the most recent Government guidance on waste management, although it was obvious to us that a lot of work has and is still being done to achieve a greater level of compliance with PPS10. We also note the difficulties faced by the NEA and WPAs as a result of the absence of reliable up-to-date information on commercial and industrial waste, construction and demolition waste, and other specialist waste streams, and resultant problems in disaggregating that information (or lack of it) down to WPA level. The Panel thus sought to establish through a range of issues whether there is sufficient scope to make meaningful improvements at this stage, or whether the proposed policies and supporting text concerning waste management should be set aside until the next Review.
Waste Minimisation 8.61 It was put to us that a separate policy on waste minimisation should be included in the RSS as this is the cornerstone of all sustainable waste management. However, we note that Policy 46 promotes waste minimisation plans and schemes (criterion a)), and places minimisation at the top of the waste hierarchy (criterion e)). We thus conclude that a separate policy is not required.
Regional Waste Management Strategy 8.62 Policy 46 h) refers to the Regional Waste Management Strategy as one of the key principles guiding strategies, plans and programmes dealing with sustainable waste management. We understand that an early informal draft of the Regional Waste Management Strategy was produced. In our view, criterion h) should refer to the aims
PANEL REPORT 113
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
of the Waste Management Strategy as set out in paragraph 3.153, thereby providing clear policy support for its objectives.
Recommendation 8.12
Modify Policy 46 h) to include reference to the aims of the Regional Waste Management Strategy, as set out in Appendix C.
8.63 We further note the suggestion that Policy 46 should include a locational strategy for the development of sustainable waste practices and facilities, and to identify broad locations for them. Policy 46 contains a number of criteria that seek to encourage the development of sustainable waste management practices and facilities, but does not include a locational strategy for dealing with these issues. However, in our view this matter is dealt with in Policy 47, Waste Management Provision, criterion a) which requires MWDFs and LDFs to allocate sites for waste management facilities and to include policies which identify specific criteria for their location.
Waste Apportionment 8.64 Policy 47 refers to Table 2, which sets out an apportionment of management capacity for annual waste arisings to the four sub-regions. This information provides the County WPAs (Northumberland and Durham) with adequate guidance for the preparation of MWDDs, but fails to provide sufficient guidance for the Borough WPAs (Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley). We understand that the Tees Valley authorities are moving towards the preparation of Joint Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents, but we are not aware of any formal intent by the Tyne and Wear authorities to move in the same direction. In these circumstances it would appear that the need for more disaggregated information is only critical for the Tyne and Wear sub-region.
8.65 We were advised that disaggregated figures are available at Borough level. However, it became clear that the Borough Councils are reluctant to support the proposed disaggregated figures, partly we understand, as a result of uncertainties concerning evolving waste management techniques and partly because of fears that the Borough estimates may be used in future performance assessments. We were advised by the NEA that a further refinement of the detailed apportionments will be carried out during 2006.
8.66 In our view there is a need for the RSS to conform to PPS10, and thus to include the current disaggregated apportionment to Borough level as a modification of Table 2. This information should be drawn from the Environment Resources Management publication Apportionment of Future Waste Arisings: Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley published in December 2005. We recognise that this information may need to be updated as more refined data becomes available. Nonetheless, in our view this information can be set as interim guidance which can be updated as soon as further refinement is available.
PANEL REPORT 114
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.67 We note that Policy 47a) requires each WPA to identify / allocate sites for waste management facilities. However, we suggest a minor modification to recognise the scope for the preparation of joint waste management strategies and plans where appropriate.
Recommendation 8.13 a) Modify Table 2 to include the disaggregated waste arisings for the Borough Council areas in Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear. b) Modify Policy 47 by the addition of concluding text as set out in Appendix C c) Amend supporting text to indicate that the figures in modified Table 2 should be regarded as interim guidance only until more refined data can be substituted.
8.68 We also note that paragraph 8 of PPS10 requires RPBs to identify the tonnage of waste requiring management for the commercial and industrial and municipal waste streams, apportioned to WPA level. We appreciate that Table 2 of the Submission Draft, supplemented by Technical Paper No.9, Waste, identifies the annual waste arisings for these streams for each of the WPAs in the Region. However the Submission Draft does not identify how much of this waste would be managed by existing facilities and how much would need to be treated by new facilities. Paragraph 6.43 of the draft Companion Guide to PPS10 advises that RSSs should estimate the gap between the forecast need and current and planned capacity during the Plan period - the `capacity gap’.
8.69 In our view, the Submission Draft should include estimates of need, and details of current and planned capacity to address the commercial and industrial and municipal waste streams, taking into account waste exported into / exported from other regions, disaggregated to WPA level. Much of this information is contained in RSS Information Note 9, Waste Management Facilities and Capacity. And while we appreciate the difficulty in obtaining reliable data, we are satisfied that, subject to necessary caveats, this information is sufficiently robust to meet the requirements of PPS10. It would, however, be inappropriate for the Submission Draft to seek to identify the number or type of facilities required to address this `capacity gap’, as this would be more appropriately addressed through MWLDDs.
Recommendation 8.14
Additional supporting text be included to provide estimates of need, and details of current and planned capacity to address the tonnages of commercial and industrial and municipal waste streams requiring management, taking into account waste exported into / exported from other regions, disaggregated to Waste Planning Authority level, and subject to any necessary caveats concerning reliability.
PANEL REPORT 115
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Targets 8.70 We note that paragraph 3.156 sets out recovery targets for municipal solid, commercial and industrial, and construction and demolition waste. In our view these targets should be included as part of the policy framework and should therefore be incorporated in Policy 47. The Panel also note that a target figure for household waste recycling and composting is included in the NEA’s statement to the EiP. We are of the opinion that, for completeness, this figure should also be included in Policy 47.
Recommendation 8.15 Modify Policy 47 to incorporate the targets for different waste streams as indicated in Appendix C.
National, Regional and Sub-Regional Facilities 8.71 Paragraph 11 of PPS10 requires RPBs to consider the need for additional waste management capacity of regional or sub-regional significance, and to reflect any requirement for waste management facilities identified nationally. The RSS should thus provide a strategic framework for the preparation of MWDDs by identifying the type and scale of waste management facilities required, and their distribution across the Region. We note that paragraph 3.160 recognises that significant numbers of new facilities will be needed to manage the amount of waste estimated to be produced during the Plan period. However, the RSS is not prescriptive on the type and number of facilities required on grounds that it is likely that new techniques and processes for managing and treating waste will emerge.
8.72 It is evident that the RSS is not PPS10 compliant in this respect. And it became clear during the EiP debate that, due to the rapidly changing technological environment, there is no agreement at this stage with the waste disposal authorities over the need to prescribe the pattern of future facilities. As the requisite information is not available to us, we are unable to make an assessment of the needs of the Region in this respect or to provide locational guidance.
Hazardous Waste 8.73 Finally, we considered whether the information and policy framework on hazardous waste is adequate and, in particular, whether Policy 48 should identify the broad location of facilities at WPA level to manage hazardous waste requiring treatment. We note that paragraph 3.169 and Policy 48 recognise the need for a range of new facilities for the treatment and management of increasing amounts of hazardous waste; that facilities should be provided on a regional or sub-regional basis; and that, in line with the proximity principle, in identifying specific sites or criteria for the location of facilities priority should be given to appropriate industrial sites in Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley.
PANEL REPORT 116
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 8 FOR THE NORTH EAST THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
8.74 In our view Policy 48 is sufficiently robust to provide adequate guidance for the preparation of Waste Local Development Documents. And that while its locational guidance is adequate at regional level, more detailed locational issues should be dealt with by WLDDs.
Overall Conclusion 8.75 The Panel accept that, notwithstanding our recommended modifications to Policies 46 and 47, the section on Sustainable Waste Management is not fully PPS10 compliant; given that PPS10 post-dates the Submission Draft a degree of non-compliance is inevitable. However, we are firmly of the view that in no way does any residual non- compliance render any of the policies or guidance invalid, and that it would be inappropriate in terms of RSS content, and wasteful in terms of time and expertise, to set aside the guidance it provides until the next Review.
PANEL REPORT 117
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT 118
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
Chapter 9: Transport Strategy
Matter 7; 7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 7/4
Introduction
9.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s connectivity section focussing on the transport strategy sub matters including: transport proposals & transport investment priorities, public transport network development, demand management and freight transport.
Background
9.2 PPG13 sets the national planning context in terms of transport. The key themes arising out of PPG13 are a need to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, through better management of urban growth and by encouraging mixed-use developments to reduce the length of trips. It also provides encouragement to ensuring that high trip generating uses are located close to sustainable transport infrastructure and that parking provision is controlled in such a way so that it does not encourage greater use of the car where there are alternative, more sustainable, transport choices available.
9.3 PPS11 sets down the Government’s objectives for Regional Spatial Strategies and states that the Region’s Transport Strategy (RTS) should be an integral and identifiable part of the RSS. It should set out how national transport policies and programmes will be delivered in the Region and should be careful to avoid detailed local schemes which are better dealt with through Local Transport Plans. In particular PPS11 requires that RSS transport priorities are costed and can be realistically implemented during the life time of the strategy.
9.4 In order to plan for the Region’s future transport needs realistically we have to be aware of the resources available. To this end GONE, the Assembly, One Northeast and various other joint agencies formed an Interim Regional Transport Board which published Regional Funding Allocations: North East England’s advice to Government (RFA) in January 2006. This document sets out a focused agenda for infrastructure development in the Region which prioritises schemes that are intended to support the regeneration of the Region’s economy; as such the RFA has been influenced more strongly by the RES than by the RSS. The extent to which the priorities set out in the RFA accord with the need to plan sustainably are discussed later in this Chapter.
9.5 Other funding streams were also referred to at the EiP such as the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) which seeks to provide funding for schemes which are designed to reduce congestion and increase productivity. The principle underlying the TIF is that resources are allocated on the basis of an assessment of how these objectives can be most effectively and sustainably met. Local authorities and agencies have to bid to central government for TIF funding.
PANEL REPORT 119
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
9.6 The North East region benefits from a relatively uncongested road network and is served primarily by the two main north/south routes, the A1/A1(M) and the A19. The A1/A1(M) connects the Region with the national motorway network and the main English conurbations to the south and Scotland to the north. The A19 serves as the primary route between the two city regions and in particular provides an important access route to the North East’s ports. The main east/west routes serving the Region are the A69 linking Tyne and Wear with Carlisle and the M6 and the A66 which links Tees Valley with the M6 and Cumbria. The North East has experienced a rapid growth in car ownership and use in recent years as a result of the increased rate of economic growth. This has led to particular pinch points at peak times on the main trunk routes, in particular on the A1 Gateshead Western Bypass and on the A66 around Darlington.
9.7 The East Coast Mainline (ECML) is the main rail line which links the Region to the national rail network with main stops at Darlington to serve the Tees Valley and at Durham and Newcastle to serve Tyne and Wear. Berwick upon Tweed station and a stop at Alnmouth serve North Northumberland. Regional rail services are more limited and at the EiP we heard there was scope to improve regional rail services between and within the two city regions.
9.8 Public transport patronage is high in the North East, particularly in Tyne and Wear which benefits from a comprehensive light rail system, the Metro. We heard at the EiP that while bus patronage was relatively high in both Tyne and Wear and the Tees Valley city regions, it was declining rapidly.
9.9 Freight is moved primarily by road and we heard that the potential for freight movement by rail was constrained. In particular, there is a need to increase capacity to allow longer train lengths beyond Doncaster so that trains can transport freight more easily between the Region’s ports and the national rail network, including the Channel Tunnel.
9.10 The Region’s ports were well represented at the EiP and they were anxious to ensure that the potential of the ports would be fully realised through the strategy. We heard how the ports were growing, particularly Teesport and Port of Tyne. Teesport was stated to be the second largest port in the UK in terms of tonnage handled and at Port of Tyne the growth of ferry services to Europe and its role in relation to the Nissan car plant were emphasised.
9.11 The Future of Air Transport White Paper was published in December 2003 and sets out a policy framework to inform decisions on the future development of the UK’s airports. In line with national trends the Region’s two airports, Newcastle International and Durham Tees Valley, have experienced significant growth in recent years, primarily as a result of low cost airline operations. The growth trajectories of both airports are such that they would exceed the projected passenger figures set out in the White Paper which were 10 million passengers per annum (mppa) for Newcastle and approximately 1.4 mppa for Durham Tees Valley. However the Panel heard that environmental constraints and the rise in oil prices may impinge on future growth levels. It was clear from the discussion at the EiP and from the evidence
PANEL REPORT 120
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
submitted that the Region’s airports are strong economic drivers and are increasingly important to the Region’s economic well being.
Issues
9.12 In our view the four groups of issues which arise in this Chapter are:
Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities • Does the Regional Transport Strategy: o adequately support the overall strategy; o present a realistic set of proposals; o set out a clear statement of priorities for future investment and management; and o conform with the Air Transport White Paper 2003?
Public Transport Network Development • Does the Submission Draft present a clear strategy for the development of the public transport network within the Region?
Demand Management • Does the Submission Draft provide adequate guidance on the application of demand management measures and parking and travel plans?
Freight Transport - Road and Rail • Does the RSS adequately set out a strategy for road and rail freight and for associated land requirements?
Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities
9.13 The Submission Draft sets out the general transport implications of further economic growth. There was little evidence that major problems had been identified, except for the consequences of additional traffic through the ports and the need for more effective freight train paths on the East Coast Main Line north of Doncaster.
9.14 There is little doubt that the Regional Growth Strategy is likely to generate more traffic and that increased congestion is likely. We are persuaded by the argument that the critical congestion is likely to be found in the first or last five miles of each journey and that the most effective solution is unlikely to be major road building on its own. It is our opinion that a balanced approach is required to the development of the transport strategy, and that more emphasis is needed on the contribution that sustainable land use patterns can make. In addition to the land use contribution a balanced approach will include contributions from demand management and public transport development. The Sunderland Strategic Transport Corridor is an example of where additional road development can make a positive contribution to the Regional Growth Strategy. Here a new road, including bus lanes, cycle and pedestrian routes is planned in order to open up development sites in and around the city centre. The route
PANEL REPORT 121
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
also includes a new iconic river crossing which will link communities on both banks of the Wear.
9.15 We are not convinced the transport proposals set out in the Submission Draft reflect the proper balance. In our view there is a need to shift the balance away from major road proposals such as the dualling of the A1 to the Scottish border. It would appear that there is unlikely to be the level of resources available to support all of the proposals in the Submission Draft. Even if major highway construction proposals are eliminated, there would still be insufficient resources to ensure the implementation of the major public transport schemes. It is accepted that some of the resources required for major projects, such as work on the ECML, will come from national budgets, but we are not convinced that the priorities set out in Table 3 can be justified.
9.16 We consider that we do not have the information required to carry out a proper review of the balance of the package of proposals or the priorities set out in Table 3. Even without the full level of information we are not convinced by Appendix 1 of the Technical Background Paper 10, Transport, that the Tyne Tees Express should be regarded as a higher priority than the Tyne & Wear Metro revitalisation. We are also surprised that the Regional Funding Allocation process included road schemes such as the Wheatley Hill – Bowburn Improvement (£10.5m) and the Morpeth Northern Bypass (£28m), which do not feature in the Submission Draft priorities.
Recommendation 9.1
a) Review the content of the transport package with a view to achieving a more balanced approach.
b) Reconsider the priorities set out in Table 3.
Priority Setting 9.17 It was argued at the EiP that the Submission Draft should place greater emphasis on an objective based approach to priority setting. We have already commented on our reservations concerning Appendix 1 in Technical Background Paper 10, which assesses the relative contribution schemes make to RSS objectives. In addition to the reservations raised above we find it difficult to accept that the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne proposal is regarded as important as the Tees Valley Rapid Transit. It is our impression that the evaluation process gives too much weight to road and heavy rail proposals and does not reflect the important contribution to overcoming the “last 5 miles congestion” that can be made by bus or light rail public transport systems. We heard from a number of participants at the EiP that the Tees Valley conurbation has a very limited local road network and consequently a disproportionate number of local trips are diverted on to the A19 and A66 trunk roads. In this context it would seem logical to make getting around the conurbation a higher priority than travelling between the city regions. It is evident from Appendix 3 in Technical Background Paper 10 that trips between the constituent Tees Valley authorities are far greater in number than those between Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley.
PANEL REPORT 122
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
9.18 Page 30 of the Regional Funding Allocations document includes a table which is described as showing the fit of the recommended schemes to regional outcome priorities. This table also raises many questions as to the judgements made on the contribution of the various schemes to the regional outcomes/challenges. It is noticeable that only road schemes improve access to key employment sites. Presumably this is because a number of these sites are in locations which cannot be easily served by public transport. We are equally unsure of the role of the Morpeth Northern Bypass and the Wheatley Hill to Bowburn proposal in improving access to and from market towns and rural areas. It seems an easy justification for relatively costly road schemes. While we accept that the Regional Funding Allocations document provides greater recognition of the role of public transport we do not consider that Appendix 1 is a useful model for priority setting.
9.19 The Government Office criticised the lack of a coherent, objective based approach to setting transport investment priorities in the Submission Draft. In particular it was put to us that while the RSS Transport Strategy was devised around the premise of supporting economic regeneration it did not go further than this and identify specific problems that are preventing the achievement of these wider objectives. The Government Office wanted to see barriers to growth identified and how transport outcomes could address them in a spatially specific way. The Panel agreed with this sentiment, and we consider that in a future Review of the RSS the transport strategy should seek to identify transport corridors where transport improvements are necessary and identify how improvements will contribute to economic and social objectives.
9.20 The Government Office provided an alternative framework for the production of Table 3, which reflected comments on the need to identify: 1. spatially specific transport objectives in relation to corridors and regional and sub- regional development areas; 2. specific key transport problems to be addressed in the corridor or area; and 3. measures to be implemented to address the problems. 9.21 In our opinion the table represents a reasonable approach to the early stages of the development of a transportation package. The spatially specific outputs from such a process would inevitably have to be brought together and judgements would have to be taken on the appropriate balance and priorities. While providing a useful commentary, the Government Office’s table provides no assistance to us in coming to a view on the justification for the package of proposals in the Submission Draft, nor the priorities that should be applied to the proposals in that package.
9.22 We conclude that there is a need for a system of scheme selection and priority setting that more adequately reflects the contribution that public transport and demand management measures can make to the overall strategy.
Recommendation 9.2
Future reviews of the Regional Transport Strategy should:
PANEL REPORT 123
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
a) be more spatially focused on improvements to corridors of movement, rather than individual schemes, and should identify how improvements will contribute to economic and social objectives. b) give greater emphasis to the contribution that demand management and bus and light rail operations can make to the strategy.
High Speed Rail 9.23 We were informed that a high speed rail proposal linking the North and South was being considered by the Government. It was accepted that such a facility could have an important economic impact on the Region and could potentially free some of the existing railway assets for more local benefits. It was also pointed out that a high speed train service could provide an effective alternative to air services to/from the London area and by reducing air transport emissions could contribute to sustainability and help to mitigate climate change. The route of the high speed rail line is expected to pass through the Region and it was agreed that it would be appropriate for the Submission Draft to express a view on the routing. It was established that a preference should be indicated for a route that served Newcastle City Centre rather than a suburban location such as Newcastle Airport. We are of the opinion that Policy 49 is the most appropriate location for a policy statement on the high speed rail service.
Recommendation 9.3
Modify Policy 49 and the supporting text to include the following:
To support and provide guidance on the development of the High Speed Rail Network within the region, strategies, plans and programmes should: a) Support an extension of the network through the North East: and b) Indicate a preference for a routing that serves Newcastle upon Tyne city centre.
Air Transport White Paper The Future of Air Transport (2003) 9.24 It was put to us that the Submission Draft conflicts with the Air Transport White Paper by supporting the growth of the two local airports beyond that forecast in the White Paper. There is no doubt that the current proposals for growth at the two airports exceed the forecasts set out in the White Paper. The proposals for Newcastle International Airport anticipate the White Paper level of growth by 2016 rather than by 2030. In the case of Durham Tees Valley Airport Policy 21 supports expansion to 3 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2016, whereas the White Paper forecasts 1.4 mppa by 2030.
PANEL REPORT 124
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
9.25 We note, however, that paragraph 1.4 of the White Paper states that “This White Paper does not itself authorise (or preclude) any particular development, nor does it preclude any particular development, but sets out policies which will inform and guide the consideration of specific planning applications.” Paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper also acknowledges that the strategic framework set out in the document will need to be reviewed periodically given the difficulties of looking ahead over the next thirty years. We have some sympathy with those who have highlighted the discrepancy between the White Paper forecasts and the current ambitions of the airports. It seems reasonable to expect that forecasts published in 2003 would be more robust than suggested by the RSS. It might also be expected that a strategic framework would be relevant for longer than three to four years and have a greater role than setting a minimum level of growth.
9.26 In our view it is clearly not the intention of the White Paper to impose limits on the development of airports based on the forecasts provided. The document is intended to facilitate rather than restrict growth. It may well be the case that the market will not support the anticipated level of growth at each airport, and it could be expected that the two airports will compete against each other for demand within the Region. We conclude that there is no conflict between the Submission Draft and the White Paper and hence no need to modify the Submission Draft.
Public Transport Network Development
9.27 Despite major investment in public transport facilities in the Region there has been a decline in public transport patronage. Notwithstanding this decline the Region still has the highest levels of public transport usage outside the London area. We were advised that further investment in public transport will not be effective without the introduction of demand management. Consideration was given to the need for the inclusion of a public transport patronage target. It was pointed out that the range of circumstances within the Region, particularly the rural areas, made the development of a target difficult. No specific target proposals were made and no evidence has been provided to allow us to produce a range of targets to reflect the different circumstances. We conclude that there is no need to modify the Submission Draft to accommodate a public transport patronage target.
9.28 Policy 51 requires Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes to focus on a series of measures many of which can only be progressed effectively on a city region basis. Action to support the integration of public transport services across modes and improved journey time reliability is likely to be more effective if tackled at a region or city region level. The continued development of the regional public transport information service will not occur through Local Transport Plan action and must be a regional initiative. Common ticketing across modes and through ticketing will require action at a regional or sub-regional level. The provision of adequate levels of revenue to maintain and enhance services will once again require regional or sub-regional action. In our view Policy 51 appears to delegate action on the measures identified to local plans and programmes. We are of the opinion that Policy 51 should reflect the need for action at the regional and sub-regional level.
PANEL REPORT 125
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
9.29 We heard very little at the EiP about the Tyne and Wear Metro and the contribution it can make to the sustainable regeneration of the Tyne and Wear city region. This surprised us because it is a unique and highly efficient system of the kind that other cities and city regions are aspiring to at the present time. We are aware of Project Orpheus which seeks to modernise and develop the Metro System and we are also aware of the uncertainty over timescales and funding for these plans. However, as a general point, we do not consider that the revitalisation of the Metro and its value to the Tyne and Wear city region has been given due regard in the Submission Draft.
9.30 Participants from the Tees Valley city region were keen for the conurbation’s plans for a light rail system to be given greater prominence. We acknowledge that this is a long term objective. However despite a reference to the possibility of a LRT or Guided Bus system in paragraph 3.203, there is no mention of it in Policy 7 or Policy 51, except in very ambiguous terms.
9.31 Policy 51 f) which encourages the modernisation of the Metro system repeats Policy 6 s). In the interests of a more succinct Policy 51, criterion f) should be deleted. Furthermore, the final paragraph of Policy 51 should be redrafted to place the Metro revitalisation and longer term ambitions for a Tees Valley LRT within the pan- regional context that the Policy provides.
Recommendation 9.4
Modify the first and final paragraphs of Policy 51 and delete criterion f) as shown in Appendix C.
Park and Ride 9.32 Policy 53, which deals with Demand Management, includes park and ride provision as a demand management measure. The supporting text for Policy 53 makes reference to park and ride as one of many other management measures and we accept that park and ride can form part of a demand management strategy. The discussion at the EiP indicated a concern that greater emphasis should be placed on this measure as an integrated part of public transport provision. We also note that consideration of park and ride facilities in one locality is required to obtain relief in another. There is a need for a regional or city regional approach to the provision of park and ride facilities.
9.33 We are of the opinion that the provision of park and ride facilities can also be regarded as an extension of the public transport system to which it links. On these grounds we conclude that action on the extension of park and ride facilities should also be dealt with in Policy 51.
Recommendation 9.5
Modify Policy 51 by the inclusion of the following:
PANEL REPORT 126
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
j) support the extension of park and ride facilities to encourage greater public transport patronage.
Transport Hubs 9.34 Policy 52 identifies the appropriate roles for Strategic Public Transport Hubs, sub- regional and local hubs. The Policy indicates that the hubs should provide a network of key interchanges and be the focus of a ‘Core and Feeder’ public transport system. The policy is addressed to Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes and implies a reliance on local actions. We agree with the suggestion that the development of a ‘Core and Feeder’ system would require action at a regional or city regional level. We are of the opinion that Policy 52 should be modified to reflect the need for action at regional or city regional level.
Recommendation 9.6
Modify the first paragraph of Policy 52 as follows:
Regional and city regional strategies will be prepared to support the development of a ‘Core and Feeder’ public transport system focussed on a network of key interchanges. Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should support the development of the interchanges.
9.35 Policy 52 a) indicates that the Strategic Public Transport Hubs should be the focus for higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility. The Policy identifies Durham City as one of the Strategic Hubs and it was suggested that this could lead to over development in a very sensitive area. Our Panel Tour, which involved a walking tour of Durham city centre, confirmed our view that both topography and the urban fabric will limit the scale of development. We are concerned that the wording of the Policy could generate pressure for inappropriate development. It is our opinion that Policy 52 a) should be modified in order to avoid that situation.
Recommendation 9.7
Modify Policy 52 a) as follows
a) be the focus for higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility, subject to the ability of the area to accommodate that development.
PANEL REPORT 127
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
9.36 Policy 52 d) indicates that a similar intensification of land uses would be accepted at the sub-regional and local public transport hubs. The adoption of this policy could generate conflict with other policies. For, example, the airports could be regarded as transport hubs, particularly Newcastle Airport which has a metro station, but Policy 21 seeks to restrict development at those “hubs” to airport related development. We agree with the view that Policy 52 d) should not imply similar levels of development at all of the sub-regional and local hubs. In our view the scale of development should reflect the function of the hub, the capacity of the area to accommodate development and any other policy constraints.
Recommendation 9.8
Modify Policy 52 d) as follows
d) focus higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility. The scale of development should reflect the role and function of each hub.
Demand Management
9.37 In the current transport and investment and prioritisation climate, where already discouraging funding restrictions are becoming even tighter, demand management in various forms has to become the essential and directing principle. We note that PPS11 and other guidance is placing increased emphasis on deliverability and value for money. The Government Office, in drawing our attention to the need to adopt an objectives based approach, highlighted the need to consider the contribution from demand management measures to spatially specific problems throughout the Region. Despite this guidance Table 3 contains no management measures. There would appear to be a consistent emphasis within regional processes to bias investment towards increased road capacity despite the fact that it has been acknowledged that “The North East has a relatively uncongested internal trunk road network.”
9.38 There is an increasing need to place a restraint on the use of existing capacity in order to encourage the best use of that capacity in support of the overall regional strategy. Such an approach will also reduce the need to allocate scarce capital resources into new capacity. In the case of the North East this approach implies a restraint upon car commuting and access to provide for sustainable access to city region centres where the new economic growth is anticipated. In some cases restraint would also seem to be justified to make the most effective use of key parts of the trunk road network. Demand management will reduce the number of unnecessary journeys and encourage lower emission alternatives, and must also be seen in the context of our recommended new Policy 2A on climate change.
PANEL REPORT 128
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
Strategic Framework 9.39 It was put to us that certain Submission Draft proposals make the application of demand management measures less effective. Evidence was submitted that demonstrated that relatively remote development locations, such as some of the Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites, generate higher levels of car trips. Our modifications related to these proposals are justified in part by the need to reduce traffic growth. It was also suggested that ports and airports should be treated differently in the application of demand management because of their economic role. In our opinion it would be important to ensure that demand management measures did not inhibit freight transport to and from these locations, but we conclude that private car traffic to these sites should be subject to the same demand management regime as private car traffic elsewhere.
9.40 Implementing demand management regimes or strategies is always complicated because of the number of components, the fact that many will be in LTP minor works programmes and also because of concerns about intra-regional competition. In this context we note the statement in the Implementation Plan that “As there are many different elements and components to demand management it is thought that there may be scope for the development and implementation of a regional or sub-regional strategy that addresses these issues.” Policy 53 does not recognise the need for such a wider strategy and places the emphasis on lower level action.
9.41 In our view there is a need for an additional policy and supporting text to provide a strategic context for Policy 53. There is a need for the Policy to stress the regional and city regional dimension to the action required to achieve an adequate demand management regime. A strategic framework could consider the need to vary demand management on the basis of the level of accessibility and provide a vehicle for public communication on the issues.
Recommendation 9.9
Insert a new Policy 53A and supporting text before Policy 53 to provide a Strategic Framework for Demand Management, as indicated in Appendix C.
The Trunk Road Network 9.42 Demand management measures usually provide relief on the urban network, but it is quite clear that certain elements of the strategic trunk road network within the Region are being affected by congestion. The critical component of this congestion is the local movement component and evidence was given that it was difficult to offer a public transport alternative to many of these trips due to the dispersed nature of their origins and destinations.
9.43 It was suggested that the implementation of the Locational Strategy would assist by placing an emphasis on development in more sustainable urban locations. In our view the Locational Strategy can make an important contribution to limiting the further
PANEL REPORT 129
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
growth of these movements, but the existing pattern of origins and destinations will remain. It is not environmentally practical or economically viable to assume that it is possible to respond to these pressures through the continued provision of new infrastructure. We conclude that some form of demand management will have to be applied. This could involve some form of charging or tolling. This is a matter that the Strategic Framework proposed above should deal with.
Parking Standards 9.44 A number of participants drew our attention to Policy 54 e) which requires that the pricing of new parking provision is consistent with local parking regimes. It was put to us that this would mean that, for example, any new parking provision at the MetroCentre would have to be free to be consistent with the existing regime. The Assembly concede that the criterion was badly worded, could be easily misconstrued, and was not what had been intended by the Assembly.
9.45 There is a danger that the adoption of various standards throughout the Region will result in a form of competition between locations. This could result in development competing for or being attracted to locations with more relaxed standards. PPG13 recommends that a consistent approach should be set out in the RTS to avoid this form of perverse incentive. Policy 54 places the responsibility for parking policy setting on Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes, which could generate this problem. PPS11, Annex B, paragraph 35 states that RSS has an important role to play in ensuring local parking policies collectively support the wider spatial strategy and that Regional Planning Bodies should set appropriate standards at the regional or sub-region level. Technical Background Paper 10, paragraph 3.49, states that attempts to establish a region-wide approach to maximum parking standards had failed, but that work is ongoing through the Regional Parking Standards group to identify parking standards that are acceptable to all the local authorities concerned. This work would take into account the role, functions and scale of settlements, whether they be rural service centres or the conurbations. At the EiP the Regional Assembly stated that a city regional approach may emerge through this work. In our view it is best to take a city region approach to parking policy and the Submission draft should be more proactive in achieving this end.
9.46 In order to reflect the wider city region dimension to the preparation of parking standards, it is considered that the initial sentence in Policy 54 should be expanded to indicate a commitment to the preparation of statements for the two city regions and the rural areas. To be consistent with this approach Policy 54 b) should be modified to reflect the availability of city region standards.
Recommendation 9.10
Modify the first paragraph and criteria b) and e) of Policy 54 as follows:
The Regional Assembly will prepare statements on parking standards for each city region and for the rural areas. To complement these statements Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should:
PANEL REPORT 130
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
b) set maximum parking standards for non-residential land uses in line with the standards set out in the statements for the city regions and the rural areas, seeking to reduce provision below these levels in locations with good public transport access, particularly in the Strategic Transport Hubs and to a lesser extent in the sub-regional and local hubs.
e) ensure that the pricing of new parking provision does not undermine local parking regimes.
Freight Transport - Road and Rail
9.47 We were asked to consider whether the Submission Daft adequately reflects the needs of the distribution industry. Our attention was drawn to the Argos development at Faverdale on the outskirts of Darlington as an example of the type of development to be accommodated. On the other hand we are aware that ASDA are developing a major distribution warehouse on brownfield land at Teesport. We were informed that land at Wynyard is to be developed for a large distribution centre. Given the amount of land available it is difficult to justify the allocation of more and there seems little justification for the need for greenfield sites adjoining the motorway. We conclude that the Submission Draft has made adequate provision for road orientated distribution facilities.
9.48 It was put to us that there was a need for a rail orientated facility to accommodate the movement of containers to and from ports in the south of England. The Tursdale location is proposed as a suitable location in the Submission Draft. We were informed that there were already facilities for the transhipment of containers in the Tees Valley area and that the creation of additional facilities might lead to rationalisation. Such an outcome would be substituting a greenfield site for a brownfield site. It was also stated that the transfer of containers from southern ports was already being accommodated through feeder services to local ports.
9.49 An examination of the Tursdale proposal indicated that it is based on the prospect of development that was unrelated to the rail function. A representative from Durham County Council explained that the Tursdale proposal arose out of a study undertaken on behalf of Railtrack which identified Turdsale as the most appropriate location for a rail freight facility in the Region, and that due to a shortage of employment land in Durham City the County Council hoped to develop a sub-regional scale employment site alongside the rail freight facility.
9.50 As a greenfield site in a relatively isolated location the site should not be under any threat and as such there is no need to safeguard it for future use. On the evidence before us we are of the opinion that the Tursdale proposal should be deleted. There was no indication that the land at Tweedmouth could attract this type of facility and it was suggested that it was more relevant to the provision of a freight loop on the ECML. We conclude that Policy 57 h) should be modified to delete the reference to
PANEL REPORT 131
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 9 FOR THE NORTH EAST TRANSPORT
the protection of the Tursdale land and to amend the purpose for protecting the Tweedmouth land.
9.51 Teesport and Port of Tyne stated that better rail access to their respective ports was their main area of concern. Policy 57 seeks to address this through criterion b) in respect of Teesport. However the Panel consider that the request from Port of Tyne to be given similar consideration in the criterion is not unreasonable, given the scale of the operation there. We recommend accordingly.
9.52 The capacity of the rail network to transport freight more generally was raised by a number of participants. More precisely the ability of the ECML north of Doncaster to allow 775 metre freight trains uninhibited access to and from the Channel Tunnel. This is the standard length of freight train running through the Channel Tunnel. We consider that this should be addressed in the Submission Draft because it has significant repercussions for the competitiveness of the Region’s economy and in terms of sustainable freight transport.
9.53 There was concern expressed about the capacity of the ECML to accommodate additional freight paths to the Region’s ports and more generally. However we were not presented with definitive evidence at the EiP to clarify what the existing and future capacity of the ECML is or will be. We were advised that the SRA is currently carrying out a Route Utilisation Strategy for the ECML that will set a management strategy for the route for the medium term (10 years). The Panel consider that it would be premature to make any decisions about rail freight capacity while this study is ongoing.
Recommendation 9.11
Modify Policy 57 as follows:
a) Modify criterion b) by the addition of ‘and Port of Tyne’ after ‘Teesport’
b) Replace criterion h) with the following:
h) protect the land at the former goods yard at Tweedmouth that may be required as part of the ECML improvements.
c) The addition of a new criterion as follows:
k) encourage improvements to the ECML north of Doncaster to allow for direct and uninhibited access of full length (775m) freight trains to and from the Channel Tunnel.
PANEL REPORT 132
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 10 FOR THE NORTH EAST MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 10: Monitoring and Implementation
Matter 8; 8/1
Introduction
10.1 In this Chapter we consider the Submission Draft’s monitoring framework section and deal with monitoring and implementation.
Background
10.2 The Town and Country (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004 makes clear that the main purpose of the Annual Monitoring Report is to consider whether implementation of the RSS is being achieved in line with the purposes of the RSS. If it is not, then Regulation 5 requires the RPB to set out the reasons why it thinks any policy in the RSS is not being implemented and what it intends to do about it. This will include whether the RPB intends to prepare a draft revision of the RSS to amend that policy.
10.3 Paragraph 3.6 of PPS11, Regional Spatial Strategies, indicates that the analysis of the significant effects of RSSs on the environment is part of the response to Directive 2001/42/EC and draws attention to the need to monitor the significant effects of RSSs on society and the economy, as well as the environment as part of the wider Sustainability Appraisal process.
10.4 Paragraph 3.7 of PPS11 indicates that an annual monitoring report must be submitted by the RPB to the Secretary of State on the 28th of February of the following year to which it applies. The paragraph makes it clear that the AMR should not be limited to the inclusion of one year’s data as analysis of longer time periods may be needed to ensure any diserned trend is established and not a temporary phenomenon. The second full Annual Monitoring Report, covering the year 2003/04, was published in January 2005 and information from the draft of the latest Annual Monitoring Report, 2004/05, was made available to the Panel during the EiP.
Issues
10.5 In our view the overarching issue which arises in this Chapter is: • Does the RSS set out an adequate framework for monitoring to ensure that the Plan is being properly implemented?
Monitoring and implementation
10.6 There was an acceptance that the Annual Monitoring process is working reasonably well. The primary request for improvements to the current approach is for the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) to deal not only with what has happened in relation to each policy area, but also to include an evaluation of the consequences. Northumberland County Council suggested that such an evaluation might be assisted by the
PANEL REPORT 133
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 10 FOR THE NORTH EAST MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
identification of a set of core indicators. The Regional Assembly accepted the merits of core indicators, but indicated that there was a need for further development work. It was also suggested that the AMR should include a review of the underlying forecasts and present an assessment of the need (if any) for a review of the RSS. The North East Assembly indicated that this approach was acceptable and that the inclusion of an updated population and housing forecast should be possible.
10.7 We considered whether the targets and indicators set out in the Submission Draft are comprehensive enough. We were encouraged to support a new eco-footprint target, which, we understand, is proposed as part of the monitoring process in the South East Region. The Panel was advised that considerable work is currently being undertaken on this subject by the North East Assembly but that the inclusion of such a target would be premature at this point in time. We concur that it would be inappropriate to include an eco-footprint target in the current RSS.
10.8 On the basis of the evidence available to us we are satisfied that the targets and indicators are comprehensive, but may require some adjustment where we have recommended changes to policies e.g. sustainable construction. A number of participants highlighted the resource implications of monitoring. However, in our view scarce resources should be directed towards the achievement of consistency in the monitoring process. There was a request for indicators that could be used to fine tune the strategic process on an on-going basis. We do not believe such fine tuning is possible and consider that the purpose of the AMR process is to identify the need for review, - partial or total.
10.9 The monitoring process puts considerable emphasis on the four sub-regions of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Tees Valley. The EiP discussions demonstrated that these sub-divisions do not provide a meaningful basis for the planning of the Region. In our view the AMR should give greater recognition of the city region areas in its presentation of findings.
10.10 We were encouraged to consider the need for some form of public involvement in the AMR process. It was put to us that any conclusions on the need for review would benefit from the input of stakeholder’s views. We do not support the formalisation of such process through a draft and final AMR process. Rather, in our view, public involvement could be achieved without such formality through an open invitation for responses to the published findings before the AMR is received by the North East Assembly.
Recommendation 10.1
a) AMRs should include a wider evaluation of the context of the RSS, including an assessment of the forecasts, to provide an assessment of the need for a partial or total review.
b) AMRs should give greater recognition of the city regions in the presentation of findings.
PANEL REPORT 134
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY CHAPTER 10 FOR THE NORTH EAST MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
c) consideration should be given to the involvement of the public and stakeholders in the consideration of the findings of the AMR.
PANEL REPORT 135
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT 136
Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East
Examination in Public
March – April 2006
Panel Report Appendix
July 2006 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT 96
Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East
Examination in Public March – April 2006
Appendices
Report of the Panel July 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX FOR THE NORTH EAST CONTENTS
Contents
APPENDIX Page
APPENDIX A TIMETABLE, MATTERS and PARTICIPANTS A1 APPENDIX B EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS B1 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES i) INDEX TO THE SUBMISSION DRAFT POLICIES, THE PANEL’S MODIFICATIONS TO POLICIES AND NEW C1 POLICIES
ii) POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF POPULATION C4 PROJECTIONS
iii) NEW STUDIES - CITY REGION HOUSING MARKET C5 AREAS iv) PANEL’S MODIFICATIONS TO POLICIES AND NEW C7 POLICIES APPENDIX D SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS D1 APPENDIX E GLOSSARY E1
PANEL REPORT
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS and PARTICIPANTS
Appendix A: Timetable, Matters and Participants
Timetable EiP Dates 2006 Examination in Public Sessions Duration From Tuesday 7 March 2006 for 5 Weeks EiP Week 1 (Tuesday 7 March 2006) Day 1 Tuesday 7 March 2006 Day 1.1 am Chairman’s Opening Statement & RPB Opening Statement Day 1.2 am 1/1 Vision and Strategy Day 1.3 pm 1/2 Sustainability Appraisal & Development Options Day 1.4 pm 1/2 Sustainability Appraisal & Development Options Day 2 Wednesday 8 March 2006 Day 2.1 am 1/3 Global Planning Context Day 2.2 am 1/3 Global Planning Context Day 2.3 pm 1/4 National Planning Context and RSS Growth Assumptions Day 2.4 pm 1/4 National Planning Context and RSS Growth Assumptions Day 3 Thursday 9 March 2007 Day 3.1 am 2/1 Sustainable Development Day 3.2 am 2/2 Sequential Approach Day 3.3 pm 2/3 Planning & Transport Assumptions and Locational Strategy Day 3.4 pm 2/3 Planning & Transport Assumptions and Locational Strategy Day 4 Friday 10 March 2006 Day 4.1 am 2/4 City Region Concept Day 4.2 am 2/4 City Region Concept
EiP Week 2 (Tuesday 14 March 2006) Day 5 Tuesday 14 March 2006 Day 5.1 am 3/1 Tyne and Wear City Region Day 5.2 am 3/1 Tyne and Wear City Region Day 5.3 pm 3/2 Tyne and Wear City Region - Green Belt & Environment Strategy Day 5.4 pm 3/2 Tyne and Wear City Region - Green Belt & Environment Strategy Day 6 Wednesday 15 March 2006 Day 6.1 am 3/3 Tees Valley City Region Day 6.2 am 3/3 Tees Valley City Region Day 6.3 pm 3/4 Tees Valley City Region - Strategic Gaps & Environment Strategy Day 6.4 pm 3/4 Tees Valley City Region - Strategic Gaps & Environment Strategy Day 7 Thursday 16 March 2006 Day 7.1 am 3/5 Rural Areas Day 7.2 am 3/5 Rural Areas Day 7.3 pm 4/1 Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & Employment Provision Day 7.4 pm 4/1 Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & Employment Provision Day 8 Friday 17 March 2006 Day 8.1 am 4/2 Provision of Employment Land Day 8.2 am 4/2 Provision of Employment Land
EiP Week 3 (Tuesday 21 March 2006) Day 9 Tuesday 21 March 2006 Day 9.1 am 4/3 Land Allocations at the Airports Day 9.2 am 4/4 Brownfield Mixed - Use Developments Day 9.3 pm 4/5 Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites Day 9.4 pm 4/5 Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites Day 10 Wednesday 22 March 2006 Day 10.1 am 5/1 Urban and Rural Centres & the Metro Centre Day 10.2 am 5/1 Urban and Rural Centres & the Metro Centre
PANEL REPORT A1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS and PARTICIPANTS
EiP Dates 2006 Examination in Public Sessions Duration From Tuesday 7 March 2006 for 5 Weeks Day 10.3 pm 5/2 Scale of Housing Provision Day 10.4 pm 5/2 Scale of Housing Provision Day 11 Thursday 23 March 2006 Day 11.1 am 5/3 Housing Market Restructuring Day 11.2 am 5/3 Housing Market Restructuring Day 11.3 pm 5/4 House Types & Density Day 11.4 pm 5/5 Affordable Housing Day 12 Friday 24 March 2006 Day 12.1 am 5/6 Housing Land Supply Day 12.2 am 5/6 Housing Land Supply
EiP Week 4 (Tuesday 28 March 2006) Day 13 Tuesday 28 March 2006 Day 13.1 am 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land Day 13.2 am 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land Day 13.3 pm 5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage Day 13.4 pm 5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage Day 14 Wednesday 29 March 2006 Day 14.1 am 5/9 Housing Distribution Day 14.2 am 5/9 Housing Distribution Day 14.3 pm 5/10 Housing Scale and Distribution - Northumberland Day 14.4 pm 5/11 Housing Scale and Distribution - Tyne and Wear Day 15 Thursday 30 March 2006 Day 15.1 am 5/12 Housing Scale and Distribution - County Durham Day 15.2 am 5/13 Housing Scale and Distribution - Tees Valley Day 15.3 pm 6/1 Flood Risk Day 15.4 pm 6/1 Flood Risk Day 16 Friday 31 March 2006 Day 16.1 am 6/2 Energy & Renewable Targets Day 16.2 am 6/2 Energy & Renewable Targets
EiP Week 5 (Tuesday 4 April 2006) Day 17 Tuesday 4 April 2006 Day 17.1 am 6/3 Minerals - Open Cast Coal and Brick Clay Day 17.2 am 6/3 Minerals - Open Cast Coal and Brick Clay Day 17.3 pm 6/4 Waste Management Day 17.4 pm 6/4 Waste Management Day 18 Wednesday 5 April 2006 Day 18.1 am 7/1 Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities Day 18.2 am 7/1 Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities Day 18.3 pm 7/2 Public Transport Network Development Day 18.4 pm 7/2 Public Transport Network Development Day 19 Thursday 6 April 2006 Day 19.1 am 7/3 Demand Management Day 19.2 am 7/3 Demand Management Day 19.3 pm 7/4 Freight Transport - Road and Rail Day 19.4 pm 7/4 Freight Transport - Road and Rail Day 20 Friday 7 April 2006 Day 20.1 am 8/1 Monitoring and Implementation Day 20.2 am 8/1 Monitoring and Implementation Chairman’s Closing Statement Close of EiP
All sessions were held at The Swallow Hotel, Gateshead.
PANEL REPORT A2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable, Final List of Matters and Participants
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies EiP WEEK 1 Tuesday 7 March Day 1 10.00 - Chairman’s Opening Statement. 10.15 To open the EiP and welcome participants and those wishing to observe the proceedings and outline the various aspects for conducting the EiP.
10.15 - Regional Planning Body (RPB) Opening Statement. 10.30 To focus on the process of preparing the RSS draft revision and the overall approach to preparing the Submitted Draft document.
To confirm that all the procedural matters have been dealt with.
1 RSS Vision and Strategy Translating the Vision into Strategy
Section 1 Shaping Our Region Vision, Sustainability Appraisal, Development Options and Regional Characteristics Key Challenges, Planning Contexts and RSS Growth Assumptions Section 2 Development Principles and Locational Strategy Policies 1, 2, 3 & 4 Planning Principles Policy 5 Locational Strategy
11.00 - 1/1 Vision and Strategy
PANEL REPORT A3
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 13.00 1. North East Assembly (820) Has the RPB adequately transferred the RSS vision and 2. Government Office for the North East (215) development principles into strategy and in particular 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) Will the strategy ensure the delivery of economic 4. Northern Way (821) prosperity and growth? 5. Confederation of British Industry – North East (198) b) Does the strategy ensure that development will 6. Northumberland County Council (222) occur in the most sustainable locations? 7. Durham County Council (202) 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 9. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 10. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 11. Home Builders Federation (424) 12. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 13. Environment Agency (200) 14. English Heritage (98) 15. Highways Agency (160) 16. National Trust (449) 17. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 18. Friends of the Earth (163) 19. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 20. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 21. Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
14.00 – 1/2 Sustainability Appraisal and Development Options 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) To what extent has the Sustainability Appraisal 2. Government Office for the North East (215) process provided a strategic input to the preparation of 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) the Submission Draft? 4. Northern Way (821) b) Have the development options been thoroughly tested 5. Northumberland County Council (222) and an adequate justification been provided for the 6. Durham County Council (202) selection of the proposed strategy? 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 9. Home Builders Federation (424) 10. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development
PANEL REPORT A4
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Service (95) 11. Environment Agency (200) 12. English Heritage (98) 13. Highways Agency (160) 14. National Trust (449) 15. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 16. Friends of the Earth (163) 17. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 18. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 19. Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
15.45 – 1/2 Sustainability Appraisal and Development Options 17.00 (con’t) Continued
Wednesday 8 March Day 2 10.00 - 1/3 Global Planning Context 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) In dealing with the global context does the Submission 2. Government Office for the North East (215) Draft 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) Adequately recognise the global responsibilities 4. Northern Way (821) related to achieving reductions in the emissions of 5. Northumberland County Council (222) greenhouse gases and in particular is it consistent 6. Durham County Council (202) with the Government targets for the reduction of 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? 8. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) b) Take the necessary steps to decouple economic 9. Home Builders Federation (424) growth and the emissions of CO2? 10. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development c) Adequately set a policy framework and what Service (95) might the content and approach of a climate 11. Environment Agency (200) change policy be? 12. Highways Agency (160) 13. National Trust (449) 14. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428)
PANEL REPORT A5
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 15. Friends of the Earth (163) 16. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 17. Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 18. Town and Country Planning Association (816)
11.45 – 1/3 Global Planning Context 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 – 1/4 National Planning Context and RSS Growth 15.15 Assumptions 1. North East Assembly (820) a) How consistent is the Submission Draft with the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) approach set out in the Northern Way Growth 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) Strategy of building on assets and strengths? 4. Northern Way (821) b) How consistent is the Submission Draft with the RES 5. Confederation of British Industry – North East (198) and what evidence is there to support the assumption 6. Northumberland County Council (222) that growth will rise from 1.8% in 2001 to 2.8% over 7. Durham County Council (202) the plan period and what is the assumed trajectory for 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) this growth? 9. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) c) How robust is the plan to responding to a lower 10. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) growth trajectory? 11. Home Builders Federation (424) 12. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 13. Environment Agency (200) 14. Highways Agency (160) 15. National Trust (449) 16. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 17. Friends of the Earth (163) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 20. Town and Country Planning Association (816)
15.45 – 1/4 National Planning Context and RSS Growth
PANEL REPORT A6
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 17.00 (con’t) Assumptions As above
Continued
Thursday 9 March Day 3 2 Spatial Strategy Principles for Future Development
As Above
9. 30 - 2/1 Sustainable Development 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Does the Submission Draft adequately embed the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) principles of sustainable development? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) b) Does the requirement for a Sustainability Statement in 4. Northern Way (821) Policy 2 represent a duplication of effort when there is 5. Northumberland County Council (222) already a requirement for the submission of an 6. Durham County Council (202) Environmental Impact Assessment? 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 9. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 10. Home Builders Federation (424) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Environment Agency (200) 13. English Heritage (98) 14. Highways Agency (160) 15. National Trust (449) 16. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 17. Friends of the Earth (163) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 20. H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies) (173)
PANEL REPORT A7
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 21. Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 22. Town and Country Planning Association (816)
11.45 - 2/2 Sequential Approach 13.00 1. North East Assembly (820) Will the emphasis on the Sequential Approach and the use 2. Government Office for the North East (215) of Previously Developed Land 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) Support or prejudice the coming forward of 4. Northern Way (821) investment in the region? 5. Confederation of British Industry – North East (198) b) Threaten the regeneration process in many 6. Northumberland County Council (222) communities within the region? 7. Durham County Council (202) 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 9. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 10. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 11. Home Builders Federation (424) 12. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 13. Environment Agency (200) 14. Highways Agency (160) 15. National Trust (449) 16. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 17. Friends of the Earth (163) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 20. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 21. Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 22. Town and Country Planning Association (816)
14.00 – 2/3 Planning & Transport Assumptions and Locational 15.15 Strategy 1. North East Assembly (820) 2. Government Office for the North East (215) a) Are the main themes of the strategy carried into the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) other policy areas in the Submission Draft so that 4. Northern Way (821) policies are consistent with one another and the 5. Confederation of British Industry – North East (198)
PANEL REPORT A8
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies overall approach is coherent? 6. Northumberland County Council (222) b) Are the planning assumptions for housing, 7. Durham County Council (202) employment land, retail expenditure and 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) transportation consistent with the strategic economic 9. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) growth assumptions? 10. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) c) Does the term “Regeneration Area” convey the 11. Home Builders Federation (424) appropriate sense of priority and clarity when applied 12. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development to extensive parts of the North East Region? Service (95) 13. Environment Agency (200) 14. Highways Agency (160) 15. National Trust (449) 16. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 17. Friends of the Earth (163) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. NEXUS (157) 20. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 21. Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 22. Sunderland ARC (151) 23. Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
15.45 – 2/3 Planning & Transport Assumptions and Locational 17.00 (con’t) Strategy As above
Continued
Friday 10 March Day 4 10.00 - 2/4 City Region Concept 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the city region approach adequately address the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) different pressures and needs of the various parts of the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) Region or are there alternative sub-regional approaches 4. Northern Way (821) which better reflect these needs and pressures. 5. Northumberland County Council (222) 6. Durham County Council (202)
PANEL REPORT A9
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Should there be greater clarity about: 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) a) The geographic extent of the two city regions; 8. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) b) The broad scale of development they should 9. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) accommodate; and 10. Home Builders Federation (424) c) Their role in relation to each other and to the 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development areas beyond the city region such as Berwick Service (95) upon Tweed? 12. Environment Agency (200) 13. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 14. Friends of the Earth (163) 15. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 16. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 17. Berwick upon Tweed Council (177)) 18. NEXUS (157) 19. Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 20. SENNTRi (824)
11.45 – 2/4 City Region Concept 13.00 (con’t) Continued As above
EiP WEEK 2 Tuesday 14 March Day 5 3 City Regions and the Rural Areas Tyne and Wear City Region
Section 2 Development Principles and Locational Strategy Policy 6, Tyne and Wear City Region Policy 9, Protecting & Enhancing the Environment Policy 10, Green Belt and Open Areas
10.00 - 3/1 Tyne and Wear City Region 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820)
PANEL REPORT A10
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Does the Submission Draft adequately establish realistic 2. Government Office for the North East (215) proposals and priorities for the future development of the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) city region and in particular: 4. Northumberland County Council (222) a) Is undue weight given to the needs of the urban 5. Durham County Council (202) core areas such as the Pathfinder Areas and 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) insufficient emphasis given to other regeneration 7. Environment Agency (200) needs? 8. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development b) Should Policy 6 identify strategic growth points Service (95) throughout the City Region and, if so, where 9. Home Builders Federation (424) should they be? and 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) c) Is proper recognition given to the role of Durham 11. Friends of the Earth (163) City? 12. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 13. Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 14. Northumberland Estates (47) 15. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 16. Arcot Consortium (Nathanial Lichfield and Partners) (135) 17. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 18. Sunderland ARC (151) 19. NEXUS (157) 20. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 21. Highways Agency (160) 22. LXB Properties Ltd (Indigo Planning Ltd) (350) 23. SENNTRi (824)
11.45 – 3/1 Tyne and Wear City Region 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 – 3/2 Tyne and Wear City Region – Green Belt & Environment 15.15 Strategy 1. North East Assembly (820) 2. Government Office for the North East (215) a) Should the Green Belt issue be an integral part of the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) set of policies for the Tyne and Wear city region? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) b) Does the proposed Policy 10 in the Submission Draft 5. Durham County Council (202)
PANEL REPORT A11
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies adequately identify the role and function of the Green 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) Belt in the Tyne and Wear area? 7. Environment Agency (200) c) Should Policy 6 include a positive environmental 8. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development strategy using amongst others proposals from Policy Service (95) 9? 9. National Trust (449) 10. Home Builders Federation (424) 11. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 14. Northumberland Estates (47) 15. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 16. Arcot Consortium (Nathanial Lichfield and Partners) (135) 17. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 18. Sunderland ARC (151) 19. NEXUS (157) 20. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 21. Ronald Smith (Fellgate Area Residents) (265) 22. Church Commissioners for England (Smiths Gore) (352) 23. South Tyneside Council (124)
15.45 – 3/2 Tyne and Wear City Region – Green Belt & Environment 17.00 (con’t) Strategy As above
Continued
Wednesday 15 March Day 6 Tees Valley City Region
Section 2 Development Principles and Locational Strategy Policy 7, Tees Valley City Region Policy 9, Protecting & Enhancing the Environment
PANEL REPORT A12
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Policy 10, Green Belt and Open Areas
10.00 – 3/3 Tees Valley City Region 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft adequately establish realistic 2. Government Office for the North East (215) proposals and priorities for the future development of the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) city region and in particular: 4. Durham County Council (202) a) Is the identification of Middlesbrough and 5. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Darlington as the locations for major retail and 6. North Yorkshire County Council (39) leisure consistent with the scale and function of 7. Environment Agency (200) other centres such as Stockton and Hartlepool? 8. Home Builders Federation (424) b) Is there a need to identify strategic greenfield 9. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development development areas? and Service (95) c) Is the support for the regeneration of the 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) settlements in the Durham Coalfield and East 11. Friends of the Earth (163) Cleveland consistent with a sustainable approach 12. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) and the needs of the urban core areas? 13. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 14. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 15. Tees Valley Living (811) 16. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 17. Pennyman and Farrow Trusts (DPDS Consulting) (128) 18. Highways Agency (160)
11.45 – 3/3 Tees Valley City Region 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 – 3/4 Tees Valley City Region – Strategic Gaps & Environment 15.15 Strategy 1. North East Assembly (820) 2. Government Office for the North East (215) a) Does the Submission Draft adequately identify the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) role and function of the designated strategic gaps and 4. Durham County Council (202) provide for their protection? 5. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) b) Should Policy 7 include a positive environmental 6. North Yorkshire County Council (39)
PANEL REPORT A13
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies strategy, using amongst others proposals from Policy 7. Environment Agency (200) 9? 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 13. Tees Valley Living (822) 14. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 15. Pennyman and Farrow Trusts (DPDS Consulting) (128) 16. English Heritage (98)
15.45 – 3/4 Tees Valley City Region –Strategic Gaps & Environment 17.00 (con’t) Strategy As above
Continued
Thursday 16 March Day 7 Rural Areas
Section 2 Development Principles and Locational Strategy Policy 8, Rural Areas
10.00 – 3/5 Rural Areas 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft adequately identify the range 2. Government Office for the North East (215) of issues and establish realistic proposals for the rural 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) areas and in particular: 4. Durham County Council (202) a) Deal with the future development of rural service 5. Northumberland County Council (222) centres and secondary settlements/centres as the 6. Northumberland National Park Authority (136) focus for growth and development in rural areas 7. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development and as key public transport hubs for the Service (95)
PANEL REPORT A14
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies surrounding hinterland? 8. Environment Agency (200) b) Set out the issues affecting the rural economy and 9. National Trust (449) the implications of rural diversification? 10. Home Builders Federation (424) c) Address the issues affecting second homes and 11. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) affordable housing? 12. Friends of the Earth (163) d) Address the issue of connectivity within the rural 13. Northumberland Estates (47) areas? 14. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 15. Defence Estates (349) 16. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94)) 17. North East Rural Affairs Forum (245) 18. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 19. English Heritage (98)
11.45 – 3/5 Rural Areas 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
4 Economy Economic Development
Section 3A Delivering Economic Prosperity & Growth Policies 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17 Economic Development Policies 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 Employment Land Portfolio
14.00 – 4/1 Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & 15.15 Employment Provision 1. North East Assembly (820) 2. Government Office for the North East (215) In dealing with economic development issues does the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) Submission Draft 4. Confederation of British Industry – North East) / North East a) Contain sufficiently clear and explicit guidance Chamber of Commence(198) (230) on the major economic development and 5. Northumberland County Council (222) regeneration priorities? 6. Durham County Council (202) b) Set out clearly enough how the transport, housing 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11)
PANEL REPORT A15
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies and infrastructure proposals integrate with and 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) support the economic needs of the region? 9. Highways Agency (160) c) Demonstrated that the approach will deliver 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) sustainable development? 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. Port of Tyne (406) 13. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 14. Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) 15. Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 16. Sunderland ARC (151) 17. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 18. Marchday Group (King Sturge) (451) 19. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 20. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 21. Miller Group (A Cave) (343) 22. LXB Properties Ltd (Indigo Planning Ltd) (350) 23. SENNTRi (824) 24. Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (72)
15.45 – 4/1 Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & 17.00 (con’t) Employment Provision As above
Continued
Friday 17 March Day 8 10.00 – 4/2 Provision of Employment Land 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Is the employment land portfolio fit for the purpose to 2. Government Office for the North East (215) meet the economic aspirations of the region? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) b) Is there an oversupply of employment land in the 4. North East Chamber of Commence (230) region and does this matter? 5. Northumberland County Council (222) c) Are the deallocation proposals adequate? 6. Durham County Council (202) 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207)
PANEL REPORT A16
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 9. Highways Agency (160) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. Sunderland ARC (151) 13. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 14. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 15. Miller Group (A Cave) (343) 16. Cameron Hall Developments/Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (175) (72)
11.45 – 4/2 Provision of Employment Land 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
EiP WEEK 3 Tuesday 21 March Day 9 9. 30 - 4/3 Land Allocations at the Airports 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) In dealing with the land requirements of the airports does 2. Government Office for the North East (215) the Submission Draft 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) Set out an adequate definition of airport related 4. North East Chamber of Commence (230) development? 5. Northumberland County Council (222) b) Provide an adequate justification for non-airport 6. Durham County Council (202) related development? 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) c) Satisfactorily set the proposals in the context of 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) the general availability of employment land 9. Highways Agency (160) within convenient travel time from the airports? 10. Environment Agency (200) 11. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Sunderland ARC (151) 14. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148)
PANEL REPORT A17
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 15. Newcastle International Airport (241) 16. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 17. Newcastle City Council (341) 18. Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) 19. Darlington Council (332)
11.45 - 4/4 Brownfield Mixed - Use Developments 13.00 1. North East Assembly (820) In considering the role of the Regional Brownfield Mixed- 2. Government Office for the North East (215) use Developments 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) Are the office floorspace (B1) ambitions 4. North East Chamber of Commence (230) consistent with the viability of the city and town 5. Northumberland County Council (222) centres? 6. Durham County Council (202) b) Can any of these developments be regarded as 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) town centre locations? 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) c) Are these the only candidates? 9. Highways Agency (160) 10. Environment Agency (200) 11. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Sunderland ARC (151) 14. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148)) 15. Newcastle International Airport (241) 16. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 17. Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 18. Marchday Group (King Sturge) (451) 19. Alnwick Council (97)
14.00 – 4/5 Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) To what extent is the designation of the Sites 2. Government Office for the North East (215) consistent with the Sequential Approach? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) b) Will the uses being considered for the sites conflict 4. North East Chamber of Commence (230) with the prospects of the City and Town Centres and 5. Northumberland County Council (222) the Regional Brownfield Mixed-use Developments 6. Durham County Council (202)
PANEL REPORT A18
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies within the two city regions? 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) c) Is there a meaningful difference between the Prestige 8. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) and Reserve categories and are these the only 9. Highways Agency (160) candidates? 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) d) Does the release mechanism for sites under policy 20 11. Friends of the Earth (163) provide a realistic basis for speedy response to inward 12. Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) and mobile investors needs? 13. Sunderland ARC (151) e) How important is the potential for rail servicing in 14. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) identifying priority locations for inward and mobile 15. Miller Group (A Cave) (343) investment? 16. Cameron Hall Developments /Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (175) (72) 17. UK Coal Mining Ltd (RPS) (254)
15.45 – 4/5 Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Wednesday 22 March Day 10 5 Communities, Centres and Housing Sustainable Communities
Section 3B Delivering Sustainable Communities Policies 24 Sustainable Communities Policies 25, 26 & 27 Centres
10.00 - 5/1 Urban and Rural Centres & the Metro Centre 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Are the policies in the Submission Draft relating to 2. Government Office for the North East (215) urban and rural centres appropriate and are they 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) consistent with the principles of sustainability and the 4. Highways Agency (160) spatial strategy? 5. Durham County Council (202) b) Is there a need for a more detailed retail strategy on 6. Northumberland County Council (222) the allocation of the growth potential identified in the 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207)
PANEL REPORT A19
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Whyte, Young, Green Planning Ltd report, 8. Newcastle City Council (341) particularly in the Tyne and Wear City Region? 9. Sunderland ARC (151) c) Would the further extension and redevelopment of the 10. Gateshead Council (8) Metro Centre be consistent with the intention to 11. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) concentrate retail and leisure within defined urban 12. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) centres? 13. Friends of the Earth (163) d) Is the future development of the Metro Centre a 14. Capital Shopping Centres (Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners) strategic matter which should be dealt with by the (57) RSS? 15. Multiplex Developments (140) e) Does the policy on out-of-centre retail and leisure 16. LXB Properties Ltd (Indigo Planning Ltd) (350) developments conform with PPS 6? 17. P D Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (152) f) How should the major retail component in the brownfield developments be assessed in terms of PPS 6? 11.45 - 5/1 Urban and Rural Centres & the Metro Centre 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Housing Provision and Distribution
Section 3B Delivering Sustainable Communities Policy 24 Sustainable Communities Policies 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32 Housing
14.00 – 5/2 Scale of Housing Provision 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Is the scale of housing provision consistent with the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) overall growth assumptions, the RHS, the RES and 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) the Northern Way? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) b) What consideration should be given to geographic 5. Durham County Council (202) housing market areas as relatively self contained 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) elements? 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) c) Is a zero net migration projection a reasonable 8. Home Builders Federation (424) measure of local housing demand? 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428)
PANEL REPORT A20
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies d) Is there a need to consider future changes in the 10. Friends of the Earth (163) balance of demand between market housing and social 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) housing? 12. Banks Group (166) e) Does the scale of provision meet the various housing 13. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) needs of the region? 14. Persimmon Homes (347) 15. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 16. Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) 17. CABE (248) 18. Tees Valley Living (822) 19. NEXUS (157) 20. SENNTRi (824) 21. Northern Way (821) 22. Arcot Consortium (Nathaniel Lichfield& Partners) (135)
15.45 - 5/2 Scale of Housing Provision 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Thursday 23 March Day 11 10.00 - 5/3 Housing Market Restructuring 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) What are the factors generating the need for housing 2. Government Office for the North East (215) market restructuring and what are the appropriate 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) responses? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) b) What is the scope for RSS to influence market 5. Durham County Council (202) restructuring in relation to existing and new stock and 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) will the Submission Draft achieve this? 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Friends of the Earth (163) 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142)
PANEL REPORT A21
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 14. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 15. CABE (248) 16. Tees Valley Living (822) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. Northern Way (821) 19. English Heritage (98) 20. Town and Country Planning Association (816) 21. Persimmon Homes (347)
11.45 – 5/3 Housing Market Restructuring 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 – 5/4 House Types & Density 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Are certain dwelling types under-represented in the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) existing housing stock and Is there a need to provide a 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) greater range and choice of dwelling even if this results in 4. Northumberland County Council (222) a conflict with density guidance in PPG3 (draft PPS3)? 5. Durham County Council (202) 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Friends of the Earth (163) 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 12. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 13. Persimmon Homes (347) 14. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 15. CABE (248) 16. Tees Valley Living (822) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. Cameron Hall Developments/Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt (175) (72) 19. Sunderland ARC (151)
PANEL REPORT A22
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 20. Town and Country Planning Association (816)
15.45 – 5/5 Affordable Housing 17. 30 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft adequately consider the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) balance between market and affordable housing and 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) contain appropriate guidance to assist in the provision of 4. Northumberland County Council (222) and adequate level of affordable housing in both urban and 5. Durham County Council (202) rural areas? 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Friends of the Earth (163) 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 12. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 13. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 14. CABE (248) 15. Tees Valley Living (822) 16. NEXUS (157) 17. Alnwick Council (97) 18. Berwick upon Tweed Council (177) 19. Teesdale Council (43)
Friday 24 March Day 12 10.00 – 5/6 Housing Land Supply 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Do the Urban Capacity Studies provide a reasonable 2. Government Office for the North East (215) and consistent assessment of land availability? 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) b) Is the land identified for housing development capable 4. Northumberland County Council (222) of delivering an effective supply in the light of the 5. Durham County Council (202) Governments “Planning for Housing Provision” 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) Consultation Paper? 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424)
PANEL REPORT A23
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 11. Banks Group (166) 12. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 13. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 14. Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) 15. CABE (248) 16. Tees Valley Living (822) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. P D Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 19. George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113) 20. Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (72) 21. Marchday Group (King Sturge) (451) 22. Arcot Consortium (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners) (135)
11.45 – 5/6 Housing Land Supply 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
EiP WEEK 4 Tuesday 28 March Day 13 10.00 – 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Is the regional target of 60% by 2008 and 65% by 2. Government Office for the North East (215) 2016 for housing developments on PDL sufficiently 3. ONE Northt East Regional Development Agency (229) challenging? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) b) Should the RSS adopt a more positive approach to 5. Durham County Council (202) windfall brownfield sites? 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) c) Should the RSS include a more stringent requirement 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) to review greenfield allocations and consents? 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Friends of the Earth (163)
PANEL REPORT A24
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 14. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 15. CABE (248) 16. Tees Valley Living (822) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. P D Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 19. George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113) 20. Sunderland ARC (151) 21. Cameron Hall Developments (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (175)
11.45 - 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 - 5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Do the Phasing and Plan Monitor and Manage proposals in 2. Government Office for the North East (215) the Submission Draft provide a satisfactory response to the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) uncertainties in terms of demand and supply and will they 4. Northumberland County Council (222) ensure an adequate land supply? 5. Durham County Council (202) 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 10. Friends of the Earth (163) 11. Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 14. CABE (248) 15. Tees Valley Living (822) 16. NEXUS 17. P D Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194)
PANEL REPORT A25
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 18. George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113) 19. Northern Way (821)
15.45 – 5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Wednesday 29 March Day 14 10.00 - 5/9 Housing Distribution 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Does the overall approach adequately reflect the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) geographic housing markets in the region? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) b) Is the process sufficiently transparent? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) 5. Durham County Council (202) 6. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 7. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Friends of the Earth (163) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. Persimmon Homes (347) 14. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 15. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 16. Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) 17. CABE (248) 18. Tees Valley Living (822) 19. NEXUS (157) 20. Highways Agency (160) 21. SENNTRi (824) 22. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 23. Arcot Consortium (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners) (135) 24. George Wimpey (113)
PANEL REPORT A26
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 11.45 – 5/9 Housing Distribution 13.00 (con’t) Continued
14.00 – 5/10 Housing Scale and Distribution - Northumberland 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Should the RSS express a choice between the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) brownfield opportunities in Blyth and the Greenfield 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) opportunities in Cramlington? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) b) Can large isolated brownfield locations such as 5. Berwick upon Tweed Council (177) Boulmer RAF be regarded as sustainable locations? 6. Alnwick Council (97) c) Is there a justification for a second homes allowance 7. Blyth Council (40) in popular tourist areas? 8. Wansbeck Council (45) 9. Tynedale Council (105) 10. Home Builders Federation (424) 11. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 12. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 13. H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies) (173) 14. Northumberland Estates (47) 15. Persimmon Homes (347) 16. Highways Agency (160) 17. SENNTRi (824) 18. Arcot Consortium (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners) (135)
15.45 – 5/11 Housing Scale and Distribution - Tyne and Wear 17.30 1. North East Assembly (820) a) In what ways could further housing development be 2. Government Office for the North East (215) integrated with the Metro? 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) b) Should brownfield opportunities outside the 4. Newcastle City Council (341) Pathfinder areas be discouraged to support Pathfinder 5. Sunderland Council (29) activities? 6. North Tyneside Council (10) 7. South Tyneside Council (124) 8. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206)
PANEL REPORT A27
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 9. Sunderland ARC (151) 10. Home Builders Federation (424) 11. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 12. Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 13. Banks Group (166) 14. Persimmon Homes (347) 15. Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 16. Highways Agency (160) 17. Gateshead Council (8) 18. George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113)
Thursday 30 March Day 15 9. 30 - 5/12 Housing Scale and Distribution – County Durham 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) What is the scale and nature of the regeneration 2. Government Office for the North East (215) process that requires additional housing provision? 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) b) Are there specific locational priorities for additional 4. Durham County Council (202) housing provision? 5. Derwentside Council (335) c) Are there problems associated with second homes in 6. Chester-le-Street Council (46) particular areas? 7. Wear Valley Council (243) 8. Durham City Council (91) 9. Easington Council (812) 10. Teesdale Council (43) 11. Sedgefield Council (190) 12. Home BuildersFederation(424) 13. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 14. Persimmon Homes (347) 15. Durham Cathedral (28) 16. Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) 17. Highways Agency (160) 18. City of Durham Trust (D Pocock) (282)
11.45 – 5/13 Housing Scale and Distribution - Tees Valley
PANEL REPORT A28
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 13.00 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Is the scale of provision in Hartlepool B.C. area 2. Government Office for the North East (215) appropriate given the large brownfield opportunity at 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) Victoria Harbour or should there be a more balanced 4. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) allocation across the Tees Valley authorities? 5. Middlesbrough Council (185) b) To what extent would major housing proposals at 6. Hartlepool Council (147) Catterick in North Yorkshire impact on the Tees 7. Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) Valley housing market? 8. Darlington Council (332) 9. Redcar and Cleveland Council (42) 10. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 11. Tees Valley Living (822) 12. Home Builders Federation (424) 13. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 14. Durham Cathedral (28) 15. Highways Agency (160) 16. George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113) 17. Cameron Hall Developments/Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (175) (72) 18. R D Firby (415) 19. Persimmon Homes (347)
6 The Environment and Resource Management Flood Risk
Section 3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture Policies 36 & 37 Water/Flood Risk
14.00 – 6/1 Flood Risk 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft take an appropriate stance in 2. Government Office for the North East (215) dealing with strategic issues of flood risk and in particular 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) does it adequately address the flood protection issues 4. Home Builders Federation (424)
PANEL REPORT A29
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies related to the many dockland development proposals? 5. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 6. Environment Agency (200) 7. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 8. Friends of the Earth (163) 9. Tynedale Council (105) 10. Middlesbrough Council (185) 11. Stockton on Tees Council (228) 12. NE Wildlife Trusts (Mike Pratt) (256) 13. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 14. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11)
15.45 – 6/1 Flood Risk 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Friday 31 March Day 16 Energy Resources
Section 3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture Policies 39, 40, 41 & 42 Energy
10.00 - 6/2 Energy & Renewable Targets 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) a) Are the targets for renewable energy set at an 2. Government Office for the North East (215) appropriate level? 3. ONE NorthEast Regional Development Agency (229) b) Does the selection of “broad areas of least constraint 4. Durham County Council (202) for wind energy developments” threaten valued 5. Northumberland County Council (222) landscapes such as the National Park and Areas of 6. Northumberland National Park Authority (136) Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)? 7. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95)
PANEL REPORT A30
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 8. Environment Agency (200) 9. National Trust (449) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. Tynedale Council (105) 13. Alnwick Council (97) 14. Berwick upon Tweed Council (177) 15. Castle Morpeth Council (211) 16. CABE (248) 17. Northumberland Renewables Group (430) 18. William Short (435) 19. Stephen Mcintyre (Kiln Pit Hill Area) (650) 20. H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies (173) 21. North Pennines AONB Partnership (121) 22. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 23. Hartlepool Council (147) 24. Wind Prospect Ltd (825) 25. Moorsyde Action Group (434)
11.45 – 6/2 Energy & Renewable Targets 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
EiP WEEK 5 Tuesday 4 April Day 17 Mineral Resources
Section 3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture Policies 43, 44 & 45 Minerals
PANEL REPORT A31
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies
10.00 - 6/3 Minerals – Opencast Coal and Brick Clay 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Is a more stringent approach regarding opencast coal 2. Government Office for the North East (215) extraction than that set out in MPG3 justified by 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) a) The likely loss of important environmental 4. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) assets? 5. Durham County Council (202) b) The likely impact of coal transportation on the 6. Northumberland County Council (222) road network and adjoining settlements? 7. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development c) The lack of a local market for the coal? Service (95) and does Policy 45 deal adequately with the issue of brick 8. Environment Agency (200) clay? 9. National Trust (449) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. Coalpro (Confederation of UK Coal Producers) (270) 14. British Ceramic Federation (51) 15. Port of Tyne (406) 16. H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies) (173) 17. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 18. UK Coal Mining Ltd (RPS) (254)
11.45 – 6/3 Minerals – Opencast Coal 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Waste Management
Section 3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture Policies 46, 47 & 48 Waste
PANEL REPORT A32
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 14.00 – 6/4 Waste Management 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft go far enough in defining 2. Government Office for the North East (215) policies and setting targets in planning for waste 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) management, particularly waste reduction and re-cycling? 4. Northumberland County Council (222) Should it in particular 5. Durham County Council (202) a) Set out a locational strategy for dealing with these 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) matters? 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) b) Identify and provide broad locational guidance on 8. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development the appropriate strategic capacity requirements of Service (95) regional or sub-regional significance? 9. Environment Agency (200) 10. Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) 11. Friends of the Earth (163) 12. Banks Group (166) 13. W Chrystal (Strutt & Parker) (423)
15.45 – 6/4 Waste Management 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Wednesday 5 April Day 18 7 Transport Strategy Regional Transport Strategy
Section 2 Development Principles and Locational Strategy Policy 11 Connectivity and Accessibility Section 3A Delivering Economic Prosperity & Growth Policies 21 & 22 Airports and Ports Section 3D Improving Connectivity Within and Beyond the Region Policies 49 & 50 Gateways and Corridors Policies 51, 52, Public Transport Provision and Hubs
PANEL REPORT A33
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Policies 53 & 54, Demand Management Policies 55 & 56 Accessibility within and between the City Regions & in Rural Areas Policy 57 Sustainable Freight Distribution Table 3 Major Regional Transport Priorities/Schemes
10.00 - 7/1 Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Regional Transport Strategy 2. Government Office for the North East (215) a) Adequately support the overall strategy? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) b) Present a realistic set of proposals? 4. Durham County Council (202) c) Set out a clear statement of priorities for future 5. Northumberland County Council (222) investment and management? 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) d) Conform with the Air Transport White Paper 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 2003? 8. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 9. Home Builders Federation (424) 10. Highways Agency (160) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Newcastle International Airport (241) 14. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 15. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 16. Port of Tyne (406) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 20. Drawbridge Securities Ltd (Alistair Grills Associates) (346) 21. Cyclist Touring Club (H Evans) (448) 22. Sunderland ARC (151) 23. Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (72)
11.45 – 7/1 Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities 13.00 (con’t) As above
PANEL REPORT A34
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Continued
14.00 – 7/2 Public Transport Network Development 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the Submission Draft present a clear strategy for the 2. Government Office for the North East (215) development of the public transport network within the 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) Region? 4. Durham County Council (202) 5. Northumberland County Council (222) 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 8. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 9. Home Builders Federation (424) 10. Highways Agency (160) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Newcastle International Airport (241) 14. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 15. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 16. Port of Tyne (406) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 20. Cyclist Touring Club (H Evans) (448) 21. Sunderland ARC (151)
15.45 – 7/2 Public Transport Network Development 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Thursday 6 April Day 19 10.00 - 7/3 Demand Management 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820)
PANEL REPORT A35
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies Does the Submission Draft provide adequate guidance on 2. Government Office for the North East (215) the application of demand management measures and 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) parking and travel plans? 4. Durham County Council (202) 5. Northumberland County Council (222) 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 8. North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 9. Home Builders Federation (424) 10. Highways Agency (160) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Newcastle International Airport (241) 14. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 15. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 16. Port of Tyne (406) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 20. Cyclist Touring Club (H Evans) (448)
11.45 – 7/3 Demand Management 13.00 (con’t) As above Continued
14.00 – 7/4 Freight Transport - Road and Rail 15.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the RSS adequately set out a strategy for road and 2. Government Office for the North East (215) rail freight and for the associated land requirements? 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) 4. Durham County Council (202) 5. Northumberland County Council (222) 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 8. North East Chamber of Commerce (230)
PANEL REPORT A36
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 9. Home Builders Federation (424) 10. Highways Agency (160) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. Newcastle International Airport (241) 14. Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 15. PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 16. Port of Tyne (406) 17. NEXUS (157) 18. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 19. Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 20. Miller Group (A Cave) (343) 21. Drawbridge Securities Ltd (Alistair Grills Associates) (346)
15.45 – 7/4 Freight Transport - Road and Rail 17.00 (con’t) As above Continued
Friday 7 April Day 20 8 Monitoring and Implementation Monitoring and Implementation
Section 4 Monitoring Framework Implementation, Monitoring and Review
10.00 - 8/1 Monitoring and Implementation 11.15 1. North East Assembly (820) Does the RSS set out an adequate framework for 2. Government Office for the North East (215) monitoring to ensure that the Plan is being properly 3. ONE North East Regional Development Agency (229) implemented? 4. Durham County Council (202) 5. Northumberland County Council (222) 6. Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207)
PANEL REPORT A37
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Timetable Final List of Matters Final List of Participants Weeks 10-14 Times Number Matters Participants 5 Weeks 2006 Relevant Parts of Explanatory Text and Policies 7. Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 8. Home Builders Federation (424) 9. Highways Agency (160) 10. Environment Agency (200) 11. Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) 12. Friends of the Earth (163) 13. NECTAR (M Murphy) (94) 14. Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 15. English Heritage (98)
11.45 – 8/1 Monitoring and Implementation 12.45 (con’t) As above Continued
12.45 – Chairman’s Closing Statement 13.00 Close of EiP
PANEL REPORT A38
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Changes to Participants/Matters
Unbold – the Provisional Programme stage
Bold – the Final Programme stage
Participants who have declined an invitation
Potential Participant (No.) Matter No(s)
World Wildlife Fund (161) 1/1. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, 3/1, 3/2 Confederation of British Industry – North East (198) 1/2, 2/1, 2/4 Town and Country Planning Association (816) 1/2 North East Chamber of Commerce (230) 1/2, 1/3, 3/2, 3/4 English Heritage (98) 1/3, 1/4, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4 National Trust (449) 2/4 North Yorkshire County Council (39) 2/4 Marchday Group (King Sturge) (451) 2/4, 4/5, 5/13 Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 3/2 Hartlepool Civic Society (454) 3/3 PD Ports plc (Entec UK Ltd) (194) 3/4 Tees Valley Regeneration (Entec UK Ltd) (148) 3/4 Bourne Leisure (Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners) (69) 3/5 A M Brown-Humes (DPDS Consulting) (184) 3/5 Ashdale Land & Property Company Ltd (Barton Wilmore) (426) 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/9 David Barlow Homes Ltd (Signet Planning) (441) 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5 Castle Morpeth Council (211) 4/3, 5/10 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (Turley Associates Ltd) (403) 5/1 Bellway, Persimmon, Miller and Yuill Homes (England and Lyle) (347) 5/2, 5/3. 5/4, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/13 Wynyard Park Ltd (Spawforth Associates) (436) 5/3, 5/4, 5/5, 5/7, 5/8 Banks Group (166) 5/4, 5/5 VONNE (411) 5/5 Culford Ltd (Signet Planning) (420) 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/9 Woodford Land (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (413 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/9 Royal Mail Property Holdings (Sanderson Weatheral) (444) 5/7, 5/8 Hallam Land Management (164) 5/8 Bett Homes (Signet Planning) (142) 5/10, 5/12, 5/13 Lafarge Cement UK (David Lock Associates Ltd) (125) 6/2 Defence Estates (349) 6/2 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Gary UK) (155) 6/3 Acorn Business Park Durham Ltd (RPS) (422) 7/1, 7/4 Miller Group (A Cave) (343) 7/1, 7/2, 7/3 Drawbridge Securities Ltd (Alistair Grills Associates) (346) 7/2,7/3 Sunderland ARC (151) 7/3, 7/4 Cyclist Touring Club (H Evans) (448) 7/4
PANEL REPORT A39
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Additional new participants invited
Participant (No.) Matter No(s)
Royal Town Planning Institute (348) 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4 Town and Country Planning Association (816) 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 2/1, 2/2, 5/3, 5/4 SENNTRi (824) 2/4, 3/1, 4/1, 5/2, 5/9, 5/10 Church Commissioners for England (Smiths Gore) (352) 3/2, 4/2 North East Rural Affairs Forum (245) 3/5 Cameron Hall Developments/Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) 4/2, 4/5, 5/2, 5/4, 5/13 (175) (72) Sven Investments Ltd (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (72) 5/6, 7/1 Cameron Hall Developoments (Blackett Hart & Pratt) (175) 5/7 UK Coal Mining Ltd (RPS) (254) 4/5, 6/3, 7/4 City of Durham Trust (D Pocock) (282) 5/12 R D Firby (415) 5/13 George Wimpey UK Ltd (Woolf Bond Planning) (113) 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/11, 5/13 Wind Prospect Ltd (825) 6/2 Moorsyde Action Group (434) 6/2
Participants invited to additional Matters
Participant (No.) Matter No(s)
H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic 2/1 Amenity Societies) (173) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) 2/2, 2/3, 4/1, 8/1 Tesco Stores (DPP Development Planning Partnership) (61) 2/3, 2/4, 3/3, 4/4 Sunderland ARC (151) 2/3, 5/4, 5/7 Marchday Group (King Sturge) (451) 2/4, 4/4, 4/5, 5/6, 5/13 LXB Properties Ltd (Indigo Planning Ltd) (350) 3/1, 4/1 Highways Agency (160) 3/1, 3/3, 3/5, 5/9, 5/10, 5/11, 5/12, 5/13, 6/4. South Tyneside Council (124) 3/2 Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) 6/1, 6/2, 6/3 English Heritage (98) 3/4, 3/5, 5/3, 8/1 Grainger Trust (Fairhurst) (195) 3/5, 5/2, 5/5, 5/9 Durham Tees Valley Airport (Turley Associates Ltd) (102) 4/1, 4/2 Miller Group (A Cave) (343) 4/1, 4/2, 4/5 Castle Morpeth Council (211) 4/3 Darlington Council (332) 4/3 Newcastle City Council (341) 4/3 Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) 4/3 Alnwick Council (97) 4/4, 5/5 Arcot Consortium (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners) (135) 5/2, 5/6, 5/9, 5/10 Gateshead Council (8) 5/11 Northern Way (821) 5/2, 5/3, 5/8 Berwick upon Tweed Council (177) 5/5 Teesdale Council (43 5/5 Hartlepool Council (147) 6/2
PANEL REPORT A40
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX A FOR THE NORTH EAST TIMETABLE, MATTERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Additional changes and new material
New Material Matter No(s) Matter Expanded 5/1 b) Panel Note: Matter Climate Change 1/3 particularly 1/3 c) Panel Note: Matter Planning and Transport Assumptions 2/3 b) Panel Note: Matter Housing Market Areas 5/2, 5/6, and 5/9 Panel Note: Matter Housing Market Assessment Manual 5/2, 5/6, and 5/9
PANEL REPORT A41
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT A42
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Appendix B: Examination Library Documents
Part A: Core Documents
Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes Regional Spatial Strategies and Other Documents concerning the Matters for the EiP. North East Assembly (Regional Planning Body) Documents including: • Deposit Draft Revision (Submission Draft) • Background Papers and Studies • Background Papers for the EiP
Part B: Participants’ Documents
Documents other than Core Documents, referred to in the Written Submissions of Participants.
Part C: Examination in Public Documents
Responses to the Deposit Draft and Documents prepared for the EiP.
All EiP Documents are held by:
Regional Spatial Strategy Team, Government Office for the North East, Citygate, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4WH
PANEL REPORT B1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Part A: Core Documents
Library PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTES (PPGs)/ Date of Reference PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS (PPSs) Publication Number Most PPG’s /PPS’s can be viewed at www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/index.htm
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development Feb 2005 PPG2 Green Belts Jul 2001 PPG3 Housing Mar 2000 PPG3(a) Update to PPG3: Housing: Planning for Sustainable Communities Jan 2005 in Rural Areas. PPG3(b) Update to PPG3: Housing: Supporting the Delivery of New Jan 2005 Housing. PPG4 Industrial, Commercial Development of Small Firms March 2001 PPG5 Simplified Planning Zones Nov 1992 PPS6 Planning for Town Centres April 2005 PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Aug 2004 PPG8 Telecommunications Aug 2001 PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Aug 2005 PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management July 2005 PPG10* Planning and Waste Management Oct 1999 PPS11 Regional Spatial Strategies Sep 2004 PPS12 Local Development Frameworks Sept 2004 PPG13 Transport Mar 2001 PPG14 Development on Unstable Land Apr 1990 PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment Oct 2002 PPG16 Archaeology and Planning Aug 2001 PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Jul 2002 PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control Dec 1991 PPG19 Outdoor Advertisement Control Mar 1992 PPG20 Coastal Planning Sep 1992 PPG21 Tourism Nov 1992 PPS22 Renewable Energy Aug 2004 PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control 2004 PPG24 Planning and Noise Aug 2001 PPG25 Development and Flood Risk Jul 2001
Library PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS (PPSs) Date of Reference Consultation Papers Publication Number
PPS3 Consultation Paper - Planning for Mixed Communities Jan 2005 PPS3 Consultation Paper - Planning for Housing Provision July 2005 PPG2 Consultation Paper Draft of the Town and Country Planning July 2005
PANEL REPORT B2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
(Green Belt) Direction 2005 PPS3 Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Dec 2005 – Housing, ODPM (Also letter from ODPM re the Government’s Response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply of 12 December 2005) PPS25 Consultation on Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Dec 2005 Flood Risk
Library MINERALS PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTES (MPGs)/MINERALS Date of Reference POLICY STATEMENTS (MPSs)/MARINE MINERALS GUIDANCE Publication NOTES (MMGs) Number
MPG1 Minerals Planning Guidance 1: General considerations and the Jun 1996 Development Plan System MPS2 Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and mitigating the March 2005 environmental effects of mineral extraction in England MPG3 Minerals Planning Guidance 3: Coal mining and colliery spoil Mar 1999 disposal MPG5 Minerals Planning Guidance 5: Stability in surface mineral 2000 workings and tips MPG6 Minerals Planning Guidance 6: Guidelines for aggregates Apr 1994 provision in England MPG7 Minerals Planning Guidance 7: Reclamation of mineral workings Nov 1996 MPG10 Minerals Planning Guidance 10: Provision of raw material for the Nov 1991 cement industry MPG13 Minerals Planning Guidance 13: Guidelines for peat provision in July 1995 England MPG15 Minerals Planning Guidance 15: Provision of silica sand in Sept 1996 England MMG1 Marine Mineral Guidance 1: Extraction by dredging from the Jul 2002 English seabed MPGC Minerals Planning Guidance Note: Onshore Oil, Gas and Coalbed Oct 1999 Methane Development – Consultation Paper
Library CIRCULARS Date of Reference Publication Number
PC11/05 Circular 11/05: The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Dec 2005 Direction 2005 PC12/04 Planning for Gypsy and Travellers Sites Oct 2005 To replace Circular 1/94 PC 01/06 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites Jan 2006 Library REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE (RPG) DOCUMENTS/ Date of Reference REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS) DOCUMENTS Publication Number
Most RPGs/RSSs can be viewed at www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144312
PANEL REPORT B3
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
RPG1 Regional Planning Guidance for the North East Nov 2002 www.gos.gov.uk/gone/
RPG6 Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016 Nov 2000 www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/
RPG8 Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands to 2021 Jan 2002 www.gos.gov.uk/goem/
RSS8 Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands March 2005
RSS8 Review of East Midlands Regional Plan to 2026 – Options for Oct 2005 (Rev) Change
RSS8 (Rev Review of East Midlands Regional Plan to 2026 – Ootions for Oct 2005 Sum) Change – Summary
RPG9 Regional Planning Guidance for the South East Mar 2001 www.gos.gov.uk/gose/
RPG10 Regional Planning Guidance for the South West Sep 2001 www.gos.gov.uk/gosw/
RPG11 Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands Jun 2004 www.gos.gov.uk/gowm/
RPG12 Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber Oct 2001 www.gos.gov.uk/goyh/
RPG13 Regional Planning Guidance for the North West Mar 2003 www.gos.gov.uk/gonw/
Library RSS PROCESS TOPICS – STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS Date of Reference Publication Number
European Union Policy PTEU European Directive 92/43/EEC Conservation of Natural Habitats May 1992 1.01 and of Wildfowl and Flora PTEU European Directive 1999/31/EC Landfill of Waste - European Apr 1999 1.02 Union PTE European Spatial Development Perspective (INTERREG ll C) May 1999 1.03 European Commission PTEU European Community Initiative Transnational Co-operation on 2000 1.04 Spatial Planning (INTERREG lll), European Commission PTEU European Water Framework Directive Dec 2000, 1.05 PTEU European Directive 2001/42/EC Strategic Environmental Jun 2001 1.06 Assessment (SEA) - European Union PTEU European Directive 2001/77/EC Promotion of electricity produced 1.07 from renewables in the internal electricity market PTEU European Directive 2002/91/EC Energy Performance of Buildings Dec 2002 1.08 - European Union PTEU European Structural Funding – Objective 2 programmes (2000- 1.09 2006) Website Link
PANEL REPORT B4
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PTEU European Structural Funding – Objective 3 programmes (2000- 1.10 2006) Website Link PTEU European Community Initiative – UBRAN 1.11 PTEU European Community Initiative – LEADER+ Website Link 1.12 PTEU European Community Initiative – EQUAL Website Link 1.13 PTEU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Practical Oct 2003 1.14 Guidance on Applying EU Directive 2001/42/EC
Preparation of RSS revisions PTPR Guidance on Preparing Regional Sustainable Frameworks, DETR Feb 2000 2.01 PTPR Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004- Part 1, - May 2004 2.02 Government PTPR Town and Country Planning (Regional Planning) (England) Sep 2004 2.03 Regulations 2004, ODPM PTPR Town and Country Planning (Initial Regional Spatial Strategy) 2004 2.04 (England) Regulations 2004, ODPM PTPR The Planning System: General Principles, ODPM Feb 2005 2.05 PTPR Policies for Spatial Plans: A guide to writing the policy content of Jul 2005 2.06 Local Development Documents, Planning Officers Society PTPR Regional Spatial Strategies: Guide to Producing Regional Sep 2004 2.07 Transport Strategies DfT
Monitoring PTMG Quality of Life Counts: Indicators for Sustainable Development Dec1999 3.01 for the UK – a Baseline Assessment, Govt Statistical Service/DETR PTMG National Land Use Database, The NLUD Partnership Weblink On-going 3.02 PTMG 2000 Spending Review Public Service Agreements White Paper, Jul 2000 3.03 HM Treasury PTMG A Biodiversity Strategy for England: Measuring Progress: Dec 2003 3.04 Baseline Assessment, England Biodiversity Group (Defra) PTMG Monitoring Regional Spatial Strategies: Good Practice Guidance Jul 2004 3.05 on Targets and Indicators, ODPM PTMG Devolved Decision Making: – A consultation on Regional Funding Dec 2004 3.06 Allocations, HM Treasury, DfT, ODPM, DTI PTMG Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Mar 2005 3.07 Guide, ODPM PTMG Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2004 May 2005 3.08 (LUCS 20) PTMG Regional Funding Allocations – Guidance on preparing advice, Jul 2005 3.09 HM Treasury, DfT, ODPM, DTI PTMG Guide to Improving the Economic Evidence Base supporting Sep 2005 3.10 Regional Economic and Spatial Strategies, Ove Arp & Partners, ODPM PTMG Regional Futures: English Regions in 2030, English Regions Jan 2005 3.11 Network, RDA Planning Leeds Group, ODPM, DfT
Participation in Planning PTPP Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Feb 2004 4.01 Objectives, ODPM
PANEL REPORT B5
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Sustainability Appraisal PTSA The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance for Oct 2003 5.01 Planning Authorities, ODPM PTSA Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Sept 2004 5.02 Development Frameworks, Consultation Paper, ODPM PTSA Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Nov 2005 5.03 Development Documents: Guidance for Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities, ODPM
Library RSS POLICY TOPICS 1 – STRATEGIC NATIONAL DOCUMENTS Date of Reference Publication Number
National Planning/Policy Documents
Air Quality PTAQ Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Jan 2000 6.01 Ireland: and Addendum, DETR, Defra Feb 2003 PTAQ Part IV of the Environment Act 199: Policy Guidance Feb 2003 6.02 LAQM.PG(03) – Chapter 7: Air Quality and Land Use Planning, Defra
Biodiversity and Nature Conservation PTBN A New Focus for England’s Woodlands: Strategic Priorities and 1999 7.01 Programmes (English Forestry Strategy), Forestry Commission PTBN Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan, DoE Jan 2004 7.02 PTBN Our Coast and Seas: A 21st Century agenda for their recovery, 2004 7.03 conservation and sustainable use
Climate Change PTCC Climate Change: The UK Programme - Defra 2000 8.01 PTCC Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate, UKCIP, EPSRC Feb 2003 8.02 PTCC The International Challenge of Climate Change - UK Leadership in Mar 2005 8.03 the G8 and EU House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. PTCC Impacts of Europe's Changing Climate - An Indicator-based 2004 8.04 Assessment
Culture PTCE Tomorrow’s Tourism: A Growth Industry for the New Millennium, 1999 9.01 DfCMS PTCE The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future, DfCMS 2001 9.02 PTCE Heritage Counts 2003 – The state of the North East’s Historic 2003 9.03 Environment PTCE Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward 2004 9.04
Economic Development
PANEL REPORT B6
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PTED Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven 1998 10.01 Economy, DTI PTED Productivity in the UK: 3 The Regional Dimension 2001 10.02 PTED Opportunity for All in World of Change, DTi Feb 2001 10.03 PTED National Strategy for Local E-Government, ODPM Nov 2002 10.04 PTED Success for All – Reforming Further Education and Training Nov 2002 10.05 PTED Skills Strategy – 21st Century Skills; Realising our Potential DfES Jul 2003 10.06 PTED Strategic Area Review, Learning and Skills Council Mar 2003 10.07 PTED Lambert Review of Business – University Collaboration, HM July 2003 10.08 Treasury PTED Employment Land Reviews: Guidance Note, ODPM Dec 2004 10.09 PTED Lyons Review, HM Treasury 2004 10.10 PTED National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal 10.11
Energy PTEY Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy, DTI Feb 2003 11.01 PTEY The Government’s Strategy for combined Heat and Power to Apr 2004 11.02 2010, Defra PTEY Our Energy Challenge - Energy Review Consultation Document Jan 2006 11.03
Health PTHH Local Health Improvement Modernisation Programmes (HimPS), 12.00 NHS etc (awaiting update)
Housing PTHG Monitoring Provision of Housing through the Planning System: Oct 2000 13.01 Towards Better Practice, DETR PTHG Planning to Deliver – The Managed Release of Housing Sites, 2001 13.02 DTLR PTHG Tapping the Potential, - Assessing Urban housing Capacity: Dec 2002 13.03 Towards better Practice, DETR PTHG Delivering Planning Policy for Housing: PPG3 implementation Jul 2003 13.04 study, Report Commissioned by ODPM PTHG Better Streets, Better Places – Delivering Sustainable Residential Jul 2003 13.05 Developments, Report Commissioned by ODPM PTHG Barker Review of Housing Supply – Final Report: Delivering Mar 2004 13.06 stability: securing our future housing needs, HM Treasury PTHG Government response to Kate Barker's review of housing supply Dec 2005 13.07 and supporting documents, HM Treasury and ODPM PTHG Housing Market Assessment Manual 2004 13.08 PTHG New projections of households for England and the Regions to Mar 2006 13.09 2026 ODPM PTHG Housing Market Assessments (Draft Practice Guidance) Dec 2005 13.10
PANEL REPORT B7
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
(The Communities Plan) PTCP Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, ODPM Feb 2003 14.01 PTCP Sustainable Communities Plan, ODPM 2004 14.02 PTCP Making it Happen: The Northern Way, ODPM Feb 2004 14.03 PTCP Sustainable Communities: Homes for All - 5 year Plan, ODPM Jan 2005 14.04 PTCP Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity, ODPM 2005 14.05
Minerals PTMS Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England up to 2016, Jun 2003 15.01 ODPM
Retail and Leisure PTRL Joint statement by Ministers with responsibility for gambling, Aug 2003 16.01 (First Joint DCMS/ODPM Statement), DCMS/ODPM PTRL Government Response to the First Report of the Joint Committee Jul 2004 16.02 on the Draft Gambling Bill; session 2003-2004 (Second Joint DCMS/ODPM Statement), DCMS/ODPM
Rural Development and the Countryside PTRC DoE Circular 12/96 Environment Act 1965, Part lll: National Parks, 1995 17.01 DoE PTRC Rural White Paper – Our Countryside: The Future – A Fair Deal for 2000 17.02 Rural England, DETR PTRC England Rural Development Programme 2000 17.03 PTRC The Countryside in and Around Town – A Vision for Connecting 17.04 Town and Country in the pursuit of Sustainable Development, Countryside Agency PTRC The Government’s Rural Strategy Jul 2004 17.05
Soil PTSL The Draft Soil Strategy for England – a consultation paper, MAFF 2001 18.01 and DETR PTSL The First Soil Action Plan for England- 2004 -2006, Defra 2004 18.02
Sustainable Development PTSD A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development May 1999 19.01 for the UK, DETR PTSD Taking It On – Developing UK Sustainable Development Strategy May 2004 19.02 Together PTSD Securing the Future - UK Government Sustainable Development Mar 2005 19.03 Strategy, Defra PTSD The Next Steps - An Independent Review of Sustainable 2004 19.04 Development in the Englisg Regions
PANEL REPORT B8
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Transport
(Strategy) PTTT A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone: The Government’s Jul 1998 20.01 White Paper, DETR PTTT Transport Ten Year Plan 2000, DETR Jul 2000 20.02 PTTT Making the Connections, Social Exclusion Unit Feb 2003 20.03 PTTT Guide to Producing Regional Transport Strategies, DfT Apr 2003 20.04 PTTT Government’s 10 Year Plan for Transport, DfT (This document Jul 2004 20.05 now replaced by “The Future of Transport”
PTTT The Future of Transport: a Network for 2030, DfT Jul 2004 20.06 PTTT Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel, Commission by Jul 2004 20.07 DfT
(Roads) PTTR A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England, DETR Jul 1998 21.01 PTTR Managing Our Roads, DfT 2003 21.02 PTTR Map of English Trunk Roads. DfT Jul 2005. 21.03
(Rail) PTTL Strategic Rail Authority’s Network Utilization Strategy, SRA Jun 2003 22.01 PTTL Strategic Rail Authority’s Annual Strategic Plan, Part 1 Platform Oct 2003 22.02 for Progress SRA PTTL Strategic Rail Authority’s Annual Strategic Plan, Part 2 Improving Oct 2003 22.03 the Railways by 2005 SRA
PTTL Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy, SRA Mar 2004 22.04 PTTL Railways White Paper: The Future of Rail, DfT Jul 2004 22.05
(Freight) PTTF Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy, DETR Mar 1999 23.01
(Ports) PTTP Modern Ports: A UK Strategy, DETR Nov 2000 24.01
(Aviation) PTTA Air Transport White Paper, DfT Dec 2003 25.01 PTTA Guidance on Preparation of Airport Master Plans - DfT 25.02
PANEL REPORT B9
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
(Cycling and Walking) PTTC The National Cycling Strategy, 1996 26.01 PTTC Encouraging Walking: Advice to Local Authorities, DETR May 2000 26.01 PTTC Walking and Cycling: Action Plan, DETR 2004 26.01
Urban Renaissance PTUR Urban White Paper – Our towns and cities: the future – Delivering Nov 2000 27.01 an urban renaissance, DETR
Waste PTWE Government’s National Waste Strategy 2000, DETR Jun 2000 28.01 PTWE Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide Nov 2005 28.02 to Planning Policy Statement 10, ODPM
Water PTWR Water Resources for the Future – A strategy for England and 2001 29.01 Wales (Supplemented by detailed regional strategies plus one for Wales), Environment Agency PTWR The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England 2003 29.02 and Wales) Regulations 2003, Defra PTWR Making Space for Water 2004 29.03 PTWR Future Flooding Action Plan 2004 29.04
Library RSS POLICY TOPICS 2 – STRATEGIC NORTH EAST DOCUMENTS Date of Reference Publication Number
North East Regional / Sub Regional Documents NERL Integrated Regional Framework (IRF) for the North East Jul 2004 30.01a NERL Integrated Regional Framework Part II Setting the Baseline - 30.01b Sustain NERL The Integrated Regional Matrix - Sustain 30.01c NERL RPG1 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2003/04 Jan 2005 30.02 NERL Corridor of Opportunity 30.03 NERL Durham Vision Website 30.04 NERL Tees Valley Vision, Tees Valley Partnership 30.05 NERL Health Impact Appraisal of the Pre-consultation Draft RSS 30.06 NERL The North East Strategy for Success Website 30.07 NERL Regional Emphasis Document 30.08
PANEL REPORT B10
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
NERL Tees Valley City Region Development Programme May 2005 30.09 NERL Tyne and Wear City Region Development Programme 2005 30.10 NERL Regional Planning Guidance for the North East 2002 30.11 NERL State of the Region Report 2006 2006 30.12 NERL Regional Funding Allocations 2006 30.13 NERL Annual Monitoring Report 2004/05 NEA (Draft) Chapters 1 to 6 2006 30.14
Other adjoining National, Regional / Sub Regional Documents NEAR National Planning Framework for Scotland 31.01 NEAR North Yorkshire Joint Structure Plan (Adopted Plan) Oct 1995 31.02 NEAR North Yorkshire Joint Structure Plan: Pre-Deposit Consultation Jan 2003 31.03 Draft Structure Plan NEAR Yorkshire and Humber RSS Revision: Issues Paper 2004 31.04 NEAR Yorkshire and Humber RSS Revision: Topic Paper 1 Introduction 2005 31.05 to Pre Draft RSS NEAR Yorkshire and Humber RSS Revision: Topic Paper 2 - Spatial 2005 31.06 Options
Economic Development Documents
(Strategy) NEDS Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Oct 2002 32.01 NEDS Tyne & Wear – Economic Strategy: Consultation Draft Jun 2004 32.02 NEDS Investigation of the Economic Impact Casinos Leisure Complexes Jun 2004 32.03 in the North East NEDS Scenarios for a Prosperous North East Apr 2004 32.04 NEDS Moving Forward: The Northern Way, First Growth Strategy Report Sep 2004 32.05 NEDS Positive Scenarios for the North East Economy (Additional Sep 2004 32.06 Scenarios) NEDS The Implications of a Prosperous North East for the RSS Nov 2004 32.07 NEDS Leading the Way: Regional Economic Strategy Consultation 2005 32.08 Document Nov 2005 The final document is due to be submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry in November. NEDS Rural Micro - Businesses in the North East – Centre for Rural 32.09 Economy NEDS Moving Forward: The Northern Way Business Plan 2005-2008, Jun 2005 32.10 Northern Way Steering Group NEDS Tees Valley Regeneration Schemes Study Mar 2005 32.11 NEDS The Tyne & Wear Economic Strategy – Driving the Growth of the Jan 2005 32.12 North East
PANEL REPORT B11
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
(Culture and Tourism) NEDC Regional Cultural Strategy 2001 33.01 NEDC North East Regional Plan for Sport & Physical Activity – Turning Jun 2004 33.02 Ambition in to Reality NEDC North East Tourism Strategy 2005-2010 2005 33.03 NEDC Regional Image Strategy Summary 33.04 NEDC Regional Image Mori Poll - Perceptions of the North East of 2005 33.05 England
(Employment Land) NEDL Tees Valley Employment Land Review 2002 34.01 NEDL Employment Sites and Premises Study Dec 2003 34.02 NEDL Employment Land Assessment to inform RSS Nathaniel Lichfield 2004 34.03 & Partners NEDL County Durham Employment Sites and Premises Study Aug 2005 34.04 NEDL North East Regional Employment Land Availability & Take-up Jan 2006 34.05 Final Report – Halcrow Group NEDL County Durham Employment Land Study Feb 2006 34.06 Communities Documents NECS Building in Sustainability: A Guide to Sustainable Construction 2003 35.01 and Development in the North East NECS Creating Sustainable Communities in the North East, ODPM Jan 2005 35.02 NECS Walker Riverside Plan - Master Plan - Llewelyn Davies Jan 2004 35.03
(Housing) NECH The People of the North East: Future trends Aug 2000 36.01 NECH North East England: Changing Housing Markets and Jun 2002 36.02 Regeneration, CURS NECH Locating Homes – Future Approaches to Housing Provision – Feb 2006 36.03 Locating Homes in the Right Places . Northern Way Sustainable Communities NECH North East Executive Housing Research May 2004 36.04 NECH Housing Aspirations Strategy Mar 2005 36.05 NECH A New Housing Strategy for the North East – North East Housing Jun 2005 36.06 Board NECH Economic Potential of the Regional Centre & Housing Market Feb 2005 36.07 Implications (BNG)
(Retail and Leisure) NECR Regional Retail and Leisure Need Assessment, White Young Aug 2002 37.01 Green NECR Regional Retail Assessment, White Young Green Jan 2006 37.02
PANEL REPORT B12
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Environment Documents NEES North East State of the Environment (NESE) 2004 38.01
(Aquatic and Marine) NEEA Northumbria River Basin Management Plan - in preparation 39.01 NEEA Management Plan for the area from the Tyne to the Humber 39.02 (SMP2) - in preparation
(Biodiversity) NEEB Biodiversity Targets and Indicators for the North East 40.01 NEEB Biodiversity by Design - Town and Country Planning Association’ 40.02 NEEB Space for Nature - The Woodland Trust 40.03 NEEB Natural Commitment - English Nature 2003 40.04 NEEB A Biodiversity Audit of the North East 40.05
(Climate) NEEC ‘And the Weather Today is’ - Sustaine Nov 2003 41.01
(Countryside and rural development) NEER Countryside Character: Volume 1 – North East – Countryside 1998 42.01 Agency NEER The North East Rural Action Plan (RAP) Jun 2002 42.02 NEER Northumberland Rural Strategy and Action Plan Nov 2003 42.03 NEER The North East Rural Action Plan - one year on 2003 42.04 NEER The North East Rural Action Plan - two years on 2004 42.05 NEER Northumberland Rural Strategy & Action Plan (Executive Nov 2003 42.06 Summary) NEER Northumberland Rural Strategy & Action Plan Nov 2003 42.07
(Energy) NEEE Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development’ Jul 2003 43.01 NEEE Regional Renewable Energy Strategy (RRES) Mar 2005 43.02
NEEE Grid Study 2003 43.04 NEEE Renewable Energy Targets Study: Chris Blandford Associates 2000 43.05 NEEE North East Regional Renewable Energy Strategy - Review Nov 2005 43.06 September 2005
PANEL REPORT B13
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
NEEE Study in Support of Submission Draft RSS Policy 40 Final report Nov 2005 43.07 NEEE Study in Support of Submission Draft RSS Policy 40 Final report - Nov 2005 43.08 Appendices
(Forestry) NEEF North East Regional Forestry Strategy 2005 44.01
(Historic Buildings) NEEH Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site Management Plan 2002-2007 45.01
(Waste) NEEM Towards a Waste Management Strategy for North East England Feb 2003 46.01 NEEM Apportionment of Future Waste Arisings - Tyne & Wear and Tees Dec 2005 46.02 Valley -Final Report
(Water) NEEW The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Northumbria 2003 47.01 River Basin District) Regulations
Transport Documents
(Strategy) NETS Draft Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) Sum 2002 48.01 NETS Public Transport Accessibility Study Jun 2003 48.02 NETS Surface Infrastructure of National Economic Importance 48.03 NETS Connectivity Technical Report – Northern Way Oct 2004 48.04
(Road) NETR Highways Agency Route Management Strategies: 49.01 - A1 Blyth to South of Gateshead A168 Dishforth/Gateshead NETR Highways Agency Route Management Strategies: 49.02 - A194(M)/A184/A19 South of Gateshead to North of Newcastle NETR Highways Agency Route Management Strategies: 49.03 - A69 Newcastle to Carlisle NETR Highways Agency Route Management Strategies: 49.04 - A66 Scotch Corner to Penrith (This project is on hold) NETR Commuting & Workplace Research Jan 2005 49.05
(Rail) NETL Investment Priorities for the North East Coast Main Line In 2003 50.01 Yorkshire & Humber and North East Regions NETL Regional Rail Study - Volume 1 2004 50.02 NETL Regional Rail Study - Volume 2 2004 50.03
PANEL REPORT B14
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
NETL Project Orpheus – Outline Business Case Jul 2005 50.04 NETL Regional Planning Assessment for the Railway Mar 2006 50.05
(Freight) NETF North East Freight Toolkit 2003 51.01 NETF Feasibility Study of Rail- Freight Facility at Tursdale, County Dec 2004 51.02 Durham NETF Regional Freight Strategy for the North East Jan 2005 51.03
(Multi-Modal Studies and Studies) NETS A1 North of Newcastle Multi-Modal Study (A1MMS) May 2002 52.01 NETS Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (TAMMS) Dec 2002 52.02 NETS Tees Valley Gateway Study (TVGS) Feb 2005 52.03
Library NORTH EAST ASSEMBLY (NEA) - REGIONAL PLANNING BODY Date of Reference (RPB) DOCUMENTS Publication Number
Documents can be viewed on www.viewnortheast.com/documents/index.aspx
NEA1 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East: Submission Draft Jun 2005 NEA2 Sustainability Appraisal Jun 2005 NEA3 Sustainability Appraisal Non-technical Study Jun 2005 NEA4 Statement of Public Participation Jun 2005 NEA5 Implementation Plan Jun 2005 NEA6 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East: Consultation Draft Nov 2005 NEA7 VIEW: Shaping the North East leaflet Jun 2005
Technical Background Papers Documents can be viewed on www.viewnortheast.com/documents/technicalpapers.aspx
NEAT1 Development Options, No 1 Jun 2005 NEAT2 Delivering Economic Prosperity and Growth, No 2 Jun 2005 NEAT3 Retail & Leisure, No 3 Jun 2005 NEAT4 Housing, No 4 Jun 2005 NEAT5 Rural, No 5 Jun 2005 NEAT6 Environment, No 6 Jun 2005 NEAT7 Energy, No 7 Jun 2005 NEAT8 Minerals, No 8 Jun 2005 NEAT9 Waste, No 9 Jun 2005 NEAT10 Transport, No 10 Jun 2005
PANEL REPORT B15
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Library DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Date of Reference STRUCTURE PLANS / LOCAL PLANS/ Publication Number LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS
DP1 County Durham Structure Plan Mar 1999 DP2 Tees Valley Joint Structure Plan Feb 2004 DP3 Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plans Mar 2005 DP4 Yorkshire & Humber Plan Dec 2005
Library MISCELLANEOUS Date of Reference Publication Number
MS1 Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee - 01.01 Technical Report 5 - A Housing Market Area Framework MS2 Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 - Technical July 2000 01,02 Report 3 - Demand & supply for Owner-Occupied Housing at 2006 and 2011 MS3 Census Website 01.03 MS4 Implications of Demographic Change in The North East & Aug 2000 01,04 Projections for 2000-2040 One North East & Partners MS5 Regional Funding Allocations - advice to government Jan 2006 01.05
PANEL REPORT B16
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Part B: Participants Documents
Abbreviations for the Library Reference Numbers are indicated at the end of this list of documents.
Library PARTICIPANTS DOCUMENTS Date of Reference (Supporting Documents to statements) Publication Number
PSD 1.01 A Biodiversity Strategy for England Measuring Progress – Baseline Assessment PSD 1.02 A Bright Future for Sunderland: The Sunderland Strategy 2004 - 2007 PSD 1.03 A Good Place for Children? Attracting and Retaining Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities PSD 1.04 Adapting to Climate Change PSD 1.05 Air Pollution from Ships PSD 1.06 Air Traffic Control & Wind Farms – NATS Ltd Submission to the Enterprise & Culture Committee PSD 1.07 Airport Operators Association- The Economic and Social Sept 2005 Impact of Airports PSD 1.08 Allerton Interchange PSD1.09 Alnwick District Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 04-05 House Price Change (Extract) PSD 1.10 Analysis of Census Migration Data to Assist in Defining Housing Market Areas for Tyne & Wear Final Report CURDS PSD 1.11 Analysis of 2001 Census Migration Data: Follow up Study of June 2005 Tenure Differences Final Report PSD 1.12 Annual Monitoring Statement 2003-2004 South Tyneside Unitary Development Plan PSD 1.13 Area Regeneration Company for Sunderland April 2005 PSD 1.14 Aspects of Housing Demand in South Tyneside Feb 2004 Neighbourhood Services PSD 1.15 Aviation & Shipping PSD 2.01 Background Information: The Borough of Berwick-Upon- Tweed PSD 2.02 Benchmarking the Region’s Housing Stock NLP Jan 06 PSD 2.03 Berwick Council Tax Data Jan 06 PSD 2.04 Berwick-upon-Tweed and the City Regions Social & Economic Issues (1) PSD 2.05 Better Environment – Healthier People PSD 2.06 Biodiversity by Design. A Guide for Sustainable Communities PSD 2.07 Blue Skies Air Travel Demand & Tourism PSD 2.08 Blyth Valley Core Strategy Sept 05 PSD 2.09 Blyth Valley Housing Study PSD 2.10 Blyth Valley Report to the First Secretary of State on Wheatridge Park Seaton Delaval PSD 2.11 Blyth Valley. Technical Paper – Chelmer Cramlington Feb 06 PSD 2.12 Blyth Valley. Urban Housing Capacity Study Appendices Oct 03 PSD 2.13 Blyth Valley. Urban Capacity Study OCT 2003
PANEL REPORT B17
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 2.14 Brick Clay Mineral Planning Factsheet Nov 05 PSD 2.15 Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate. The Impacts of 2005 Climate Change on the Built Environment. Mid Project Update PSD 2.16 Blyth Valley. Local Development Framework Evidence Base: Retail Capacity Study PSD 2.17 Blyth Valley. Interim Housing Statement PSD 3.01 Chapter Two Development Principles & Locational Strategy: Policy 9 etc: Protecting and Enhancing the Environment PSD 3.02 Cemeteries and their management Home Office Online Report PSD 3.03 City of Sunderland Unity Development Plan 1998 (Alteration Sept 2005 No 2) Central Sunderland Redeposit – Proposed Policies PSD 3.04 City Region Boundaries Study. Central Research Unit PSD 3.05 Commuting and Workplace Research Section A: Main Report Jan 2005 PSD 3.06 Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty and Decision Making PSD 3.07 Commuting and Workplace Research Section B: District Jan 2005 Profiles Newcastle-upon-Tyne PSD 3.08 Competitive Cities: where do the Core Cities Stand? PSD 3.09 Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy Final Report PSD 3.10 Core Strategy “Preferred Options” Draft Development Document Aug 2005 South Tyneside Local Development Framework PSD 3.11 Core Strategy “Submission Draft Development Plan Document March 2006 South Tyneside Local development Framework PSD 3.12 Core Strategy Technical Appendices Capitalising on our Aug 2005 Environmental Assets PSD 3.13 Core Strategy Technical Appendices Delivering Economic 2005 Growth and Prosperity PSD 3.14 Core Strategy Technical Appendices Delivering Sustainable March 2006 Communities PSD 3.15 Core Strategy Technical Appendices Improving Accessibility Aug 2005 PSD 3.16 Core Strategy. Technical Appendices Strategic Policies Ag 2005 PSD 3.17 Commuting and Workplace Research Part 2 Aug 2005 PSD 3.18 Commuting Patterns Context Paper Feb 06 PSD 3.19 County Durham Labour Market Pattern Assessment 2005 Jan 06 Final Report PSD 3.20 County Durham Authorities Household Projection Model PSD 3.21 County Durham Authorities Landfill Directive Dec 02 PSD 3.22 County Durham Authorities Minerals Issues and Options Report PSD 3.23 County Durham Authorities Projection Index of Deprivation 2004 Final Report (plus maps) PSD 3.24 County Durham Labour Market Pattern Assessment 2005 PSD 3.25 County Durham Labour Market Patterns Assessment 2005 Executive Summary PSD 3.26 County Durham Minerals & Waste Development Framework Jan 05 Key Issues Paper PSD 3.27 County Durham Authorities Minerals Local Plan
PANEL REPORT B18
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 3.28 County Durham Authorities Opencast Coal Extraction in County Durham Post War to Present Day PSD 3.30 County Durham Authorities Mineral Local Plan Proposals Dec 00 Map PSD 3.31 County Durham Employment Land Study Feb 2006 PSD 3.33 County Durham – The Polycentric Approach PSD 3.34 County Durham Waste Local Adopted Plan April 06 PSD 3.35 County Durham Waste Local Adopted Plan Proposals Map April 06 PSD 3.36 Companion Guide to PPS10 Nov 05 PSD 3.37 Commission for Rural Communities – Tackling Rural Disadvantage. Countryside Agency PSD 3.38 Cheap Housing – Going, Going, Almost Gone. Derwent June 04 District Council PSD 3.39 County Durham Coalfields Communities Housing May 03 Regeneration Study PSD 4.02 Defra Soils Team Comments for EiP PSD 4.03 Don Valley Farmland PSD 4.04 Draft SPD1 Sustainable Construction and Development Aug 2005 PSD 4.05 Durham City Council City of Durham Local Plan May 04 PSD 4.06 Durham City Council City of Durham Local Plan Inspector’s Report (1) PSD 4.07 Durham City Council Durham City Housing Needs Survey 2004 Update 2004 PSD 4.08 Durham City Council Local Development Framework Housing Sept 05 Development Plan Preferred Options PSD 4.09 Durham County Council Report to the Cabinet on RSS Sept 05 Submission Draft PSD 4.10 Durham County Council The Future Population of County 2005 Durham PSD 4.12 Durham Coalfield Communities Partnership Key Findings May 05 PSD 4.13 Durham Coalfield Communities Phase 3 Bishop Auckland PSD 4.14 Durham County Minerals Plan Inspectors Report March 99 PSD 4.15 Durham City Vision and Masterplan Consultation Exercise 2005 Final Report PSD 4.16 Durham Tees Valley Airport Planning Statement PSD 4.17 Durham Tees Valley Airport PSD 5.01 Economic and Demographic Trends in Tyne and Wear Housing Market Areas. An Interim Analysis PSD 5.02 Economic Potential of the Regional Centre and Housing Market Implications BNG PSD 5.03 Economic and Social Benefits of Air Transport PSD 5.04 Eddington Transport Study PSD 5.05 Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 PSD 5.06 Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 Action Plan March 2003 PSD 5.07 Economic Impact of the Expansion of Durham Tees Valley Airport PSD 5.08 Energy & Greenhouse Gases in Tyne & Wear Report 2004 PSD 5.09 English Nature's Policy Position on Air Transport
PANEL REPORT B19
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 5.10 Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning PSD 5.11 Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning Supplementary Files PSD 5.12 Estimates of Housing Requirements 1991-2006 Technical Note, County Durham Deposit Structure Plan Review PSD 5.13 Evidence for Renewable Energy In Scotland Inquiry - W Short Feb 04 PSD 5.14 Examination of the Operation of the International Market for March 05 Coal & its Effect on the Supply of Coal into North East England PSD 6.01 Final Report - Coalfield Communities Study PSD 6.02 Final Sustainability Appraisal Report for the South Tyneside Local Development Framework SA of the Tyne Wear Regional Employment Site Area Action Plan Final Aug 2005 PSD 6.03 Fireclay Mineral Planning Factsheet PSD 6.04 First Annual Monitoring Report 2004/05 Dec 05 PSD 6.05 Free Express Bus Service: Tees Valley Skyexpress PSD 6.06 Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: North of England: A National Consultation Modelled Demand Surface origins maps Teesside Airport & Leeds Bradford Airport PSD 7.01 Global Tourism Solutions (UK) Ltd PSD 7.02 Green Briefs PSD 7.03 Guidance on Airport Transport Forums and Airport Surface Access Strategies PSD 8.01 Heritage Counts 2003 The State of England's Historic Environment PSD 8.02 Highways Letter Re: A66 Long Newton Grade Separated Junction PSD 8.03 Highest Three Travel to Work Flows to and From Districts Figure 10.1 PSD 8.04 House Prices and Earnings in Tyne and Wear June 2004 PSD 8.05 House Prices in Tyne and Wear at June 2002 PSD 8.06 Housing 2001 - Based Census Topic Report March 2005 PSD 8.07 Housing and Market Needs Assessment Survey Draft Report, Berwick-Upon-Tweed PSD 8.08 Housing Prices in Tyne and Wear at June 2005 PSD 8.09 Housing Market Areas centred on the Bridging NewcastleGateshead area: analysis of 2001 Census migration data. Final Report. July 2005 PSD 8.10 Housing Regeneration Study Phase 2 Delivering A Comprehensive Housing Regeneration Strategy, County Durham Rural Coalfields Communities PSD 8.11 Highways Agency NE RSS Traffic Impact Review PSD 8.12 Hartlepool Borough Council Regeneration Strategy PSD 8.13 Housing Regeneration Study Phase One Final Report, May 2003 -County Durham Rural Coalfields PSD 9.01 Interim Strategy for Housing Land Sunderland City Council Nov 2005 PSD 9.02 Intervention Validation Tables. Appendix 3 Sedgefield PSD 10.01 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study Phase 1 Report May 05
PANEL REPORT B20
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 10.02 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study Final Draft Phase 2 June 05 Report PSD 10.03 Jacobs Babtie Coalfields Settlement Study - Executive Summary, Second Draft PSD 10.04 Jacobs Babtie Durham Coalfields Stage 1: Settlements Included In The Study - Figure 1.1 PSD 10.05 Jacobs Babtie Durham Coalfields Stage 2: Report - Strategic Economic Areas and Main Transport Corridors - Figure 3.1 PSD 10.06 Jacobs Babtie List of Settlements/Neighbourhoods Identified June 06 as a Focus for Change PSD 10.07 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Bowden PSD 10.08 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Bishop Auckland PSD 10.09 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Chilton West PSD 10.10 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Coundon PSD 10.11 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Dawdon and Parkside PSD 10.12 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Dean Bank PSD 10.13 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Easington Colliery PSD 10.14 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Ferryhill Station PSD 10.15 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Horden PSD 10.16 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Newton Acyliffe PSD 10.17 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Peterlee PSD 10.18 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Seaham PSD 10.19 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Stanley PSD 10.20 Jacobs Babtie Coalfield Settlement Study, Tow Law PSD 10.21 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Brief Overview of Study and Phase 3 PSD 10.22 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Emerging Issues PSD 10.23 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: How should we present the data? PSD 10.24 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Purpose of Report PSD 10.25 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Purpose of Study PSD 10.26 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Purpose of The Project Plan PSD 10.27 Jacobs Babtie Presentation: Requirements for Phases 2 PSD 10.28 Joint Announcement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport: UK Welcomes European Support For Tackling Aviation Emissions PSD 12.01 Liverpool John Lennon Surface Access Strategy PSD 12.02 Local Authority Area Profile Teesdale PSD 12.03 Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report Dec 2005 PSD 12.04 Low Demand Housing and the Historical Environment. PSD 12.05 Liverpool John Lennon Airport: The Greener Ticket To Ride - Staff Travel Plan PSD 13.01 Methodology Diagram PSD 13.02 Methodology for Northumberland Urban Housing Capacity Studies PSD 13.03 Multiplex Development Pipelines- Floor Space in the top 20
PANEL REPORT B21
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
towns PSD 13.04 Moving Forward: The Northern Way Action Plan - Progress Report PSD 13.05 Miller Group Appendices to Statements 4/1, 4/2, 4/5 & 7/4 PSD 13.06 Minerals Policy Statement 1 - Consultation Paper on Annexes July 05 PSD 14.02 NCC Employment Context Paper First Draft Final Version March 06 PSD 14.03 NCC and National Park Joint Structure Plan 2002-2016 2006 PSD 14.04 NCC Cramlington Context Paper Feb 06 PSD 14.05 NCC Demographics Technical Paper Feb 06 PSD 14.06 NCC Employment Context Paper Feb 06 PSD 14.07 NCC Housing Context Paper Feb 06 PSD 14.08 NCC Minerals Local Plan PSD 14.09 NCC Provisional Transport Plan 2006-2011 PSD 14.10 NERIP Commuting and Workplace Research Part 2 Aug 2005 Aug 05 PSD 14.11 NERIP Commuting and Workplace Research Phase 2 Aug 05 Appendix C PSD 14.12 NERIP Workplace and Commuting Research Phase 2 Report July 06 Employment Centre Summaries Derwenthaugh Metrocentre PSD 14.13 Netpark. Development Framework Summary PSD 14.14 Newcastle International Airport Masterplan PSD 14.15 Newcastle Airport Masterplan Review: Environmental Appraisal PSD 14.16 Newcastle International Airport Masterplan - Consultation Draft PSD 14.17 Newcastle International Airport Surface Access Strategy - Consultation Draft PSD 14.18 Newcastle International Airport Surface Access Strategy PSD 14.19 NLP Economic Growth Projections and Population Alignment in Northumberland Report PSD 14.20 North East Freight Strategy Comments PSD 14.21 Northern Freight Group Letter 2004 PSD 14.22 Northumberland Joint Strategy Plan Continued Migration / Population Charts PSD 14.23 NSP Housing Market Assessment for Northumberland Stage 1 Report Validating the Sub-Regional Housing Markets of Northumberland PSD 14.24 NSP Housing Market Assessment for Northumberland Summary Report Oct 2005 PSD 14.25 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region Chapter 2 PSD 14.26 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, Chapter 3 PSD 14.27 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, Chapter 4 PSD 14.28 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, Chapter 5 PSD 14.29 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, Cover and Contents PSD 14.30 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, intro
PANEL REPORT B22
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 14.31 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 City Region Coalfield Sub-Region, Key Points PSD 14.32 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, Chapter 2 PSD 14.33 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, Chapter 3 PSD 14.34 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, Chapter 4 PSD 14.35 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, Chapter 5 PSD 14.36 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, intro PSD 14.37 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Coastal Sub-Region, Key Points PSD 14.38 NSP Northumberland Housing Market Assessment Stage 2 Oct 05 The Rural Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Chapter 1 PSD 14.39 NSP. Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The Rural Oct 05 Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Chapter 2 PSD 14.40 NSP. Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The Rural Oct 05 Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Chapter 3 PSD 14.41 NSP. Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The Rural Oct 05 Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Chapter 4 PSD 14.42 NSP. Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The Rural Oct 05 Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Chapter 5 PSD 14.43 NSP. Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The Rural Oct 05 Hinterland Upland Sub-Region, Summary of Points PSD 14.44 NSP: Northumberland Market Assessment Stage 2 The City Region Commuter Sub-Region - Final Report PSD 14.45 Newcastle International Airport 2030 Forecast ODPM letter Re:1990 Town and Country Planning Act section PSD 15.01 16 Nov 05 77 appealed by George Wimpey ODPM Letter Re:1990 Town and Country Planning Act, PSD 15.02 21 Dec 05 section78, appealed by Hutchinson Ports ODPM Letter Re:1990 Town and Country Planning Act PSD 15.03 16 Nov 05 section 77, application by Bellway Homes One North East Strategy Integration Aligning Regional PSD 15.04 Feb 06 Evidence Base PSD 16.01 Planning for Housing Provision Consultation Paper July 2005 PSD 16.02 Population and Household Characteristics and Health, 2001 - Based Census Topic Report Dec 2004 PSD 16.03 Population Projections Scotland (2004-based) Population projections by sex, age and administrative area Potential Closure of RAF Boulmer, A First Review of the PSD 16.04 15 Jan 04 Local Impacts CURDS PSD 16.05 Proposals for introducing a Code for Sustainable Homes A Consultation Paper PSD 16.06 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10 Planning Newcastle: Revised Interim Planning Guidance on PSD 16.07 Oct 2004 Release of Land for Housing PSD 18.01 Railtrack Plc Proposals for an Integrated Freight Interchange at Tursdale: A Planning Statement PSD 18.02 REALISE Leaflet
PANEL REPORT B23
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 18.03 Regeneration and the Historic Environment: Heritage as a catalyst for better social and economic regeneration PSD 18.04 Regional Housing Aspirations Study PSD 18.05 Renewing Weardale The Way Forward PSD 18.06 Report to the First Secretary of State: Application by Bellway Homes Limited for Planning Permission for the Erection of 170 Dwellings...and Outline Application by George Wimpey UK Limited and Millhouse Developments Limited for 850 Dwellings... PSD 18.07 Room To Move? The Wrong Kind of Housing? Reconciling Housing Consumption Aspirations and Land Use Planning, HBF PSD 19.01 Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 - The New Way Forward PSD 19.02 Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised Dec 2005 Volume 1 Policies PSD 19.03 Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised Dec 2005 Volume 2 Settlements PSD 19.04 Sedgefield Borough Council LDF Key Issues Summer 2005 PSD 19.05 Sedgefield Borough Council. Annual Monitoring Report 2004- 05 PSD 19.06 South East Northumberland and North Tyneside Regeneration Initiative Housing Market Assessment PSD 19.07 Southside Site B Planning Statement, Newcastle International Airport PSD 19.08 Southside Development: Teesside International Airport PSD 19.09 South Shields Town Centre and Waterfront Area Action Plan 'Preferred Options' Draft Development Plan Document 6th Draft Feb 2006 PSD 19.10 South Tyneside Employment Land Availability PSD 19.11 South Tyneside Housing Market Review Northern Housing Consortium Oct 2004 PSD 19.12 South Tyneside Urban Capacity Study PSD 19.13 Strategic Site 'North of Sunderland' PSD 19.14 Strategic Employment Site Land North of Sunderland PSD 19.15 Stockton Borough Council Housing Appendix PSD 19.16 Stockton Borough Council Housing Map PSD 19.17 Strategic Environmental Assessment - Consultation Bodies' Services & Standards for Responsible Authorities PSD 19.18 Strategy Towards Sustainable Development of UK Aviation PSD 19.19 Summary of House Sales in Borders to Purchasers From Northumberland PSD 19.20 Summary of public consultation responses to the Consultation Paper: 'Planning for Housing Provision' A summary of responses and key issues arising from the Consultation Paper PSD 19.21 Sustainable communities: building for the future PSD 19.22 Sunderland Migration Study Volume 2: PSD 19.23 Sustainable Design and Construction: Guidance for Planners on Preparing Development Plan Policies at the Regional and Local Events
PANEL REPORT B24
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 19.24 Sustainable Energy by Design a TCPA 'by design' guide for sustainable communities PSD 19.25 The South East Plan: The Regional Policy Framework Section D1 PSD 19.26 State of the English Cities Volume 1, ODPM PSD 19.27 State of the English Cities Volume 2, ODPM PSD 20.01 Tales from the Market - What they say about population growth & housing needs in the North East PSD 20.02 Teesdale District Council Charts Expenditure, Revenue & Tourism PSD 20.03 Teesdale District Council 2004 Housing Needs Survey Final Report May 2004 PSD 20.04 Teesdale Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2005-2005 PSD 20.05 Tees Valley Living 2004 Housing Market Assessment Jan 05 Executive Summary PSD 20.06 Tees Valley Living 2004 Housing Market Assessment Final Jan 05 Report PSD 20.07 Tees alley Living Building Sustainable Communities in the Jan 06 Tees Valley PSD 20.08 Tees Valley Living Household Earning Charts PSD 20.09 Tees Valley Living Migration Charts PSD 20.10 Tees Valley Living Report on Employment Land Provision in Jan 06 Tees Valley PSD 20.11 Tees Valley Living Report on Housing Provision in Tees Valley PSD 20.12 Tees Valley Living Draft Report on Sub Regional Housing Jan 05 Strategy PSD 20.13 Tees Valley Spreadsheet - Area Vitality & Viability Index PSD 20.14 The Economic Impact of Express Carriers for UK plc PSD 20.15 The Economic Role of Mobile Professional and Creative Jan 06 Workers CURDS PSD 20.16 Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Planning System PSD 20.17 Third Report of the Committee. Standards in Public Life. July 97 Standards of Conduct in Local Government. Volume 1 Report PSD 20.18 Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. An independent report by members of the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside PSD 20.19 TWRI Information note on population and migration PSD 20.20 TWRI Summary on Migration, Commuting and Jobs PSD 20.21 Tyne and Wear Baseline Report 2004 A report on the Sub- Regional Economy PSD 20.22 Tyne and Wear Regional Employment Site 'Preferred Options' Draft Development Plan Document Aug 2005 PSD 20.23 Tyne and Wear Green Belt Local Plan PSD 20.24 Tyne and Wear Housing Justification Briefing from TWRI July 2004 PSD 20.25 Tyne and Wear Research and Information Migration and Employment Modelling Results for LPT Team
PANEL REPORT B25
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
PSD 20.26 Tyne and Wear Research and Information Migration Tables for Housing Planning Oct 2005 PSD 20.27 Tynedale Council. The potential of Tynedale as a 'Seedbed' May 03 for the formation and growth of KIBS PSD 20.28 TWRI: Information Note on Students in Tyne and Wear PSD 20.29 TWRI: City-Region Boundary Maps: Housing Market Areas and Travel-to-work-Areas PSD 21.01 Urban Population Drift within the Region - Fact or Fiction? PSD 21.02 UK Regional Air Services: A Study by the Civil Aviation Authority PSD 21 03 Unitary Development Plan Adopted Plan 1998 PSD 21.04 Unitary Development Plan South Tyneside PSD 22.01 View: Shaping the North East EIP Representations from the Miller Group Appendices to Statements under Sessions 4.1 4.2 4.5 and 7.4 PSD 23.01 Weardale Task Force Special From Cement Works to National Attraction PSD 23.02 Wear Valley District Council Urban Capacity Study Sept 2004 PSD 23.03 Who Moves Where and Why? A Survey of Residents' Past Migration and Current Intentions, Results of the Newcastle Case Study. Main Report March 2001 PSD 23.04 Who Will Follow in the Wake of ASDA? PSD 23.05 Working Together: Co-operation between Government and Faith Communities Feb 2004 PSD 23.06 Workplace and Commuting Research Phase 2 Employment Centre Summaries Ashington July 2005 PSD 23.07 Waste Strategy Review 2006 2006
Library PARTICIPANTS DOCUMENTS Date of Reference (Documents submitted during EiP) Publication Number
ALC: 01 Alcan - Letter supporting HJ Banks &B Co Ltd's planning application for an open cast coal development at Shotton, Northumberland BNG: 01 New Build Buyers Project - Executive Summary (NLP) March 06 (Bridging Newcastle Gateshead) BNG: 02 New Build Buyers Survey Findings - Detailed Survey Analysis March 06 (NLP) (Bridging Newcastle Gateshead) BNG: 03 New Build Buyers Survey Final Report (NLP) (Bridging March 06 Newcastle Gateshead) BSHORT: 01 GIS System Output Displaying Actual Areas of Least Constraint CTD: 01 City of Durham Trust: Approved Applications of ten or More Units in City of Durham District DCATH: 01 Durham Cathedral: Statement by HJJ Williams on Housing DCoC: 01 Durham County Council - Analysis of 2001 Census migration data to define Housing Market Areas in County Durham DCoC: 02 Durham County Council - Supplementary statement matter 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land DCoC: 03 Durham County Council - supplementary statement matter
PANEL REPORT B26
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Change DC0C: 04 Sustainability Summary - NetPark Supplementary Evidence for RSS EiP DDC: 01 Derwentside District Council Information Note 1: Matter 5/6 (Housing Land Supply) DDC: 02 Derwentside District Council Information Note 2 - Housing & Urban Capacity EA: 01 Environment Agency - Proposed Climate Change Policy (Draft) EN: 01 English Nature - Climate Change: Space for Nature EN: 02 English Nature: Practical Toolkit for Assessing Cumulative Effects of Spatial Plans & Development Projects on Biodiversity in England EN: 03 Proposed Green Infrastructure Policy Changes (Green belt, open areas and green infrastructure) EN: 04 Proposed green infrastructure support additional text EN: 05 Proposed Inclusion of Green Infrastructure Definition in RSS Glossary Terms EN: 06 Proposed changes to Environment Map 2 FIRB: 01 Housing Numbers in Tees Valley FOE: 01 Friends of the Earth - Climate Scientists Issue Dire Warning FOE: 02 Friends of the Earth - Detailed Sector Split - CO2 Emissions FOE: 03 Friends of the Earth - City Regions Extract - Working Paper 3 FOE: 04 Friends of the Earth - Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Climate Change Action Plan - Your Climate FOE: 05 Friend of the Earth - GVA Summary FOE: 07 Sustainability balance in reducing surface travel distances to air services FOE: 08 Amendments proposed by Friends of the Earth: Proposed Climate Change Policy FOE: 09 Strategic Framework for Demand Management FOE: 10 Proposed amendments to RSS policies 21 & 49 GATESH: 01 Gateshead Unitary Development Plan Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Plan GEN: 01 Out of Town parks gain from high street flight - Financial Times GONE: 01 Government Office for the North East - Application of Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive GONE: 02 Government Office for the North East - Joint Working on Local Development Documents GONE: 03 Mapping Aeronautical Constraints to Wind Energy Development in the North East GONE: 04 Panel Note: The Purpose & Scope of RSS GONE: 05 Suggested amendments to format of Table 3 GONE: 06 Statement by Baroness Andrews to House of Lords on May 24 2005 Concerning Coal Mining HA: 01 Highways Agency Response to Matter 2/4 Queries KF: 01 Knight Frank - Employment Land Availability, Cramlington MBRC: 01 Middlesbrough Council - Hemlington Grange Masterplan, Summary Document MG: 01 Miller Group - Provision of Employment Land (Session 4/4) NEA: 01 North East Assembly - Housing Affordability: Ratio of House Prices to Earnings NEA: 02 North East Assembly- Annual Monitoring Report 2004/2005
PANEL REPORT B27
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
(Chapters 1 to 6) NEA: 02(b) North East Assembly: Annual Monitoring Report 2004/2005 Tables & Graphs Chapters 1 to 6 NEA: 02(c) North East Assembly: Annual Monitoring Report 2004/2005 (Chapter 7 to end) NEA: 03 North East Assembly: Renewable Energy - RSS Environment / Suggested Changes to Map NEA: 04 Inquiry into Whinash Wind Farm (report by DTI 2005) NEA: 05 North East Assembly: Landfill Capacity Update to EiP Information Note 9 NCC: 01 Affordable Housing & Issues of Second & Holiday Homes ( Northumberland County Council, Alnwick DC & Berwick upon Tweed BC) NCC: 02 Status of Urban capacity within Northumberland NCC: 03 Northumberland County Council Population Projections 2003-2005 NCC: 04 Northumberland County Council 2003-based Sub-national Population Projections NCC: 05 Northumberland Minerals Local Plan Inspector's Report (Extract) NEWC: 01 Interim Statement on Housing Capacity - Newcastle City Council NEWC: 02 Summary of Identified Urban Capacity at 31 Dec 2005: Replacement Housing NEWC: 03 Newcastle City Council Regeneration Strategy NEWC: 04 Newcastle City Council Housing Strategy NEWC: 05 Newcastle City Council LDF Core Strategy Preferred Option Report NEWC: 06 Newcastle City Council LDF Annual Monitoring Report ODPM: 01 ODPM - Application of Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 (3) & (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC to Development Plans in the Transitional Period between now and when amending Regulations come into force. ODPM: 02 Application by Barratt for Planning Permission at former Warrant Distribution Depot ONE: 01 One North East: Supplementary Briefing Statement Matters 4/1, 4/2 PDP: 01 Industry with plenty of room for growth. Article (PD Ports) RCBC: 01 Redcar & Cleveland BC Matter 3/3 east Middlesbrough Transport Corridor SARC: 01 Managing the Spatial Distribution of B1 Office Through Regional Spatial Strategy (Sunderland Arc) SHNKS: 01 Letter to Public Agencies about Population Growth & Housing Needs in the North East SHNKS: 02 Cheap Housing - Going, Going, Almost Gone - Derwentside Council (Debbie Shanks) SHNKS: 03 Debbie Shanks. Supplementary statement on Matter 5/8 Population Growth & Plan, Monitor and Manage SHNKS: 04 Debbie Shanks: Correction to Supplementary statement on matter 5/8 SHNKS: 05 Accession Monitoring Report May 2004-June 2005 SLAND: 01 Sunderland Greenfield Allocations letter to Panel (Sunderland City Council) SLAND: 02 Sunderland update Annex A: Regional Capacity for Housing Dec 2005 STC: 01 Interim Planning Policy Statement for the Assessment of
PANEL REPORT B28
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Residential development Proposals in South Tyneside (South Tyneside Council) TCPA: 01 Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom (UKCIP02 Briefing Report) (Town & Country Planning Association) TCPA: 02 Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate Mid Project Update 2005 (Town & Country Planning Association) TDC: 01 Teesdale 2001 Census Migration Inflows TVJSU: 01 A Strategy Towards Sustainable Development of UK Aviation TVJSU: 02 Suggested amendment to "Environment" section of RSS Policy 7 "Tees valley City Region" (Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit) TVJSU: 03 Matter 4/2 - Employment Land - supplementary note TVJSU: 04 Housing land Supply - Urban capacity Studies - Supplementary Note TVJSU: 05 Joint Minerals & Waste Development Plan Documents TVJSU: 06 Proposed addition to Policy 53 Demand Management TVJSU: 07 Supplementary Statement Matter 5/9 Housing Distribution in Tees Valley TVR: 01 Victoria Harbour Commercial Assessment (Extract - para 5.8 to 5.17) (Tees Valley Regeneration) T&W: 01 Supplementary Statement on Matter 5/7 Previously Developed Land & Greenfield Land (Tyne & Wear Authorities) T&W: 02 Supplementary Statement on Matter 5/8 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage T&W: 03 Tyne & Wear Authorities Response to NEA's First Addendum to Information Note 2 on Population & housing Allocations T&W: 04 Tyne & Wear Info Note on NEA changed housing allocations WARNE: 01 Coal Industry Preferred Sites & Existing Waste Facilities (Maps) WYPK: 01 Wynyard Park response to Policy X WYPK: 02 Submission re: matter 7/4 Freight Transport ( Wynyard Park)
PANEL REPORT B29
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS FOR PARTICIPANT DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES
ALC Alcan NEA North East Assembly
BNG Bridging NewcastleGateshead NCC Northumberland County Council
BSHORT Bill Short NEWC Newcastle City Council
CTD City of Durham Trust ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
DCATH Durham Cathedral ONE One North East
DCoC Durham County Council PDP PD Ports
DDC Derwentside District Council RCBC Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
EA Environment Agency SARC Sunderland Arc
EN English Nature SHNKS Debbie Shanks
FIRB Roland Firby SLAND Sunderland City Council
Friends Of the Earth (North FOE STC South Tyneside Council East)
GATESH Gateshead Council TCPA Town & Country Planning Association
GEN General Interest Document TDC Teesdale District Council
Government Office for the GONE TVJSU Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit North East
HA Highways Agency TVR Tees Valley Regeneration
KF Knight Frank T&W Tyne & Wear District Councils
Middlesbrough Borough MBRC WARNE Henry Warne Council
MG Miller Group WYPK Wynyard Park
PANEL REPORT B30
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Part C: Examination in Public Documents
Library EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Date of Reference (EiP Documents) Publication Number
NLD 01 Public Notice Nov 2005 NLD 02 Notes for Participants Nov 2005 NLD 03 Provisional Programme Nov 2005 NLD 04 NEA EiP Information Note 1 - Housing & Replacement Figures Dec 2005 NLD 05 NEA EiP Information Note 2 Population & Housing Model Zero Net Dec 2005 Migration NLD 06 Addendum to Info Note 2 Jan 2006 NLD 07 NEA EiP Information Note 3 Revised Mid Year Estimates of Dec 2005 Population NLD 08 NEA EiP Information Note 3 Annex A Dec 2005 NLD 09 NEA EiP Information Note 4 Definition of Major Development Dec 2005 Within the North East NLD 10 NEA EiP Information Note 5 Housing Market Assessments Dec 2005 NLD 11 NEA EiP Information Note 6 - Minor Inconsistencies Dec 2005 NLD 12 NEA EiP Info Note 7 - Regional Potential Housing Capacity Update Jan 2006 NLD 13 Final Programme Dec 2006 NLD 14 Panel Note - Housing Market Assessment Manual NLD 15 Panel Note - Climate Change NLD 16 Panel Note - Housing Market Areas NLD 17 Panel Note - Planning & transport Assumptions & Locational Strategy Matter 2.3 NLD 19 First Preliminary Meeting 13th December 2005 - Minutes NLD 20 Panel Tour 1 Summary - Tees Valley NLD 20b Panel Tour 2 Summary - South Tyneside, Wearside and County Durham NLD 21 Panel Tour 3 Summary - North Tyneside, Blyth and Northumberland County NLD 22 Panel Tour 4 Summary - Tyne Valley and Newcastle / Gateshead Central Core NLD 23 Panel Tour 5 Summary - Durham City Centre, Darlington, Middlesbrough and Sunderland City Centre NLD 24 Panel Note Matter 5/1 Urban & Rural Centres NLD 26 Second Preliminary Meeting 31st January 2006 - Minutes NLD 27 Provisional Agenda Questions for Weeks 1, 2, & 3 NLD 28 NEA EiP Info Note 2: Addendum 2 Clarification of Panel Questions 2006 Regarding Zero Net Migration 2004-2021 NLD 29 NEA EiP Info Note 8 Migration Between Local Authorities 2006 NLD 30 NEA EiP Info Note 9 Waste Management Facilities and Capacity 2006 NLD 31 NEA EiP Info Note 10 - North East Dwelling Completions 1991 - 2006 2005 NLD 32 N.E.A. : Assessment of Risks Associated with the RSS Economic 2006 Growth Scenario
PANEL REPORT B31
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
NLD 33 Provisional Agenda Questions for Weeks 4 & 5 2006 NLD 34 NEA EiP info Note 7 Regional Potential Housing Capacity 2006 (amended) NLD 35 NEA EiP Info Note 11 Most Recent Five Year Migration Trends 2006 NLD 36 NEA EiP Info Note 12 ONS 2003 Based Household Projections 2006 Issued March 2006 NLD 37 Policy X 2006 NLD 38 North East Assembly: Land Capacity Update to EiP Information 2006 Note 9 NLD 39 Information Note on NEA's Changes to Housing Allocations 2006 NLD 40 NEA Information Note 7 Amended Annex A 2006 NLD 41 NEA Information Note 2 Addendum 3 District Level Information 2006 Associated with the Revised Model Run NLD 42 NEA Information Note 13 Clarification of issues raised by Durham 2006 County Council (Matter 5/9) NLD 43 NEA Information Note 14 Re-use of Previously Developed Land 2006 NLD 44 NEA Information Note 15 Sustainability Statements 2006 NLD 45 NEA Information Note 16 Planning Permission Status of the 2006 Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites
WRITTEN STATEMENTS Date of (Participants Submissions) Publication
MATTER 1 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 1/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Confederation of British Industry - North East (198) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) English Heritage (98) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
Non-invited Participants Persimmon Homes
Written Submissions 1/2 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215)
PANEL REPORT B32
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) English Heritage (98) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
Written Submissions 1/3 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Royal Town Planning Institute (348) Town & Country Planning Association (819)
Written Submissions 1/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Confederation of British Industry (North East) (198) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Nectar (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Royal Town Planning Institute (348) Town & Country Planning Association (819)
PANEL REPORT B33
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Non-invited Participants
Debbie Shanks Persimmon Homes
MATTER 2 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 2/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) North east Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) English Heritage (98) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies (173) Royal Town Planning Institute (348) Town & Country Planning Association (819)
Written Submissions 2/2 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Confederation of British Industry (North East) (198) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Royal Town Planning Institute (348) Town & Country Planning Association (819)
Non-invited Participants Persimmon Homes
PANEL REPORT B34
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 2/3 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Confederation of British Industry (North East) (198) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne and Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) Highways Agency (160) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE)(163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) NEXUS (157) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Tesco Stores (61) Sunderland ARC (151) Royal Town Planning Institute (348)
Written Submissions 2/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northern Way (821) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) The Countryside Agency/English Nature/The Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) Highways Agency (160) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NECTAR (94) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Berwick on Tweed Borough Council (177) North Yorkshire County Council (39) NEXUS (157) Tesco Stores (61) Royal Town Planning Institute (348) SENNTRi (824)
Non-invited Participants
Blyth Valley District Council Hartlepool Borough Council Persimmon Homes
PANEL REPORT B35
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
MATTER 3 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 3/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Environment Agency (200) Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) National Trust (449) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Grainger Trust (195) Tesco Stores (61) Nothumberland Estates (47) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Arcot Consortium (135) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Sunderland ARC (151) NEXUS (157)
Non-invited Participants
Blyth Valley District Council Capital Shopping Centres Durham City Council English Heritage Wansbeck District Council Newcastle Great Park Persimmon Homes
Written Submissions 3/2 – Invited Participants
Ronald Smith (Fellgate Residents) (265) North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Environment Agency (200) Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) National Trust (449) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Grainger Trust (195) Northumberland Estates (47) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Arcot Consortium (135) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Sunderland ARC (151) NEXUS (157) NECTAR (94) Church Commissioners for England (352) South Tyneside Council (124)
PANEL REPORT B36
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 3/3 – Invited participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) North Yorkshire County Council (39) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Environment Agency (200) Home Builders Federation (424) Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (163) PD Ports (194) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Tees Valley Living (811) NECTAR (94) Pennyman and Farrow Trusts (128) Tesco Stores (61) Highways Agency (160)
Non-invited Participants Middlesborough Council Hartlepool Borough Council Persimmon Homes
Written Submissions 3/4 – Invited participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) North Yorkshire County Council (39) Environment Agency (200) Home Builders Federation (424) Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Tees Valley Living (822) NECTAR (94) Pennyman and Farrow Trusts (128) English Heritage (98)
Written Submissions 3/5 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Northumberland National Park Authority (136) Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service (95) Environment Agency (200) National Trust (449) Home Builders Federation (424)
PANEL REPORT B37
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Nothumberland Estates (47) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) Defence Estates NECTAR (94) Highways Agency (160) North East Rural Affairs Forum Grainger Trust (195) English Heritage (98)
Non-invited Participants
Alnwick District Council Tynedale Council Tynedale Council British Holiday Homes & Parks Association Persimmon Homes MATTER 4 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 4/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Confederation of British Industry (North East) (198) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Highways Agency (160) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Port of Tyne (406) PD Ports (194) Wynyard Park (436) Tesco Stores (61) Sunderland ARC (151) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Marchday Group (451) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) Miller Group LXB Properties Ltd (350) SENNTRi (824) Sven Investments (72)
Non-Invited Participants Strawson Property NE Wildlife Trusts Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service Blyth Valley District Council
Written Submissions 4/2 – Invited participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11)
PANEL REPORT B38
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Highways Agency (160) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Sunderland ARC (151) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) Miller Group (343) Cameron Hall / Sven Investments (175) (72) Church Commissioners for England (352)
Non-invited Participants
Alnwick Council Nothumberland Estates
Written Submissions 4/3 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Highways Agency (160) Environment Agency (200) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Sunderland ARC (151) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Newcastle International Airport Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) Newcastle City Council (341) Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) Darlington Borough Council (332)
Non-invited Participants
Countryside Agency / English Nature/Rural Development Service Newcastle Great Park
Written Submissions 4/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Highways Agency (160) Environment Agency (200) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Sunderland ARC (151) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Newcastle International Airport Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) Tesco Stores (61) Marchday Group (451) Alnwick District Council
PANEL REPORT B39
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Non-invited Participants
Capital Shopping Centres Blyth Valley District Council PD Ports Darlington Borough Council Strawson Property
Written Submissions 4/5 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Highways Agency (160) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Wynyard Park (436) Sunderland ARC (151) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Acorn Business Park (422) Miller Group (343) Cameron Hall Developments / Sven Investments Ltd (175) (72) UK Coal Mining Ltd (254)
Non-invited Participants
Alpha Recovery Darlington Borough Council
MATTER 5 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 5/1 – Invited participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Highways Agency (160) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Newcastle City Council (341) Sunderland Arc (151) Gateshead Council (8) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Capital Shopping Centres Multiplex Developments (140) LXB Properties Ltd (350) PD Ports (194)
Non-invited Participants
Blyth Valley District Council
PANEL REPORT B40
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 5/2 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142 Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) Wynyard Park (436) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) SENNTRi (824) Grainger Trust (195) Cameron Hall Developments / Sven Investments (175) Northern Way (821) Arcot Consortium (135) Persimmon Homes (347)
Non-invited Participants
Berwick on Tweed Borough Council Blyth Valley District Council Ushaw College Debbie Shanks
Written Submissions 5/3 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) Northern Way English Heritage Town & Country Planning Association (819)
PANEL REPORT B41
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 5/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) Sunderland ARC (151) Town & Country Planning Association (819) Persimmon Homes (347)
Non-invited Participants
British Holiday Homes & Parks Association
Written Submissions 5/5 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) Grainger Trust (195) Alnwick District Council Berwick on Tweed Borough Council (177) Teesdale Council (43)
Non-invited Participants
British Holiday Homes & Parks Association
PANEL REPORT B42
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 5/6 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) Wynyard Park (436) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) PD Ports (194) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113) Sven Investments (72) Marchday Group (451) Arcot Consortium (135)
Non Invited Participants
Persimmon Homes
Written Submissions 5/7 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) PD Ports (194) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113) Sunderland ARC (151) Cameron Hall Developments (175)
Non-invited Participants
Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency NE Wildlife Trusts Persimmon Homes
PANEL REPORT B43
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 5/8 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) PD Ports (194) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113) Northern Way (821)
Non- invited Participants
Persimmon Homes
Written Submissions 5/9 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Bridging Newcastle Gateshead (206) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) Wynyard Park (436) CABE (248) Tees Valley Living (822) NEXUS (157) Persimmon Homes (347) Highways Agency (160) SENNTRi (824) Grainger Trust (195) Arcot Consortium (135)
Non-invited Participants
Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113)
PANEL REPORT B44
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 5/10 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Berwick on Tweed Borough Council (177) Alnwick District Council Blyth Valley District Council Wansbeck District Council (45) Tynedale Council (105) Persimmon Homes (347) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Grainger Trust (195) H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies (173) Nothumberland Estates (47) Highways Agency (160) SENNTRi (824) Arcot Consortium
Non-invited Participants
B Cazaly Bowey Homes
Written Submissions 5/11 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Newcastle City Council (341) Sunderland City Council (29) North Tyneside Council (10) South Tyneside Council (124) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) Sunderland ARC (151) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Grainger Trust (195) Banks Group (166) Bett Homes (142) Highways Agency (160) Gateshead Council (8) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113)
Non-invited Participants
Barratt M&J Burke
Written Submissions 5/12 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Derwentside District Council (335) Chester-le-Street District Council (46) Wear Valley Council (243)
PANEL REPORT B45
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Durham City Council Easington District Council (812) Teesdale District Council (43) Sedgefield Council (190) Home Builders Federation (424) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Persimmon Homes (347) Durham Cathedral Grainger Trust (195) Hallam Land Management Ltd (164) Highways Agency (160) City of Durham Trust (282)
Non-invited Participants
Bowey Homes Tyne & Wear Authorities (11)
Written Submissions 5/13 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Middlesborough Council (185) Hartlepool Borough Council (147) Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) Darlington Borough Council (322) Redcar and Cleveland Council (42) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Tees Valley Living (822) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Durham Cathedral (28) Highways Agency (160) George Wimpey UK Ltd (113) Cameron Hall Developments / Sven Investments (175) (72) R D Firby (415)
MATTER 6 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 6/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Home Builders Federation (424) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Environment Agency (200) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Tynedale Council (105) Middlesborough Council (185) Stockton-on-Tees Council (228) NE Wildlife Trusts (256) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11)
PANEL REPORT B46
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 6/2 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Northumberland National Park Authority (136) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Environment Agency (200) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Tynedale Council (105) Alnwick District Council Berwick on Tweed Borough Council (177) Castle Morpeth District Council (211) CABE (248) Northumberland Renewables Group (430) Bill Short (435) Stephen McIntyre (Kiln Pit Hill Area) (650) H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies (173) North Pennines AONB (121) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Hartlepool Borough Council (147) Wind Prospect (825) Moorsyde Action Group (434)
Non-invited Participants
English Heritage Sunderland ARC N Power Renewables Shotley Low Bridge Parish Council NE Wildlife Trusts
Written Submissions 6/3 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Environment Agency (200) National Trust (449) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Banks Development (166) CoalPro (270) British Ceramic Confederation (51) Port of Tyne (406) H Warne (Morpeth & District Civic Society & NE Federation of Civic Amenity Societies (173) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) UK Coal Mining Ltd (254)
Non-invited Participants
Tyne & Wear Authorities / Gateshead Council NE Wildlife Trusts
PANEL REPORT B47
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 6/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Northumberland County Council (222) Durham County Council (202) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Environment Agency (200) Campaign to Protect Rural England (428) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163) Banks Group (166) W Chrystal (423) Highways Agency (160)
Non-invited Participants
Tyne & Wear Authorities / Gateshead Council NE Wildlife Trusts
MATTER 7 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 7/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Highways Agency (160) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Friends of the Earth (163) Newcastle International Airport (241) Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) PD Ports (194) Port of Tyne (406) NEXUS (157) NECTAR (94) Drawbridge Securities (346) Cyclist’s Touring Club (448) Sunderland ARC (151) Sven Investments (72) Tees Valley Regeneration (148)
Non-invited Participants
Middlesbrough Council Friends of the Earth Tyne Bridge Sustrans NE Wildlife Trusts
PANEL REPORT B48
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 7/2 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Highways Agency (160) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Friend of the Earth (163) Newcastle International Airport Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) PD Ports (194) Port of Tyne (406) NEXUS (157) NECTAR (94) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Cyclist’s Touring Club (448) Sunderland ARC (151)
Non-invited Participants
Capital Shopping Centres NE Wildlife Trusts
Written Submissions 7/3 – Invited participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Highways Agency (160) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Friends of the Earth (163) Newcastle International Airport (241) Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) PD Ports (194) Port of Tyne (406) NEXUS (157) NECTAR (94) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Tees Valley Regeneration (148) Cyclist’s Touring Club (448)
Non-invited Participants
NE Wildlife Trusts
PANEL REPORT B49
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX B FOR THE NORTH EAST EXAMINATION LIBRARY DOCUMENTS
Written Submissions 7/4 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Highways Agency (160) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Friend of the Earth (163) Newcastle International Airport (241) Durham Tees Valley Airport (102) PD Ports (194) Port of Tyne (406) NEXUS (157) NECTAR (94) Miller Group (343) Drawbridge Securities (346) UK Coal Mining Ltd (254)
Non-invited Participants
Durham City Council NE Wildlife Trusts
MATTER 8 – Feb 2006 Written Submissions 8/1 – Invited Participants
North East Assembly (820) Government Office for the North East (215) ONE North East (229) Durham County Council (202) Northumberland County Council (222) Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit (207) Tyne & Wear Authorities (11) North East Chamber of Commerce (230) Home Builders Federation (424) Highways Agency (160) Environment Agency (200) Countryside Agency/English Nature/Rural Development Agency (95) Friends of the Earth (NE) (163 NECTAR (94) Bridging NewcastleGateshead (206) English Heritage (98)
Non-invited Participants
NE Wildlife Trusts
PANEL REPORT B50
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
Appendix C: i) Index to the Submission Draft Policies, the Panel’s Modifications to Policies and New Policies
Section No Regional Spatial Strategy Panel’s Recommended Recommendation in & for the North East Modifications to Panel Report to Policy No Submission Draft Policies and/or Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text. supporting text
SECTION 1 SHAPING OUR REGION
SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND LOCATIONAL STRATEGY Policy 1 North East Renaissance Policy 2 Sustainable Development Modify Policy 2 and text 3.1 New Policy 2A and text 2.1 Policy 3 The Sequential Approach to Modify Policy 3 and text 3.2 Development Policy 4 Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage Policy 5 Locational Strategy Policy 6 Tyne & Wear City Region Modified Policies 6 & 10 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.12 and text City Region diagram & Environment Map 2 Policy 7 Tees Valley City Region Modified Policy 7 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, City Region diagram & 5.4 Environment Map 2 Policy 8 Rural Areas Modified Policy 8 4.10, 4.11 Policy 9 Protecting & Enhancing the Environment Policy 10 Green Belt & Open Areas Delete Policy 10 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 Policy 11 Connectivity & Accessibility
SECTION 3 DELIVERING AN URBAN AND RURAL RENAISSANCE 3A Delivering Economic Prosperity & Growth Policy 12 Sustainable Economic Development Policy 13 Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Modify Policy 13 and text 5.4 Developments Policy 14 Embracing Further and Higher Education Policy 15 Information and Communications Technology Networks Policy 16 Culture & Tourism Policy 17 Casino Development Policy 18 Employment Land Portfolio Modify Policy 5.2 5.2
New Policy 18A 5.5
PANEL REPORT C1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
Policy 19 Prestige Employment Sites Modified Policy 19 5.5
Policy 20 Reserve Sites Delete Policy 20 5.5 Policy 21 Airports Modify Policy 21 and text 5.3 including table Policy 22 Ports Policy 23 Chemical & Steel Industry 3B Delivering sustainable communities Policy 24 Delivering Sustainable Communities Policy 25 Urban and Rural Centres Policy 26 MetroCentre Modify Policy 26 6.2 Policy 27 Out-of-Centre Retail & Leisure Modify Policy 27 and text 4.13, 6.3 Developments Policy 28 Total Dwelling Construction Modify Policy 28 including 7.1 table Policy 29 Improving the Housing Stock Modify Policy 29 7.3 Policy 30 Dwelling Provision Modify Policy 30 including 7.1, 7.7, 7.10 table Policy 31 Managing Housing Supply Modify Policy 31 7.6 Policy 32 Improving Inclusivity Modify text 7.4 3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture Policy 33 Landscape Character Policy 34 Historic Environment Policy 35 Biodiversity & Geodiversity Policy 36 The Aquatic and Marine Modify Policy 36 and text 8.2 Environment Policy 37 Flood Risk Modify Policy 37 and text 8.1, 8.3 Policy 38 Trees, Woodland & Forests Policy 39 Sustainable Energy Use Modify Policies 39 & 40 8.4, 8.5 and text Policy 40 Renewable Energy Generation Modify Policy 40 8.4, 8.5 Policy 41 Planning for Renewables Modify Policy 41 and text 8.6. 8.7 Policy 42 Onshore Wind Development Modify Policy 42, text and 8.8, 8.9, 8.10 Environment Map 1 Policy 43 Overall Minerals Strategy Policy 44 Aggregate Minerals Policy 45 Opencast Coal Modify Policy 45 8.11 Policy 46 Sustainable Waste Modify Policy 46 8.12 Management Policy 47 Waste Management Provision Modify Policy 47 and text 8.13, 8.14, 8.15 Policy 48 Hazardous Waste 3D Improving connectivity within and beyond the region Policy 49 International Gateways Modify Policy 49 and text 9.3 Policy 50 Regional Transport Corridors Policy 51 Regional Public Transport Modified Policy 51 9.4, 9.5 Provision Policy 52 Strategic Public Transport Hubs Modify Policy 52 9.6, 9.7, 9.8
New Policy 53A and text 9.9 Policy 53 Demand Management Measures
PANEL REPORT C2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
Policy 54 Parking and Travel Plans Modify Policy 54 9.10 Policy 55 Accessibility within and between the City Regions Policy 56 Accessibility in Rural Areas Modify Policy 56 4.10 Policy 57 Sustainable Freight Distribution Modify Policy 57 and text 9.11
SECTION 4 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW Further Work 3.3, 5.1, 6.1, 7.2, 7.5, New Studies 7.9, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1
PANEL REPORT C3
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
ii) Policy implications of population projections
Policy implications of population projections
Area ONS Pop Change 2004 2021 Change Zero 112,000 Hartlepool 90.2 90.7 +0.5 +2.5 +10.2 Redcar and Cleveland 138.4 128.0 -10.4 -1.5 +0.1 Middlesbrough 137.5 119.2 -18.3 +5.5 +4.7 Stockton 187.2 197.8 +10.6 +5.8 -3.2 Darlington 98.4 102.9 +4.5 -0.1 +5.2 Tees Valley 651.7 638.6 -13.1 +12.2 +17.0 Chester-le-Street 53.3 52.8 -0.5 -0.8 -1.3 Derwentside 85.9 90.3 +4.4 -2.0 +0.4 Durham City 89.2 90.1 +0.9 +1.2 -6.3 Easington 92.3 85.1 -7.2 -1.7 -0.2 Sedgefield 87.3 87.8 +0.5 -0.4 +5.1 Teesdale 24.7 25.6 +0.9 -1.4 0 Wear Valley 61.1 59.6 -1.5 -1.9 +2.6 Durham County 493.7 491.3 -2.4 -7.0 +0.3 Alnwick 31.5 32.2 +0.7 -1.2 +2.3 Berwick 25.9 26.0 +0.1 -2.5 +1.6 Blyth Valley 81.7 84.4 +2.7 +0.2 +2.3 Castle Morpeth 49.3 47.7 -1.6 -2.5 -0.8 Tynedale 59.5 61.5 +2.0 -2.4 -1.9 Wansbeck 61.2 59.7 -1.5 -1.8 +1.0 Northumberland Co. 309.1 311.5 +2.4 -10.2 +4.5 Gateshead 190.4 184.9 -5.5 -4.4 +3.2 Newcastle 265.5 257.9 -7.6 +5.1 +8.3 N. Tyneside 191.6 203.5 +11.9 -2.3 +5.7 S. Tyneside 150.9 142.6 -8.3 -3.7 -1.1 Sunderland 282.3 276.9 -5.4 -3.9 -0.6 Tyne and Wear 1080.8 1065.8 -14.9 -9.2 +15.5 NORTH EAST 2525.3 2507.2 -28.0 -14.2 +37.3
The first three columns of this table are based on NCC submissions 03 and 04, which provide information from the ONS 2003 based projections. The final two columns are taken from the population change columns in the Zero Net Migration forecast in EIP Information Note 2 and the Revised Demographic and Housing Model Run in EiP Information Note 2, Addendum 3.
PANEL REPORT C4
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
iii) New Studies - City Region Housing Market Areas
Housing market areas
Sub-Regional Housing Market Component Authorities
Berwick-upon-Tweed Berwick-upon-Tweed
Tyne and Wear Alnwick Castle Morpeth Tynedale Wansbeck Blyth Valley Newcastle-upon-Tyne North Tyneside South Tyneside Gateshead Sunderland Chester-le-Street Derwentside Durham City Easington
Tees Valley Wear Valley Sedgefield Teesdale Darlington Hartlepool Stockton-on-Tees Middlesbrough Redcar and Cleveland
PANEL REPORT C5
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C
FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
PANEL REPORT C6
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
iv) Panel’s Modifications to Policies and New Policies
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text 1. SHAPING OUR REGION
2. DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND LOCATIONAL STRATEGY 1 North East POLICY 1 – NORTH EAST RENAISSANCE No change Renaissance 17 Strategies, plans and programmes should support a renaissance throughout the North East by: a) delivering economic prosperity and growth; b) delivering sustainable communities; c) conserving, enhancing and capitalising upon the region’s diverse natural and built environment, heritage and culture; and d) improving connectivity and accessibility within and beyond the region.
2 Sustainable New text leading up to Policy 2 3.1 Development 18 Modify Policy 2 and text
POLICY 2 – SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Local Development Frameworks should support sustainable construction and development through the delivery of the following environmental, social and economic objectives: Environmental Objectives a) to ensure good local air quality for all; b) to protect and enhance the quality of the region’s ground, river and sea waters; c) to reduce the causes and the impacts of climate change, particularly maximizing renewable energy generation and energy efficiency in buildings; PANEL REPORT C7
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text d) to protect and enhance the region’s biodiversity and geodiversity; e) to reduce the amount of waste produced and increase the amount recycled; f) to make better use of our resources, including the built fabric; g) to protect and enhance the quality and diversity of the region’s rural and urban land and landscapes; h) to prevent inappropriate development in flood plains; i) to reclaim and reuse derelict land to make more productive use of land; j) to protect and enhance the region’s cultural heritage and diversity; k) to promote the concept of green infrastructure, a network of linked, multifunctional green space in and around the region’s towns and cities; Social Objectives l) to tackle the social, economic and environmental impacts of multiple deprivation; m) to raise educational achievement across the region; n) to ensure everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent and affordable home; o) to improve the quality and choice of housing through market renewal and new development; p) to reduce crime and the fear of crime, particularly through good design; q) to improve health and well-being while reducing inequalities in health; r) to ensure good accessibility for all to jobs, facilities, goods and services in the region particularly by public transport, walking and cycling; s) to reduce the need to travel by private car; t) to increase public involvement in decision-making and civic activity; Economic Objectives u) to ensure high and stable levels of employment so everyone can share and contribute to greater prosperity; v) to achieve high and sustainable levels of economic growth by focusing on the region’s strengths and alleviating weakness; w) to ensure that environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them and efficient resource use is incentivised; and x) to reduce adverse impacts of economic growth on global communities by supporting the use of local labour, materials and produce.
PANEL REPORT C8
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
New text 2.1
New Policy
New Policy 2A: Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
1) To help the Region mitigate and adapt to climate change, the Regional Assembly will ensure that:
a) A regional greenhouse gas emissions inventory is developed, targets are updated in reviews of the RSS, and an additional target for 2015 is included in the first Review
b) The regional climate change impacts report, ‘And the Weather Today is’, is updated and used to improved understanding of regional impacts and opportunities and used to make appropriate changes during the RSS review process
2) All strategies, plans and programmes in the Region shall help mitigate climate change, and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate by:
a) Helping the Region meet its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2010, and carbon dioxide levels to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, by including policies and proposals that:
i. Minimise the need to travel by car by building within existing developed areas along existing public transport routes; ii. Reduce traffic growth and promote competitive alternatives to the car; iii. Promote walking, cycling and the use of public transport; iv. Improve the energy efficiency of buildings;
PANEL REPORT C9
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text v. Maximise sustainable use of resources; vi. Increase renewable energy capacity.
b) Plan for the successful adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the Region by:
i. Minimising threats from and impact of damage to the natural environment, agriculture, water resources, flooding, sea level rise, built environment and energy supply; ii. Maximising opportunities from, for example, increased thermal growing season, increase in viability of arable farming and greater tourism potential.
3 The Sequential Modify Policy 3 and text 3.2 Approach to Development 19 POLICY 3 – THE SEQUENTIAL APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT
Local Development Frameworks should adopt a sequential approach to the identification of land for development to give priority to previously developed land and buildings in the most sustainable locations. All sites should be in locations that are, or will be, at lowest risk from flooding, having particular regard to the vulnerability of the proposed development to flooding. Locations should be selected in the following priority order: a) Suitable previously developed sites and buildings within urban areas, particularly around public transport nodes; b) Other suitable locations within urban areas not identified as land to be protected for nature or heritage conservation or recreational purposes; c) Suitable sites in locations adjoining urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings; and d) Suitable sites in settlements outside urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings For the purposes of this policy, urban areas are defined as the conurbations, main towns,
PANEL REPORT C10
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text towns in regeneration areas and rural service centres and other settlements identified in Local Development Frameworks as providing a significant opportunity in terms of previously developed land and buildings.
All sites identified for development should be in locations that are, or will be, well related to homes, jobs and services by all modes of transport, particularly public transport, walking and cycling.
4 Phasing & Plan, POLICY 4 – PHASING & PLAN, MONITOR AND MANAGE No change Monitor and The North East Assembly will produce an Annual Monitoring Report assessing the delivery Manage 21 of the RSS locational strategy and policies by the end of February each year. A significant change in the key indicators below could necessitate a partial or full review of the RSS: • GVA growth; • population growth and migration; • housing provision, take up and phasing requirements; • delivery of housing market restructuring areas; • employment rates; • employment land provision and take up; and • development on previously developed and greenfield land.
The Assembly will prepare guidance on the application of the phasing and plan, monitor and manage approach.
Local Development Frameworks shall plan for the managed release of land for development in the periods 2004-11; 2011-16; and 2016-21, based on: a) prioritising previously developed land in accordance with the sequential approach; b) up-to-date monitoring information provided through Local Development Frameworks’ Annual Monitoring Reports; c) up-to-date population and housing provision requirements at the housing market / city region level, as indicated through the RSS Annual Monitoring Reports and Strategy;
PANEL REPORT C11
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text d) a recognition of the phasing requirements in relation to the affects of new development on the delivery of wider strategies and programmes within the city regions and rural areas, particularly housing market restructuring initiatives; and e) an employment land supply that is prioritised in order of its phased release. Local planning authorities shall review the phasing approach and priorities set out in Local Development Frameworks every five years or earlier if the RSS or Local Development Frameworks’ Annual Monitoring Reports or plan reviews indicate a need otherwise.
In determining new planning proposals and the renewal of lapsed planning consents, local planning authorities should: f) take into account changing circumstances and needs as identified through the RSS and Local Development Frameworks’ Annual Monitoring Reports and RSS reviews; g) ensure that major developments to be developed over a long timeframe are phased over the three periods 2004-11; 2011-16; and 2016-21, and are capable of being responsive to changes in phasing as identified from monitoring processes; h) ensure that the release of housing land takes into account the sequential approach as applied at the housing market area and city region level; and i) ensure that major greenfield housing developments proposals are accompanied by an assessment of the impacts of the development on the successful delivery of the housing market restructuring areas and previously developed land targets within city regions.
5 Locational POLICY 5 – LOCATIONAL STRATEGY No change Strategy 23 Plans, strategies and programmes should support and incorporate the locational strategy to maximise the major assets and opportunities available in the North East and to regenerate those areas affected by social, economic and environmental problems by: a) supporting the polycentric development and redevelopment of the Tyne & Wear city region and the Tees Valley city region by concentrating the majority of new development in the conurbations and main towns, particularly within the core areas; b) allowing development appropriate in scale within the towns in the regeneration areas and rural service centres within the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley city regions; c) maintaining vibrant rural areas with a diversified economy and sustainable market towns,
PANEL REPORT C12
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text service centres and villages whilst preserving their historic fabric and character; d) conserving and enhancing biodiversity, geodiversity and the high quality landscapes, including the Northumberland National Park, the North Pennines and Northumberland Coast AONBs and the Durham, Northumberland and North Yorkshire and Cleveland heritage coasts and protecting them from development that would endanger these qualities; and e) improving internal and external connectivity and accessibility, including from regeneration areas to the conurbations and main towns.
6 Tyne & Wear City Modify Policies 6 and 10, City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 4.1 Region 35 4.2 POLICY 6 – TYNE & WEAR CITY REGION 4.3 4.4 Strategies, plans and programmes should support the polycentric development and 4.12 redevelopment of the Tyne & Wear city region by:
1. Regeneration a) giving priority to the regeneration of the city region’s core areas of the Tyne corridor, extending over the Bridging NewcastleGateshead area, Newcastle City Centre, Teams, Gateshead Quays and town centre, North Felling, and the River Wear corridor in Central Sunderland; b) supporting the regeneration of both banks of the river Tyne at South Shields and North Shields, and the town centre of South Shields forming the Tyne Gateway, for appropriate mixed-use development; c) ensuring a scale and quality of development to reflect Durham City’s unique character and its role as a major service and employment centre for its surrounding hinterland; and d) supporting the regeneration of Ashington, Blyth, Cramlington, Chester-le-Street, Consett, Stanley, Crook, Seaham, Peterlee, Hetton-le-Hole and Houghton-le-
PANEL REPORT C13
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Spring, for sustainable indigenous growth to meet local needs without adversely impacting on the regeneration initiatives within the Tyne And Wear conurbation.
2. Economic Prosperity a) focusing the majority of new economic development on the city centres of Newcastle and Sunderland and the Prestige Employment Sites of West Hartford, Blyth Valley; Newcastle Great Park; Newburn Riverside, Newcastle; and Baltic Business Park, Gateshead; b) supporting the Science City Newcastle initiative, focussing development on the western area of Newcastle for science and technological development and developing a network of complementary nodes including Baltic Business Park, Gateshead; Northumbria University (Manors development); the Centre for Renewables, Blyth and Durham University; c) continuing to support the influential economic role of the four universities in the city region, enabling better links between universities and business, and campus expansions where appropriate; d) focussing new knowledge based Small Medium Enterprise accommodation and offices within and adjacent to Newcastle and Sunderland city centres, with provision in regeneration centres and rural service centres to meet local needs; e) developing manufacturing and logistics based accommodation within and on the outskirts of Tyne & Wear, Durham City and the regeneration centres with good public transport links and access to strategic road and rail networks; f) focussing on the creation of local jobs and retraining and up-skilling of local workforces in the regeneration areas; and g) broadening and better integrating the city region’s tourism offer by building on the success of Bridging NewcastleGateshead, including a major regional conference facility; developing the tourism potential of Hexham and Morpeth; and improving accessibilitybetween tourist facilities and destinations.
3. Sustainable Communities a) supporting the integrated housing market renewal initiatives and programmes of:
PANEL REPORT C14
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text • Bridging NewcastleGateshead, Sunderland Arc and Sunderland Housing Group areas, including large scale housing demolitions; and • the SENNTRi area, Rural Coalfield Regeneration Area, and Durham Coalfield Communities Area, with particular emphasis on rebalancing the housing stock and meeting local housing aspirations; b) locating the majority of new retail and leisure development in the regional centre of Newcastle and the sub-regional centre of Sunderland, whilst additional development in other town centres should be consistent with their scale and function to maintain and enhance their vitality and viability; and c) ensuring that any proposals for the extension or redevelopment of the MetroCentre are justified in terms of the need for the development, the sequential approach and the impact on the vitality and viability of urban and rural town centres.
4. Connectivity a) strengthening international air connections from Newcastle International Airport, and encouraging the development of 55 hectares of undeveloped allocated land for airport-related uses, to enable its potential as an economic driver to be realised and cater for its anticipated passenger growth; b) improving public transport links from throughout the city region to Newcastle International Airport, and from Durham Tees Valley Airport to Durham City in particular; c) supporting the growth of the Port of Tyne, Blyth Harbour, Port of Sunderland and Seaham Docks, and improving public transport links to the Port of Tyne to facilitate and cater for its passenger growth and tourism potential; d) ensuring improvements to the strategic road network of the A19 and A184, and public transport provision are made in order for the development of the Prestige Employment Site of Tyne Wear Park to be brought forward; e) exploring the feasibility of a further crossing of the River Wear and improved transport connections along the river in Sunderland; f) supporting the modernisation of the Metro system, improvements to the
PANEL REPORT C15
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Newcastle/Gateshead Western Bypass; the A19 junctions in North Tyneside and Northumberland; and a new River Tyne crossing; g) promoting the improvement of rail services between the two conurbations and to destinations outside the Region, especially Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds and London, particularly the Tees Tyne Express and on the Durham Coast and East Coast Main Line; h) improving interchange facilities at the Strategic Public Transport Hubs of Newcastle, Sunderland and Durham City, particularly Newcastle Central Station; i) promoting bus based public transport improvements between the regeneration centres and Tyne & Wear in the short term, and in the longer term reintroducing passenger services on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line; j) protecting the Leamside rail line from development that would restrict its reinstatement in the longer term; and
5. Green Belt and the Environment
a) Green Belt ensuring that the Green Belt continues to safeguard the countryside from encroachment and check the unrestricted sprawl of Tyne & Wear. The Green Belt and should:
i) prevent the merging of: • Sunderland with Seaham, Houghton-le-Spring, Washington or Tyneside; • Gateshead with Hebburn, Washington, Birtley or Whickham; • Washington with Chester-le-Street; • Newcastle upon Tyne with Ponteland, Newcastle International Airport, or Cramlington; • North Tyneside with Cramlington or Blyth; and • Durham City with Chester-le-Street.
ii) preserve the setting and special character of Durham City, Hexham, PANEL REPORT C16
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Corbridge and Morpeth;
iii) assist in urban regeneration in the city regions by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land; and
iv) maintain the broad extent of the Green Belt with detailed boundaries defined in relevant Local Development Frameworks around: • Morpeth; and • the area to the north of Consett and Stanley and eastwards to Chester-le- Street.
b) Environment supporting the establishment of strategic networks of green infrastructure that links existing and proposed greenspace with green corridors running through urban, suburban and urban fringe areas to the countryside and coast.
7 Tees Valley City Modify Policy 7, City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 4.5 Region 49 4.6 POLICY 7 – TEES VALLEY CITY REGION 4.7 4.8 Strategies, plans and programmes should support the polycentric development and 4.9 redevelopment of the Tees Valley city region by: 5.4
1. Regeneration a) giving priority to the regeneration of both banks of the Tees between Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar; Hartlepool Quays and brownfield opportunities in Darlington and the links into their town centres for appropriate mixed use development;
PANEL REPORT C17
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text b) supporting the regeneration of the Coastal Arc from Hartlepool Headland to East Cleveland for appropriate development; and c) supporting the regeneration of Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor, Shildon, Bishop Auckland, Saltburn, Brotton, Skelton, and Loftus for sustainable indigenous growth to meet local needs, without adversely impacting on the regeneration initiatives within the Tees Valley conurbation.
2. Economic Prosperity a) giving priority to major new heavy industrial, chemicals and port related development at Billingham, Seal Sands, South Tees, Teesport and Wilton; b) supporting the expansion of the renewable energy and recycling sector and their links to sustainable regeneration; c) supporting the development of Teesport for the export of steel and as a deep sea container port; d) encouraging the development of 80 hectares of land for airport-related uses, to enable Durham Tees Valley Airport’s potential as an economic driver to be realised and cater for its anticipated passenger growth; e) supporting the development of business and financial services and new city scale leisure, cultural and retail development in Stockton and Middlesbrough; f) supporting the development of Wynyard and NetPark as prestige employment sites; g) supporting the development of Darlington and Newton Aycliffe as employment locations, particularly to take advantage of their location close to the A1, A66 and East Coast Main Line; h) supporting the expansion of the Universities of Teesside and Durham and the research and development capabilities of the Wilton Centre and NetPark; and i) concentrating major new tourist developments related to the coast in Hartlepool and Redcar.
3. Sustainable Communities a) locating the majority of new retail and leisure development in the sub-regional
PANEL REPORT C18
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text centres of Middlesbrough and Darlington, whilst additional development in other centres should be consistent with their scale and function to enhance their vitality and viability; b) developing housing to support the economic growth strategies in sustainable locations, mainly on previously developed land in areas where it does not undermine existing housing markets, particularly housing market restructuring areas; c) developing housing market renewal programmes for the Tees Valley city region; and d) insisting on high standards of new development and redevelopment, which improve the quality of the environment and promote sustainability.
4. Connectivity a) encouraging the growth of passenger and freight services from Durham Tees Valley Airport in linking the Region to international markets; b) developing a modern integrated public transport network for the Tees Valley; c) supporting the development of Teesport as a Northern Gateway port; d) exploring the need for infrastructure improvements to support regeneration initiatives; e) supporting the upgrading of the East Coast Main Line, the Tyne Tees Express, the Durham Coast Rail improvements and railfreight improvements to Teesport; f) supporting improvements to the A66 Darlington Bypass and a new crossing of the River Tees and reducing congestion on the A19; and g) protecting the line of the East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor, primarily for development as a public transport link.
5. Strategic Gaps and the Environment
a) Strategic Gaps ensuring that strategic gaps continue to maintain the separate identity of settlements in the Tees Valley by preventing them from coalescing and by
PANEL REPORT C19
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text preventing urban sprawl. Strategic gaps should be identified: • Between the conurbation (Marske / Redcar / Eston / Middlesbrough / Thornaby / Stockton / Yarm / Billingham) and surrounding towns and villages; • Between Hartlepool and surrounding villages; • Between Darlington and surrounding towns and villages; • Between Eaglescliffe and Middleton St George; and • Between Middleton St George and Darlington.
b) Environment i) supporting the establishment of strategic networks of green infrastructure, including green wedges, that links existing and proposed green space with green corridors running through urban, suburban and urban fringe areas to the countryside and coast; ii) subjecting development proposals in the Saltholme Nature Reserve, the Heritage Coast and the Tees Estuary to rigorous examination; and iii) encouraging the development of renewable energy whilst carefully considering the local impacts of proposals.
8 Rural Areas 57 Modify Policy 8 and text 4.10 4.11 POLICY 8 – RURAL AREAS
Strategies, plans and programmes should support the development of a vibrant rural economy that makes a positive contribution to regional prosperity, whilst protecting the Region’s environmental assets from inappropriate development by:
1. Regeneration a) strengthening the role of the rural service centres of Alnwick, Amble, Barnard Castle, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Guisborough, Haltwhistle, Hexham, Middleton-in-
PANEL REPORT C20
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Teesdale, Morpeth, Prudhoe, and Stanhope; and b) identifying an appropriate scale of development that is sufficient to sustain settlements and a vibrant rural economy. Local Development Frameworks should identify a settlement hierarchy, including secondary settlements to determine the appropriate scale and nature of development.
2. Economic Prosperity a) providing a positive framework to capitalise on the key opportunities the environment provides for the development of a range of employment uses, including the diversification of agriculture, tourism, culture and leisure and new sectors of the economy including renewables and environmental technologies.
3. Sustainable Communities a) protecting and improving the provision of rural service infrastructure and other physical development where this is critical for supporting and maintaining sustainable rural communities; b) addressing affordable housing problems arising throughout the Region’s rural areas, particularly in Berwick, Tynedale and Castle Morpeth; and c) combining landscape improvements, wildlife and heritage conservation and enhancement measures with the provision of leisure and educational opportunities, where appropriate.
4. Connectivity a) providing attractive and innovative public transport services to improve accessibility for their hinterland to main rural service centres, between rural service centres and to the main settlements in the city regions; b) developing core networks of public transport links focused on key hubs, in particular on the main rural service centres, with frequent services from these centres to the conurbations and main towns within the two city regions; c) developing feeder public transport services from surrounding rural areas to the main rural service centres, ensuring integration with core network services;
PANEL REPORT C21
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text d) supporting the introduction, concept and development of Community Rail Partnerships; and e) protecting land at the former goods yard at Tweedmouth that may be required as part of the ECML improvement
9 Protecting & POLICY 9 – PROTECTING & ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT No change Enhancing the Strategies, plans and programmes should seek to maintain and enhance the quality, Environment 60 diversity and local distinctiveness of the environment throughout the North East by:
a) promoting a high quality of design in all development and redevelopment; b) promoting development that is sympathetic to its surroundings; c) including policies and proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; d) taking into account the land use implications of the predicted impacts of climate change and plan for both the successful adaptation to the resulting effects and the maximization of potential economic, environmental and social opportunities; e) promoting appropriate development in the Northumberland National Park and the region’s two AONBs, the Northumberland Coast and the North Pennines, and in the three areas of Heritage Coast, North Northumberland, Durham and East Cleveland; f) contributing to the implementation of the National Park and AONB Management Plans g) seeking to conserve and enhance historic buildings, areas and landscapes; h) seeking to preserve, in situ, archaeological sites of national importance and, where appropriate, other archaeological remains of regional and local importance; i) identifying and giving an appropriate degree of protection to historic parks and gardens, battlefields, ancient field systems, green lanes trackways, industrial monuments and other unscheduled archaeological sites, which reflects their national or regional importance; j) incorporating the principles of the management plans of Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone World Heritage Site, Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site, as well as the candidate World Heritage Site at Jarrow and Monkwearmouth as it develops; k) identifying and giving appropriate protection to the region’s internationally and nationally important sites for biodiversity and geodiversity
PANEL REPORT C22
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text l) identifying and protecting existing woodland of amenity and nature conservation value, particularly ancient woodlands; and m) encouraging and facilitating the implementation of the Regional Forestry Strategy, Great North Forest and Tees Forest community forestry strategies, related biodiversity initiatives and other woodland planting.
10 Green Belt & Delete Policy 10 4.2 Open Areas 61 4.3, 4.4 11 Connectivity & POLICY 11 – CONNECTIVITY & ACCESSIBILITY No change Accessibility 64 Strategies, plans and programmes should seek to improve and enhance the internal and external connectivity and accessibility of the North East by: a) managing travel demand particularly by the promoting public transport, travel plans, and cycling and walking; b) reducing the need to travel by focusing development in urban areas that have good access to public transport, cycling and pedestrians; c) minimising the impact of the movement of people and goods on the environment and climate change; d) making best use of resources and existing infrastructure; e) ensuring safe transport networks and infrastructure; f) maximising the potential of the key regional Gateways of the ports and airports and strategic transport infrastructure in supporting regional economic growth and regeneration; and g) improving accessibility and efficiency of movement along the four key transport corridors of: • A1/East Coast Main Line • A66/Tees Valley Rail links • A19/Durham Coast Line • A69 /Tyne Valley Line. DELIVERING AN URBAN AND RURAL
PANEL REPORT C23
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text RENAISSANCE 3A Delivering Economic Prosperity & Growth 12 Sustainable POLICY 12 – SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT No change Economic Strategies, plans and programmes should focus the majority of new economic development Development 67 and investment: a) in the conurbations and main towns within the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley city regions, particularly the core areas; b) at regional brownfield mixed-use developments; and c) at Prestige Employment Sites, particularly for employment uses of regional and subregional significance.
New economic activity of an appropriate scale and nature should also be encouraged: d) in the towns serving the regeneration areas within the city regions acting as the stimulus for their regeneration and surrounding areas, with a particular emphasis on improving access to skills and training, education and employment opportunities; and e) in the rural service centres, and to a lesser degree in other local rural centres, to provide a framework for integrated rural development of an appropriate scale to support sustainable, rural communities and diversified economies.
Economic development proposals should prioritise the renewal and reuse of previously developed land and buildings, particularly within town and city centres and established industrial and commercial estates.
Proposals for new economic investment should be imaginative to promote ‘green business’ in terms of self sufficiency, locally producing goods and services. High quality development in high quality settings, aided by the provision of ‘green infrastructure’ should be sought.
To enhance the economic performance, and promote sustainability within existing business premises, strategies, plans and programmes should seek improvements to the existing road
PANEL REPORT C24
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text and rail networks; footpaths and cycle routes; and at the region’s airports and ports. These improvements will enable opportunities for the region’s businesses to: f) operate within the regional, national and international marketplace; g) allow their workforce to travel to and from work more efficiently, particularly by public transport; and h) reduce the fear of crime and improve the safety of employees travelling to and from the workplace.
13 Regional Modify Policy 13 and text 5.4 Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments 67 POLICY 13 –BROWNFIELD MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS
Strategies, plans and programmes should support brownfield mixed use developments in sustainable locations throughout the Region and in particular continue to support and promote the following Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments as major mixed-use regeneration projects in the conurbations and main towns: • Blyth Estuary, Blyth; • Discovery Quarter, Newcastle; • Tyne Gateway of South Shields and North Shields riversides; • Central Area Framework, Sunderland; • Greater Middlehaven, Middlesbrough; • Central Park, Darlington; • Victoria Harbour, Hartlepool; and • North Shore, Stockton.
Local Development Frameworks should make provision for the above regional brownfield mixed-use developments and should ensure that the development of each site: a) is subject to the preparation of a detailed masterplan prior to the commencement of development; b) adopts an appropriate phasing and monitoring framework to ensure alignment with changing local and wider city region objectives so that housing development does not
PANEL REPORT C25
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text exceed the respective local authority’s housing provision; c) mitigates any potential exacerbation of housing market failure in the respective local authority and surrounding districts; d) ensures that the respective adjacent town centres are not adversely affected by the proposed development of town centre uses associated with the mixed use scheme; e) is served by high levels of public transport, walking and cycling, particularly through the development of workplace travel plans; f) secures any necessary improvements to the strategic and local road network required to accommodate traffic generated by the development, taking account of the likely use of public transport to the site; g) seeks to maximise the employment opportunities for residents of surrounding wards, particularly from the more deprived wards; h) ensures that the necessary utilities infrastructure is coordinated with new development; and i) protects and enhances environmental, historic and resource assets.
14 Embracing Further POLICY 14 – EMBRACING FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION No change and Higher Education Strategies, plans and programmes should support the growth and increasing role of 69 universities and colleges in the regional economy by: a) recognising their pivotal role in the transition to higher productivity and a more knowledge-based economy; b) encouraging greater links with local businesses, particularly in terms of workforce development and research and development opportunities; c) enabling the necessary infrastructure and campus development to facilitate their expansion; d) supporting the emerging Science City concept; e) maintaining, improving and adopting innovative public transport solutions and information and communication technologies to improve access to learning and training opportunities in both urban and rural areas; and f) strengthening their links to assist existing and new companies to take advantage of partnering opportunities and/or cluster activity, particularly at NetPark, Knowledge
PANEL REPORT C26
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Campus, NaREC, Greater Middlehaven, Central Park and North Shore.
15 Information and POLICY 15 – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY NETWORKS No change Communications Strategies, plans and programmes should seek to provide flexible responses to rapidly Technology Networks changing physical and social demands for of ICT business and in particular should: 69 a) seek to ensure that broadband infrastructure is available to all communities, particularly within the more rural and peripheral areas; b) encourage flexi-working patterns in order for people to achieve a better work-life balance and quality of life overall; c) promote e-tailing, working from home and e-business to contribute to a better environment by reducing the need to travel, particularly by private car; d) seek investment into ICT training and skills in schools and the workplace; e) establish strategic priorities for providing access from rural areas in order to guide investment decisions; f) ensure the roll out of ICT networks to existing urban areas, rural communities, business parks and industrial estates; g) ensure ICT infrastructure needs are incorporated into the development of sites and premises and enabled at an early stage; h) establish a targeted programme to promote broadband-enabled small and medium-sized business accommodation in every district in the region, including possible refurbishment and improvements to existing premises; and i) promote the use of telecommunications technology in traffic management and in improving information available to public transport users.
16 Culture & Tourism POLICY 16 – CULTURE AND TOURISM No change 70 Strategies, plans and programmes should develop policies to promote culture and tourism, by: a) improving the first impressions gained by visitors arriving and passing through the region; b) ensuring that the development of culture and tourist facilities and attractions protects, enhances and maintains the region’s natural, built and heritage environments;
PANEL REPORT C27
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text c) encouraging cultural and tourism developments that benefit the local economy, people and environment without diminishing the attractiveness of the place visited; d) ensuring that the identification and development of cultural and tourist facilities is guided by the principles of sustainability and information on market demand; e) encouraging the protection, enhancement and investment in the region’s existing facilities, particularly the intrinsic natural qualities of the North East, landscape and wildlife; f) ensuring all major cultural and tourism attractions and services are accessible by a range of transport modes to improve links to develop the region as an integrated visitor destination; and g) encouraging the creation of concentrations of culture and tourism related development within sustainable locations to contribute to wider regeneration objectives.
17 Casino POLICY 17 – CASINO DEVELOPMENT No change Development 71 The Assembly will undertake research to identify suitable locations for:
a) a regional casino, prioritising development within either the Tyne & Wear city region or Tees Valley city region core areas of Newcastle, Sunderland or Stockton/Middlesbrough; and b) suitable large and small casinos in sustainable urban centres and coastal towns.
For regional, large and small casino development, Local Development Frameworks should: c) establish the need for the development; d) ensure that any development is accessible by a range of transport modes, particularly public transport, cycling and walking; e) establish the impact of development on existing centres; f) develop on previously developed sites to make optimum use of existing infrastructure; g) maximise the contribution to regional economic growth; the creation and enhancement of sustainable communities; tourism; and wider regeneration priorities; and h) optimise the net additional employment opportunities that would arise locally as a result,
PANEL REPORT C28
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text particularly for residents of deprived wards.
18 Employment Land Modify Policy 18 5.2 Portfolio 73 POLICY 18 – EMPLOYMENT LAND PORTFOLIO Local Development Frameworks should make the appropriate provision of general employment land, regional brownfield mixed-use developments and Prestige Employment Sites up to:
Local Authority General Regional Prestige Total Employment Brownfield Employment (hectares) Land Mixed Use Sites Allocation Allocation (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) Hartlepool 130 80 135 345 Stockton-on-Tees 235 20 70 325 Redcar & Cleveland 160 0 0 160 Middlesbrough 85 100 0 185 Darlington 205 30 0 235 Tees Valley 185 230 205 1,2050
Durham City 150 0 0 150 Derwentside 105 0 0 105 Wear Valley 105 0 0 105 Sedgefield 55 0 50 105 Easington 70 0 0 70 Chester-le-Street 30 0 0 30 Teesdale 20 0 0 20 Durham 535 0 50 585
Wansbeck 165 0 0 165 Blyth Valley 80 40 55 175 Castle Morpeth 90 0 0 90 Tynedale 55 0 0 25 Berwick upon Tweed 25 0 0 25 Alnwick 25 0 0 25 Northumberland 440 40 55 535
PANEL REPORT C29
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
Sunderland 145 50 0 195 North Tyneside 205 25 0 230 Newcastle 20 10 130 160 Gateshead 80 0 20 100 South Tyneside 25 15 90 130 Tyne & Wear 475 100 240 815
NORTH EAST 2,265 370 550 3,185
In determining the land portfolio in accordance with the provision set out above, planning authorities should undertake sub-regional and local employment land assessments based on a 25 year level of supply and take up, taking into account the:
a) the need to protect employment land and premises from redevelopment to alternative uses, where they are an essential part of the long-term employment land and premises portfolio;
b) the potential of existing employment allocations no longer required for employment purposes for reallocation to alternative uses or de-allocation;
c) a presumption in favour of regenerating and upgrading existing employment land and premises in advance of allocating new sites on greenfield land;
d) the need to ensure that peripheral sites in the counties around the Tyne and Wear conurbation are de allocated, commensurate with the supply of sites within the urban core; and e) the need for the Tyne and Wear authorities to seek to meet any shortfall of employment land supply through the intensification of sites around transport hubs and on previously developed land.
• Figures are subject to rounding. • 20ha of Stockton’s 235ha general employment land and 5ha of Darlington’s general
PANEL REPORT C30
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text employment land is to be provided on land to the south of Durham-Tees Valley Airport. • Figures exclude land developed and/or under offer.
New Policy 5.5
New Policy 18A: Office development outside of City and Town Centres
City and town centres will be the prime locations for office development (B1a) which is not ancillary to other commercial uses.
Proposals for this form of office development will only be considered at other strategic employment land locations, including Prestige Employment Sites, if it can be shown that –
a) they cannot be accommodated in a city or town centre, or in a regional brownfield mixed-use development. b) and any such proposal will not put at risk the strategy set out in any approved Local Development Document for a city or town centre, or Master Plan for a major brownfield mixed-use development.
19 Prestige Modify Policy 19 5.5 Employment Sites 75 POLICY 19 – PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT SITES
In order to enable the accelerated growth in the regional economy to be maximised strategies, plans and programmes should focus appropriate investment towards the Prestige Employment Sites shown below:
PANEL REPORT C31
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
Newcastle Great Park Development as in Planning Consent or Master Newburn Riverside, Newcastle Plan Baltic Business Park West Hartford, Cramlington Limited sub-division for manufacturing North East Technology Park, Limited to 13ha Sedgefield Wynyard, Stockton/Hartlepool Long term restructuring to maximise large scale opportunities and minimise B1 (a) potential
In making provision for the above Prestige Employment Sites, Local Development Frameworks should:
a) prepare a detailed masterplan prior to the commencement of development; b) accommodate major investors and prestige business development of national or regional significance; c) ensure high levels of public transport accessibility and use; d) provide a parking approach that manages private car use, whilst promoting sustainable transport modes; e) secure any necessary improvements to the strategic and local road and rail networks required to accommodate traffic generated by the development, taking account of the likely use of public transport to the site; f) maximise the employment opportunities for residents of surrounding wards, particularly from the more deprived wards; g) ensure that the necessary infrastructure is co-ordinated with new development; h) employ sustainable construction and design methods, which deliver biodiversity benefits and foster local distinctiveness; i) protect and enhance major environmental, historic and resource assets; and j) ensure that the integration of the development with the landscape meets high environmental standards
PANEL REPORT C32
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
20 Reserve Sites 76 Delete Policy 20 5.5
21 Airports 77 Modify Policy 21 and text including table 5.3
POLICY 21 – AIRPORTS Strategies, plans and programmes should support the development of both North East airports by: a) supporting the sustainable expansion of facilities at the region’s airports to accommodate and cater for the anticipated growth in passenger numbers to 10 million passengers per annum at Newcastle International Airport and 3 million passengers per annum at Durham-Tees Valley Airport by 2016; b) maintaining frequent services to London Heathrow Airport; c) increasing the range of direct European and other international destinations; d) improving surface access links by all modes, particularly by public transport; e) allowing for the expansion of operational facilities and airport-related development within currently allocated land; and f) ensuring that the needs and preferences of tourists, including both leisure and business visitors are taken into account. Relevant Local Development Frameworks should safeguard land currently allocated for airport-related uses but not yet developed (80 hectares of land at Durham Tees Valley Airport and 55 hectares of land at Newcastle International Airport) for airport-related uses.
22 Ports 78 POLICY 22 – PORTS No change
PANEL REPORT C33
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Strategies, plans and programmes should support the growth of the region’s ports by: a) supporting the development of import and distribution centres and deep-sea vessel facilities at Teesport; b) promoting improvements and standardisation of gauge on the Tees Valley East Coast Main Line and Transpennine routes rail network to Teesport to accommodate 9’ 6’’ containers; c) continuing to focus the region’s international passenger ferry traffic at the Port of Tyne; d) recognising the significant economic investment generated at both the Port of Tyne and Teesport, both directly and indirectly; e) supporting the development of short-sea shipping connections to improve linkages between the region’s ports and the wider European network; f) promoting the development of port facilities to redress road transport problems associated with northbound cargo arriving at southern UK ports and berths; g) ensuring that the needs and preferences of tourists, including both leisure and business visitors are taken into account; h) ensuring any new proposed port development or expansion is subject to a full Sustainable Environmental Assessment; i) safeguarding adjacent sites for port operational uses, where appropriate, whilst ensuring the protection of sites of nature conservation importance and features of heritage conservation importance; and j) considering, where appropriate, alternative land uses, particularly where this would contribute to the regeneration of the wider area.
23 Chemical & Steel POLICY 23 – CHEMICAL & STEEL INDUSTRIES No change Industry 79 Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Frameworks should safeguard land for chemical and steel manufacturing industries up to:
Local Authority Land for Chemical & Steel Industries (hectares)
Hartlepool 65
PANEL REPORT C34
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Stockton-on-Tees 445 Redcar & Cleveland 230 Tees Valley 740 3B Delivering sustainable communities 24 Delivering POLICY 24 – DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES No change Sustainable In developing strategies, plans and programmes and in determining planning applications Communities 83 the suitability of land for development and the contribution of design should be assessed in relation to the following criteria: a) the nature of the development and its locational requirements; b) concentrating the majority of the region’s development within the defined urban areas; c) the need to utilise previously developed land wherever possible; d) locating development to reduce the need to travel, journey length and fuel consumption; e) the ability for movement needs and accessibility of development sites to homes, jobs, services and facilities to be well served by all modes of transport, particularly walking, cycling and public transport; f) the impact that the development of sites and its design will have on the region’s natural resources, biodiversity, landscapes, environmental and cultural assets, and people’s health; g) physical constraints on the development of land including the level of contamination, flood risk and land stability, incorporating flood protection and alleviation mechanisms such as Sustainable Drainage Systems; h) the potential contribution of development to reducing fuel poverty and health inequalities, and to meeting the needs of an ageing population and the disabled through design and the provision of accessible health, sports, recreational, and other facilities with new development; i) the promotion of mixed use developments, well served by public transport, to reduce journey lengths and ensure that the best use is made of land, transport infrastructure and services; j) the potential contribution of development to the strengthening of local communities and
PANEL REPORT C35
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text their social cohesion; k) the potential contribution of development to secure crime prevention and community safety by design; l) ensuring that development has low consumption of natural resources both in construction and in operation, and incorporates embedded renewable energy generation where appropriate; m) the potential contribution of development to the enhancement and creation of habitats and species populations and to the promotion of biodiversity and geodiversity; and, n) the use of local labour markets and materials.
25 Urban and Rural POLICY 25 – URBAN AND RURAL CENTRES Centres 85 Local Development Frameworks should ensure that: a) development of retail, commerce; entertainment, leisure, cultural and religious facilities, recreation, education, health services, business, public services and other high trip generating uses are focused within defined urban centres commensurate with their scale, function, environmental capacity and ability to be served by transport modes other than the car; b) within the Tyne & Wear city region the majority of new retail and leisure floor space should be located in Newcastle (Regional Centre) and Sunderland (Sub-Regional Centre). Durham City will continue to have an important role in servicing its hinterland; c) within the Tees Valley city region the majority of new retail and leisure floor space should be located in Middlesbrough (Sub-Regional Centre) and Darlington (Sub-Regional Centre). Hartlepool and Stockton will continue to have an important role in servicing their hinterlands; d) in other centres, additional retail and leisure development should be consistent with their scale and function to maintain and enhance their health and vitality; e) where a need for retail-led regeneration has been identified for centres in regeneration areas and for rural service centres, retail and leisure development may be allowed above the scale that would be required for the centre to maintain its role.; provided that it would support the sustainable regeneration of these centres without compromising the vitality and viability of other town centres; and
PANEL REPORT C36
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text f) the design of development in centres should contribute to the creation of sustainable communities and be in harmony with and enhance the built environment.
26 MetroCentre 85 Modify Policy 26 6.2
POLICY 26 – METROCENTRE
No provision should be made for additional retail or leisure development at the MetroCentre or the surrounding retail complex.
27 Out-of-Centre Modify Policy 27 and text 4.13, Retail & Leisure 6.3 Developments 86 POLICY 27 – OUT-OF-CENTRE RETAIL AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENTS
a) No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new urban and suburban out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance. b) Proposed regional and sub-regional rural leisure developments will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach (Policy 3) and locational strategy (Policy 5) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and having regard to the manner in which they assist rural regeneration and local communities.
28 Total Dwelling Modify Policy 28 including table 7.1 Construction 88 POLICY 28 – TOTAL DWELLING CONSTRUCTION Local Development Frameworks should make provision for the following change in the Region’s average annual level of total dwelling construction in the period 2004-2021 .
PANEL REPORT C37
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Figures Rounded 2004-11 2011-16 2016-21 2004-21 (Oct 2005) Tees Valley 3.354 3,098 1,862 2,750 Durham 1,534 1,506 1,030 1,380 Northumberlan 899 876 705 835 d Tyne & Wear 3,884 3,761 3,085 3,615 NORTH EAST 9,720 8,960 6,600 8,575
29 Improving the Modify Policy 29 7.3 Housing Stock 89 POLICY 29 – IMPROVING THE HOUSING STOCK
Strategies, plans and programmes should develop an integrated package of measures to address low demand and abandonment that:
a) maximises the improvement of existing properties where sufficient demand exists for their continued residential use and reduces local authority vacancy to 3% by 2011; b) increases the average annual level of demolitions, particularly in the housing market restructuring areas, to the indicative estimated level identified below:
Figures Rounded 2004-11 2011-16 2016-21 2004-21 Tees Valley 1,230 1,015 770 1,030 Durham 355 305 330 335 Northumberland 90 45 90 80 Tyne & Wear 1,640 870 665 1,125 NORTH EAST 3,320 2,235 1,860 2,570
c) considers, in areas of older high-density housing, replacement at lower densities where this would improve the living environment and quality of life, and achieve a better mix of
PANEL REPORT C38
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text dwelling type, size and tenure.
Local Development Frameworks should identify and develop specific strategies and programmes in liaison with stakeholders and local communities, for each Housing Market Restructuring area. There will not always be a need to replace all demolitions and no additional housing provision should be allocated to compensate for this.
Priority should be given to the most sustainable locations in the preparation of strategies for improving the housing stock.
30 Dwelling Provision Modify Policy 30 including table 91 7.1 POLICY 30 – DWELLING PROVISION 7.7 7.10 Local Development Frameworks shall: a) provide for average annual net additions to the dwelling stock, by district for the financial years 2004-2021, as identified:
Figures Rounded (Oct 2005) 2004-11 2011-16 2016-21 2004-21 Hartlepool 420 390 290 370
PANEL REPORT C39
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Redcar & Cleveland 420 325 220 330 Middlesbrough 440 465 280 400 Stockton-on-Tees 820 445 220 530 Darlington 480 315 75 310 Tees Valley 2,579 1,938 1,082 1,950 Chester-le-street 110 95 60 90 Derwentside 125 275 195 190 Durham 225 180 145 190 Easington 165 215 100 160 Sedgefield 405 280 135 290 Teesdale 95 60 75 80 Wear Valley 185 140 20 120 County Durham 1,309 1,251 725 1,120 Alnwick 135 90 50 95 Berwick-upon-Tweed 130 65 35 80 Blyth Valley 270 310 220 265 Castle Morpeth 165 135 85 130 Tynedale 75 95 70 80 Wansbeck 115 155 90 120 Northumberland 889 846 555 780 Gateshead 356 530 450 435 Newcastle upon Tyne 825 840 685 790 North Tyneside 550 440 380 470 South Tyneside 350 355 280 330 Sunderland 780 710 610 710 Tyne & Wear 2,859 2,881 2,405 2,730 NORTH EAST 7,635 6,915 4,765 6,580
b) meet the sub-regional targets for housing development on previously developed land and through the re-use of existing buildings as set out below;
Area 2008 2016 Tees Valley 70% Durham County 65% Northumberland County 50% PANEL REPORT C40
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Tyne and Wear 80% North East 70% 75%
The District Allocations set out above should not provide the justification for the refusal of windfall housing proposals that fall within the guidance set out for Urban Capacity Studies.
c) ensure that the necessary new or improved infrastructure and services are provided and co-ordinated with the development of new housing; d) consider making suitable land available for replacement housing which is unable to be accommodated on its original site due to re-building at lower density; and e) where appropriate restrict higher density housing resulting from sub-division or other intensification to protect an area’s characteristics and ability to contribute towards types, sizes and tenure under-represented in the Region’s dwelling stock.
Local Development Frameworks should provide for an average density of 30-50 dwellings per hectare at the local authority level, and set out criteria to define circumstances where provision of lower densities is needed for additional dwellings to better provide for future households and a better mix of dwelling type, size and tenure within the context of the RSS Locational Strategy and Sequential Approach.
31 Managing Housing Modify Policy 31 7.6 Supply 92 POLICY 31 – MANAGING HOUSING SUPPLY Local Development Frameworks should put in place phasing policies that: a) ensure the managed release of housing land occurs in accordance with the locational strategy and sequential approach and considers reaching 3% vacancy in local authority areas by 2011;
PANEL REPORT C41
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text b) bring forward previously developed land opportunities first, taking account of new previously developed land potential as identified in up-to-date urban capacity studies;
In considering planning proposals local planning authorities should: c) re-consider lapsed planning permissions and unimplemented local plan allocations in light of up-to-date urban capacity studies, the sequential approach and locational strategy particularly in the Districts of Byth Valley and Sedgefield; d) phase the release of housing land to ensure that it does not compromise the successful delivery of housing market restructuring initiatives; e) consider the reuse of employment sites for housing only where they are not required for long-term employment use; and f) consider the compatibility of housing with the operation of adjacent employment land.
32 Improving Modify text 7.4 Inclusivity 94 POLICY 32 – IMPROVING INCLUSIVITY Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) make provision for a range of dwelling type, size and tenure to meet the assessed needs of all sectors of the community, including by replacement dwellings in the housing market restructuring areas; b) ensure housing is served by public transport and is accessible to jobs, services and facilities by modes other than the car; c) ensure the integrated and phased provision of new or improved schools, health and other services and facilities with new housing development; and d) address the problems of local affordability in both urban and rural areas, including ensuring a high provision of affordable housing is sought within the districts of Alnwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Castle Morpeth and Tynedale.
Local Development Frameworks should: e) provide the criteria following the plan, monitor and manage and sequential approaches for the provision and release of sites for the Gypsy and travelling communities; and
PANEL REPORT C42
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text f) set local authority affordable housing provision targets informed by up to date local housing assessments.
In determining planning proposals local authorities should consider the level of need for affordable housing and other planning obligations in the development of all housing sites, including when considering the renewal of lapsed planning consents.
3C Conserving, Enhancing & Capitalising on the Region’s Diverse Natural and Built Environment, Heritage and Culture 33 Landscape POLICY 33 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER No change Character 104 Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) protect the special qualities of the environment in the nationally designated areas of the Northumberland National Park, and the North Pennines and Northumberland Coast AONBs and uphold their statutory purposes, while recognising their role in a living, working and vibrant countryside. Major development should not take place in these areas other than in exceptional circumstances when it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and it could not be located elsewhere; b) have regard to landscape character assessments and the content of AONB/National Park Management Plans to justify the retention or creation of any local landscape designations, guide policy formulation and development control decisions and assist in targeting landscape restoration and environmental improvement schemes; c) promote integrated management initiatives to sustain nationally, regionally and locally valued landscapes, including the County Durham, North Northumberland and North Yorkshire and Cleveland Heritage Coasts and urban fringe landscapes; d) recognise the role that character-based planning tools such as Town Design Statements, Village Design Statements, Countryside Design Summaries and Concept Statements can play in promoting high quality development that respects local character and distinctiveness; PANEL REPORT C43
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text and e) incorporate the findings of Shoreline Management Plans.
34 Historic POLICY 34 – HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT No change Environment 105 Strategies, plans and programmes should seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment of the region by: a) clearly identifying and assessing the significance of any heritage assets and their vulnerability to change; b) using the process of characterisation to understand their contribution to the local environment and to identify options for their sensitive management; c) encouraging the refurbishment and re-use of appropriate disused or under-used buildings and incorporating them into regeneration schemes; d) seeking to preserve, in situ, archaeological sites of national importance and, where appropriate, other archaeological remains of regional and local importance; and e) recognising the opportunities for business, education and tourism.
Strategies, plans and programmes adopt an approach of informed management to maintain and enhance the North East’s built heritage by preparing Management Plans by April 2007 for all of the region’s World Heritage Site designations, outlining the objectives and delivery proposals for each site.
Local authorities should: f) prepare, and regularly maintain registers of Grade II listed buildings ‘at risk’; for their areas, and pursue policies and measures which seek to repair and remove all grades of building from ‘at risk’ registers through repair; g) consider preparing, and regularly maintaining, lists of locally important buildings for their areas, and set out policies in LDFs, which seek, as far as possible, their protection against inappropriate change; h) consider preparing Conservation Area Appraisals for existing and proposed conservation
PANEL REPORT C44
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text areas, and proceed to the preparation of Management Plans for the delivery of improvements to those areas; i) consider preparing lists of locally important registered landscapes, Historic Landscape Assessments and Conservation Management Plans for historic designated landscapes; and j) consider preparing urban surveys of historic towns and other substantial settlements, to improve knowledge of their entire historic fabric as a guide to ensure future development maximises the potential for preservation, protection and enhancement.
35 Biodiversity & POLICY 35 – BIODIVERSITY & GEODIVERSITY No change Geodiversity 107 Strategies, plans and programmes should ensure that the region’s ecological and geological resources are protected and enhanced to return key biodiversity resources to viable levels by: a) continuing to promote the protection and enhancement for internationally and nationally important sites and species; b) reversing habitat fragmentation and species isolation particularly in Biodiversity Target Zones; c) developing habitat creation/restoration projects particularly in the priority Habitat Creation and Enhancement Areas; d) providing for the expansion and linking of existing habitats and species populations including the creation of semi-natural green spaces in and around urban areas and for habitat restoration; e) contributing to improving the region’s SSSI’s to a favourable condition, by 2010; f) preparing biodiversity and geological audits; g) preparing and implementing Local Biodiversity Action Plans and Local Geodiversity Action Plans; and h) including action for biodiversity and geodiversity within community strategies.
36 The Aquatic and Modify Policy 36 and text 8.2 Marine Environment 108 POLICY 36 – THE AQUATIC & MARINE ENVIRONMENT
PANEL REPORT C45
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) ensure that any schemes involving the transfer of water between catchments have consideration to the impacts on environmental and recreational assets of areas both nearby and upstream of the transfer base, particularly in relation to Kielder Water; b) integrate the objectives of emerging and existing plans and strategies which consider the wider management of water bodies, groundwater and coastal/marine areas; c) ensure that the construction and use of new development along river corridors takes account of its potential polluting effects; any opportunities for improvements and conservation of water quality; the possibility of flooding onsite and elsewhere along the watercourse; the availability of water resources; biodiversity; the impacts of climate change and the incorporation of necessary adaptation and mitigation measures; d) ensure, where appropriate, that Sustainable Drainage System techniques are adopted; e) set a positive policy framework for delivering plans for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, River Basin Management, Shoreline Management and Catchment Flood Management for the Region’s coastal, estuarine and near-shore zones by adopting an ecosystem based approach to promote the recovery and conservation of marine eco- systems, including designated sites, favouring the evolution of the coast, estuaries and near- shore zones through natural processes wherever possible; and f) promote appropriate water-based recreational and leisure opportunities, particularly at Kielder Water and along the region’s coastline;
37 Flood Risk 110 Modify Policy 37 8.1 8.3 POLICY 37 – FLOOD RISK
Strategies, plans and programmes should adopt a strategic, integrated, sustainable and proactive approach to catchment management to reduce flood risk within the Region, managing the risk from:
a) tidal effects around estuaries and along the coast including the effects of the latest predictions for sea level rise; and
PANEL REPORT C46
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
b) fluvial flooding along river corridors and other significant watercourses resulting from catchments within and beyond the Region and other sources of flooding.
In developing Local Development Frameworks and considering planning proposals a sequential risk-based approach to development and flooding should be adopted. This approach should be informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments prepared by planning authorities in liaison with the Environment Agency. In addition it is also necessary to:
c) ensure that new development is located in appropriate locations, taking account of its vulnerability, with regard to which the local planning authority is advised to liaise closely with the Environment Agency;
d) avoid development in functional floodplains, washlands, and in undeveloped floodplain areas where the risk from tidal and fluvial flooding is high;
e) require development proposals within flood risk areas to be accompanied by Flood Risk Assessments to evaluate the extent of the risk before the commitment to a site or project;
f) facilitate the restoration of natural flood storage capacity through works such as blanket bog restoration in the uplands and the restoration of floodplain storage functions in appropriate locations on floodplains;
g) ensure, where appropriate, that Sustainable Drainage Systems and other techniques are adopted to reduce flood risk;
h) ensure that in previously developed areas and areas of undeveloped floodplain where the risk from flooding is lower, development is of an appropriate type and design, and require the availability or provision of an appropriate standard of flood defence and the incorporation of flood mitigation and/or flood warning measures; and
PANEL REPORT C47
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text i) ensure that where other material considerations outweigh the sequential approach to development and flooding, development will only be permitted where it makes a positive contribution to sustainable communities and to sustainable development objectives; the development is on brownfield land; or where there are no reasonable alternative options on developable brownfield land a flood risk assessment demonstrates that the residual risks of flooding to people and property (including the likely effects of climate change) are acceptable and can be satisfactorily managed; and the development makes a positive contribution to reducing or managing food risk.
38 Trees, Woodland & POLICY 38 – TREES, WOODLANDS AND FORESTS No change Forests 111 Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) in line with the North East Regional Forest Strategy, seek to maximise the social, economic and environmental opportunities that trees, woodlands and forests present, particularly in regeneration areas and on derelict, damaged and underused sites; b) support the expansion of community forestry; c) facilitate the expansion of tree cover, particularly in urban centres and the rural urban fringe, to provide accessible leisure, recreation and environmental education opportunities; d) support the establishment of integrated timber processing facilities, including related industries such as renewable energy, close to existing facilities and timber resources; e) seek to maximise the tourism development opportunities presented by woodlands and forests, particularly in rural areas; and f) identify and ensure strong protection of areas of ancient woodland.
39 Sustainable Modify Policy 39 and text 8.4 Energy Use 113 8.5 POLICY 39 – SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) ensure that the layout and design of new buildings and developments minimise energy consumption;
PANEL REPORT C48
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text b) require the inclusion in new developments or in the redevelopment of existing buildings, measures to achieve high energy efficiency and minimise consumption so that they achieve BREEAM and Eco-Homes “very good” or “excellent” rating; c) ensure all new developments meet the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Standard and conform to the Code for Sustainable Buildings; d) encourage and facilitate homeowners and businesses in improving their energy efficiency and reducing consumption; and e) set local level size thresholds for major new development and require all relevant developments, particularly major retail, commercial and residential developments, to have embedded within them a minimum of 10% energy supply from renewable sources.
40 Renewable Energy Modify Policy 40 8.4 Generation 114 8.5 POLICY 40 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION Strategies, plans and programmes should: a) facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the region’s consumption of electricity from renewable sources within the region by 2010 (454 MW minimum installed capacity); b) aspire to further increase renewable electricity generation to achieve 20% of regional consumption by 2020; and c) facilitate the achievement of the following minimum sub regional targets to 2010: • Northumberland 212MW • Durham 82MW • Tyne & Wear 22MW • Tees Valley 138MW 454MW 41 Planning for Modify Policy 41 and text 8.6 Renewables 115 8.7 POLICY 41 – PLANNING FOR RENEWABLES Strategies, plans and programmes should support and encourage renewable energy
PANEL REPORT C49
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text proposals and identify renewable resource areas. In assessing proposals for renewable energy development significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, economic and social benefits arising from higher levels of renewable energy, and the following criteria should be considered:
a) anticipated effects resulting from development construction and operation such as air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and the disposal of waste; b) acceptability of the location and the scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape; c) effect on the region’s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites, areas or their settings; d) effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species; e) maintenance of the openness of the region’s Green Belt; f) accessibility by road and public transport; g) effect on agriculture and other land based industries; h) visual impact of new grid connection lines; i) cumulative impact of the development in relation to other similar developments; and j) proximity to the renewable fuel source such as wood-fuel biomass processing plants within or close to the region’s major woodlands and forests.
42 Onshore Wind Modify Policy 42 and Environment Map 1 8.8 Development 116 8.9 POLICY 42 – ONSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT 8.10 Strategies, plans and programmes should provide a positive policy framework to facilitate onshore wind development within the following broad areas of least constraint for wind energy developments: a) Kielder Forest has the potential to become a Strategic Renewables Resource Area, including large scale wind energy development; b) the following areas have potential for small to medium scale development: • South and West Berwick upon Tweed PANEL REPORT C50
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text • North/ South Charlton • Knowesgate Area • Harwood Forest • Northern Coalfield south of Druridge Bay • Kiln Pit Hill Area • North Durham Upland Coalfield • South Durham Upland Coalfield • Tees Plain • Teesside/ Tees Estuary
Small wind farms in urban areas and on the urban rural fringe should also be supported, particularly within the following areas: • Sunderland; • South Tyneside; and • Tees Valley.
The broad locations of these areas should be identified within Local Development Frameworks. Other areas will be judged subject to assessments of local impact.
43 Overall Minerals POLICY 43 – OVERALL MINERALS STRATEGY No change Strategy 117 Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should: a) ensure that land is made available to provide an appropriate contribution to local, regional and national needs for minerals; b) ensure the prudent use of minerals resources in line with sustainable development objectives; c) ensure the effective environmental management of mineral extraction and processing sites, high quality restoration and aftercare, and appropriate beneficial after uses; d) promote the transport of minerals and minerals products by rail or water wherever practicable and minimise the effects of transport by road; e) identify and safeguard significant mineral resources from other types of development; and
PANEL REPORT C51
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text f) include criteria based policies against which individual minerals proposals will be assessed.
44 Aggregate POLICY 44 – AGGREGATE MINERALS PROVISION No change Minerals 118 Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should make provision to maintain a landbank of planning permissions for primary aggregates which is sufficient to deliver 20 million tonnes of sand and gravel and 119 million tonnes of crushed rock over the 16 year period 2001-2016 based on the following apportionment to sub regional areas. Sand and gravel Crushed rock (m tonnes) (m tonnes) • Durham 6.1 75.8 • Northumberland (including National Park) 11.1 36.4 • Tyne & Wear 2.7 4.6 • Tees Valley 0.16 2.2
To reduce the need for primary aggregates over the period 2001-2016 Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should: a) facilitate the increased use of alternative (secondary and recycled) materials, including suitably located minerals recycling facilities, to enable the regional target of supplying 76 million tonnes of alternative materials to be met; b) ensure that development projects use construction materials that reduce the demand for primary aggregates where practicable; and c) safeguard existing wharves and where appropriate propose new wharves for the handling and distribution of imported materials to enable a minimum of 9 million tonnes of marine dredged sand and gravel to be imported.
45 Opencast Coal 119 Modify Policy 45 8.11
Policy 45 OPENCAST COAL Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should,
PANEL REPORT C52
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text in consultation with the coal industry, identify acceptable areas for the opencast extraction of coal.
Prior to an agreement on such areas the Minerals Authorities should adopt a presumption against opencast coal extraction unless: 1. the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; 2. or the proposal can provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts. Where opencast coal extraction is acceptable, provision should be made for the extraction and beneficial use of fireclay.
All extracted minerals should be transported by rail whenever possible.
46 Sustainable Waste Modify Policy 46 8.12 Management 120 POLICY 46 – SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Strategies, plans and programmes should give priority to initiatives which encourage behavioural change through:
a) developing and implementing waste minimisation plans and schemes; b) implementing waste awareness and education campaigns; c) developing reuse schemes; and d) minimising the use of primary construction materials and the production of waste;
and should be based on the following key principles:
e) the waste hierarchy with minimisation at the top, then reuse, recycling, composting, waste to energy and landfill;
PANEL REPORT C53
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text f) the proximity principle; g) regional, and where appropriate, sub-regional self-sufficiency; and, h) of the Regional Waste Management Strategy for the North East which will • promote a fundamental change in the way waste is dealt with; • minimise the quantities of waste produced in the Region; • increase awareness, influence attitudes and promote waste minimisation, reuse and recycling; • promote the development of new markets for recycled products; • ensure that the Region is served by a reliable, integrated waste management infrastructure that serves the collection, management and disposal requirements of all waste producers; and • reduce the environmental impact of waste management practices.
47 Waste Modify Policy 47 and text 8.13 Management 8.14 Provision 122 POLICY 47 – WASTE MANAGEMENT PROVISION 8.15
Strategies, plans and programmes should provide the management capacity for the annual tonnage of waste arisings set out in Table 2. The type and number of facilities should reflect local circumstances within the strategic framework established by RSS policies and will be based on
• Household Waste – to increase recycling and composting to 33% by 2015 • Municipal Solid Waste – to increase recovery to 72% by 2016 • Commercial & Industrial – to increase recovery to 73% by 2016 • Construction & Demolition – to increase recycling to 80% by 2016
Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should:
a) allocate sites for waste management facilities and contain policies which identify specific
PANEL REPORT C54
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text criteria for the location of waste management facilities, having regard to the locational and planning considerations set out in national planning policy, the environmental and social-economic impacts, the suitability of the road network and the potential for access by non-road transport; b) encourage the provision of new waste related businesses to process recycled materials including, where appropriate, defining suitable sites and/or criteria based policies; c) facilitate the development of a network of small scale local waste management facilities in accessible locations, and effective methods of waste management such as facilities to separate or store different types of waste, including materials that are required to be separated for kerbside collection; d) require the submission of a waste audit for major developments, providing details of in- house or on-site waste management facilities; and e) limit additional landfill sites unless it can be demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity for the deposit of residual wastes.
Minerals and Waste Development Schemes and Local Development Schemes may be prepared jointly by Waste Planning Authorities where it is considered to be necessary and appropriate.
48 Hazardous Waste POLICY 48 – HAZARDOUS WASTE No change 123 Waste and Local Development Frameworks should provide for a range of new facilities for the treatment and management of 567,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum by 2010/11, 610,000 tonnes per annum by 2015/16 and 671,000 tonnes per annum by 2021/22.
Waste Management Method 2010/11 2015/16 2021/22 ‘000 ‘000 ‘000 tonnes tonnes tonnes
Landfill 156 168 187
PANEL REPORT C55
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Physical/chemical treatment 115 124 136 General hazardous waste incineration 34 37 40 Animal/healthcare waste incineration 1.7 1.9 2 Solvent recovery 76 82 90 Oil & oil/water recovery 132 143 156 Metal bearing waste recovery 15.1 16.2 18 Other recovery/recycling 36 38 42 Total 567 610 671
Note: Figures may not add up due to rounding
Waste and Local Development Frameworks should: a) identify specific sites or criteria for the location of facilities to treat and manage hazardous waste, with priority being given to appropriate industrial areas in Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley; b) identify criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed; and c) provide for the appropriate treatment of hazardous waste where this arises on a regional or sub regional scale.
3D Improving connectivity within and beyond the region 49 International Modify Policy 49 and text 9.3 Gateways 127 POLICY 49 – INTERNATIONAL GATEWAYS To support the growth of the region’s airports, strategies, plans and programmes should improve surface access links by all modes, particularly by public transport.
At Durham-Tees Valley Airport priorities will be to: a) improve bus services to Darlington, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Durham City; b) improve in the longer term, rail services and rail integration with the main terminal
PANEL REPORT C56
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text buildings; and c) improve access on the surrounding road network, including Long Newton Junction and the A66 Darlington bypass/Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor.
At Newcastle International Airport, priorities will be to: d) improve in the short term, public transport access to the airport; e) in the longer term, to overcome the constraints on the wider road network including the A1 Newcastle/Gateshead Western Bypass; and f) to further investigate the potential and feasibility of a heavy rail link to facilitate the expansion of the Airport.
To support the region’s ports, strategies, plans and programmes should seek to maintain good surface access and multi-modal links to all the region’s ports. Particular priorities will be to: g) improve gauge enhancements from the East Coast Main Line to Teesport; h) develop existing infrastructure at ports for strategic multi-modal road-rail, as well as railsea freight interchanges, together with passenger facilities; and i) support proposals at Teesport to develop a deep sea container terminal.
To support and provide guidance on the development of the High Speed Rail Network within the region, strategies, plans and programmes should: a) Support an extension of the network through the North East; and b) Indicate a preference for a routing that serves Newcastle upon Tyne city centre.
50 Regional Transport POLICY 50 – REGIONAL TRANSPORT CORRIDORS No Change Corridors 129 Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should prioritise major investment in strategic transport networks within the following Inter-Regional Transport Corridors: • A1/East Coast Main Line; • A19/Durham Coast rail line; • A66/Tees Valley rail line; and
PANEL REPORT C57
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text • A69/Tyne Valley rail line.
Particular priorities should be to upgrade: a) East Coast Mainline power supply and enhancing rail gauge enhancements to Teesport; b) A1 Newcastle/Gateshead Western Bypass as part of a wider demand management strategy; c) A19 Junction improvements allied with the New Tyne Crossing; d) A66 Darlington Bypass/Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor; and e) Rail services between the city regions and beyond to London and Scotland.
The strategic function of all major routes should be retained and major investment should seek to tackle issues of safety, congestion and to enable opportunities for further development to come forward in accordance with the RSS. Demand Management measures should also be considered as part of a package of measures to address congestion, and environmental and safety issues.
Major transport studies should be undertaken for the A1 South of Newcastle through County Durham and the A19/A66 junction in the Tees Valley Conurbation to consider multi-modal solutions to the increasing congestion levels. The performance and safety of the A1 North of Newcastle should continue to be monitored and a Route Management Strategy approach should be adopted for all strategic highways.
51 Regional Public Modify Policy 51 9.4 Transport Provision 9.5 131 POLICY 51 – REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION
Regional and city regional strategies will be prepared to develop public transport provision that supports the RSS and encourages a rebalancing of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes. Local Transport Plans and other strategies and programmes should support that action, which will focus on measures that:
PANEL REPORT C58
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text a) ensure that new development and redevelopment is located and designed to promote and encourage walking, cycling and public transport provision; b) support the integration of public transport services across modes, and improved journey time reliability and affordability; c) promote the continued development of real time information and Traveline, the regional public transport information service; d) develop common region-wide ticketing across all modes, including through ticketing; e) introduce common fares standards, particularly discounted fares for children and older people; f) encouraging the use and development of Bus Quality Partnerships and where appropriate, Bus Quality Contracts in liaison with operators; g) encourage and investigate the application of innovative public transport solutions to reduce social exclusion in urban and rural areas; h) promote and encourage new and improved public transport services, particularly to Prestige Employment Sites and other employment areas, retail and other community facilities, currently poorly served by public transport; i) provide adequate levels of revenue to maintain and enhance, where appropriate, the quality of bus, rail, coach and the Tyne & Wear Metro services; and j) support the extension of park and ride facilities to encourage greater public transport patronage.
In the short term priority should be focussed upon the development of a high quality, high frequency and integrated bus based network for each city region.
In the longer term priorities include: a) for Tyne and Wear city region the revitalisation of the Metro system; and b) for Tees Valley city region the development of a segregated rail based metro system.
52 Strategic Public Modify Policy 52 Transport Hubs 132 9.6 POLICY 52 – STRATEGIC PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUBS 9.7
PANEL REPORT C59
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text 9.8 Regional and city regional strategies will be prepared to support the development of a ‘Core and Feeder’ public transport system focussed on a network of key interchanges. Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should support the development of the interchanges:
Strategic Public Transport Hubs of Middlesbrough, Darlington, Sunderland, Durham City and Newcastle, particularly around Central Station , should: a) be the focus for higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility, subject to the ability of the area to accommodate that development; b) be prioritised for the development of high quality interchange facilities and service integration between all modes of transport and increase the level of cycling and walking to these hubs; and c) be the focus of improved service frequency and journey time reliability along the ‘Core Corridors’ linking these hubs.
Particular priorities for sub-regional and local hubs in the main towns, towns in regeneration areas, the main rural service centres, metro stations and district level interchanges that act as hubs for their surrounding areas are to: d) focus higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility. The scale of development should reflect the role and function of each hub; e) enhance service connections and journey time reliability to the Strategic Public Transport Hubs; f) improve public transport service provision around surrounding areas, to develop better integrated ‘feeder’ service networks; and g) increase the level of cycling and walking accessibility to these hubs.
New Policy 53 A and text 9.9
New Policy 53A: Strategic Framework for Demand Management
PANEL REPORT C60
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text The Regional Assembly in conjunction with other authorities and the Highways Agency shall develop a strategic framework for demand management that will:
a) take forward Government initiatives on demand management and road pricing; b) cover both the strategic and local highway networks; c) identify locations, within a city region context, where appropriate demand management measures should be implemented; d) ensure that inter-location competition is avoided; e) identify measures that will implement the full range of demand management mechanisms, including parking policies that should be reflected in programmes, LTPs and LDFs; f) provide an input to the Region’s investment and management priorities.
The framework will also identify opportunities to assist the participation of business and other sectors in implementing demand management measures.
53 Demand POLICY 53 – DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES No change Management Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should develop Measures 134 integrated demand management measures to address congestion, environmental and safety issues, which include the contribution of: a) bus lanes and other highway reallocation and management measures; b) park and ride; c) car sharing schemes/car clubs; d) parking standards; e) ‘softer’ transport policy measures including personalised travel planning, travel awareness campaigns and teleworking, teleconferencing; f) workplace parking levies; and g) road user charging.
Priorities will be the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley conurbations where the most acute congestion problems exist, and should be targeted at discouraging short distance journeys
PANEL REPORT C61
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text by private modes of transport. The nature of pricing solutions should fully consider both the impact of related policy measures to improve public transport and the contribution of parking policy and travel plans. Local Transport Plans and Local Development Frameworks should ensure that under performance in any one of the measures set out is accounted for by a compensatory increase in other measures.
Measures should take into account future traffic forecasts, which should include assessments of trip reductions as a result of changes in working practices and increasing local service provision,
54 Parking and Travel Modify Policy 54 9.10 Plans 135 POLICY 54 – PARKING AND TRAVEL PLANS
The Regional Assembly will prepare statements on parking standards for each city region and for the rural areas. To complement these statements Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should:
a) seek to minimise parking provision for non-residential developments, linked to coordinated proposals for public transport and accessibility improvements and demand management; b) set maximum parking standards for non-residential land uses in line with the standards set out in the statements for the city regions and the rural areas, seeking to reduce provision below these levels in locations with good public transport access, particularly in the Strategic Transport Hubs and to a lesser extent in the sub-regional and local hubs; c) develop management strategies in each Interchange hub for the appropriate level of total parking stock that is consistent with the above; d) apply guidance set out in national planning policy on residential parking standards, reflecting local circumstances; e) ensure that the pricing of new parking provision does not undermine local parking regimes;
PANEL REPORT C62
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text f) ensure travel plans are prepared for all major development proposals that will generate significant additional journeys which should seek to maximise travel by public transport, cycling and walking. At the Prestige Employment Sites and Regional Brownfield Mixed- Use Developments, consideration should be given to developing a coordinated approach for the whole site, including overall levels of parking provision; and g) indicate the nature and extent of contributions that will be necessary to improve transport infrastructure and services as part of development in particular areas or sites.
55 Accessibility within POLICY 55 – ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN AND BETWEEN THE CITY REGIONS No change and between the City Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should seek to improve Regions 136 access, particularly by public transport, between: a) the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley city regions; and b) the conurbations and the main centres in the regeneration areas within the city regions.
Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should also support a package of measures to improve accessibility within and between the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley city regions, including: c) demand management measures including road space reprioritisation to modes other than the private car, particularly on the main arterial routes; d) prioritising high quality public transport measures that improve the frequency, journey time and reliability of services, including the revitalisation of the Metro. In the short term particular priority should be focused upon the development of a high quality, high frequency and integrated bus based network. High quality rapid transit solutions should be investigated as options for longer term improvements; e) the longer term role of demand management, including pricing measures to restrain private car use; f) public transport access improvements to Prestige Employment Sites and Regional Brownfield Mixed Use Developments, particularly from the more deprived wards; and g) intervention on the A1 and A19 strategic highway networks to tackle major congestion hotspots, including Newcastle/Gateshead Western Bypass, junctions along the A19 and the New Tyne Crossing.
PANEL REPORT C63
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text
Public Transport improvements should focus on introducing measures to improve the frequency, journey time and journey time reliability of existing public transport services particularly to and between the Strategic Public Transport Hubs. Improving interchange facilities, access and safety enhancements to these hubs should also be prioritized.
56 Accessibility in Modify Policy 56 4.7 Rural Areas 138 POLICY 56 – ACCESSIBILITY IN RURAL AREAS Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should: a) develop core networks of public transport links focused on key hubs, and in particular on the rural service centres, with frequent services from these centres to the conurbations and main towns within the two city regions; b) develop feeder public transport services from surrounding rural areas to the main rural service centres, ensuring integration with core network services; c) in more remote rural areas, seek to develop innovative demand responsive public transport, rather than rely on more traditional forms of public transport; and d) support the introduction and concept of Community Rail Development, such as the Esk Valley pilot, to offer vital services for passengers and freight enabling them to improve accessibility and contribute towards a modal shift away from private motor vehicles, particularly for commuting.
57 Sustainable Modify Policy 57 9.11 Freight Distribution 139 POLICY 57 – SUSTAINABLE FREIGHT DISTRIBUTION Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should: a) prioritise strategic freight movements, alongside strategic passenger movement on the Regional Transport Corridors; b) improve rail gauge enhancements to Teesport, and Port of Tyne particularly from the East Coast Main Line;
PANEL REPORT C64
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text c) support and encourage the development of deep sea container facilities at Teesport; d) safeguard existing rail freight lines, particularly where their reuse for passenger services would alleviate capacity on the East Coast Main Line, for example Ashington, Blyth, Tyne; e) protect the Leamside Line from development in order to assist its possible reinstatement for freight services and improved public transport accessibility in the longer term; f) promote the efficient local delivery of freight by reallocating road space to freight uses, where appropriate, particularly in the conurbations; g) prioritise the development of new services and multi-modal freight interchange capacity at existing operational facilities, including rail-connected ports; h) protect the land at the former goods yard at Tweedmouth that may be required as part of the ECML improvements; i) encourage local authorities to enter into Freight Quality Partnerships with freight operators to improve the management and reduce the impacts of freight movements; j) support provision of HGV driver rest facilities in close proximity to the trunk road network; and k) encourage improvements to the ECML north of Doncaster to allow for direct and uninhibited access of full length (775m) freight trains to and from the Channel Tunnel. SECTION 4 Monitoring Framework Implementation, Monitoring and Review Introduction Regional Strategy Integration Strategy Assumptions RSS Limitations RSS Implement- ation Plan PANEL REPORT C65
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX C FOR THE NORTH EAST RECOMMENDED RSS POLICY CHANGES
RSS for the NE Panel’s Recommended Modifications to Policies, New Policies and/or supporting text. Recommendation in Panel Submission Draft Report to Policy and/or (June 2005) supporting text Monitoring Targets and Indicators Arrangements for Monitoring Review Community Participation Further Work 3.3, 5.1, 6.1, 7.2, 7.5, 7.9, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1
PANEL REPORT C66
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix D: Summary of Panel Recommendations
Appendix D provides a summary of the recommendations contained in Chapters 2 to 10 of the Panel Report. The recommendations have been drawn together and follow the relevant chapter headings and by each section, including those requiring further work.
As indicated in the Preface, recommendations fall into three categories, namely those that require: • modifications to policies and new polices; • amendments to the supporting text; and • further work or studies beyond the immediate scope of the Plan. Clearly, those in the third category are beyond the scope of the Panel’s remit. Nevertheless, the Panel hopes that these will assist the RSS process in the longer term and the future planning of the North East Region. These recommendations are distinguished by the use of italic text.
Chapter 2: RSS Vision and Strategy
Climate Change
Recommendation 2.1 a) Insert a new section to provide a clearer understanding of the regional implications of climate change; and b) Include a new Policy 2A to deal with climate change as indicated in Appendix C.
Chapter 3: Spatial Strategy
Sustainable Development
Recommendation 3.1 a) Amend the supporting text leading up to Policy 2 to:
i) Draw out the main messages from “Securing the Future”; and
ii) Include reference to the two guiding principles most relevant to the RSS; namely “Living within Environmental Limits” and “Achieving a Sustainable Economy”.
PANEL REPORT D1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
b) Modify Policy 2 f):
To make better use of our resources, including the built fabric. c) Insert an additional objective before 2 w) as follows:
To ensure that environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them and efficient resource use is incentivised; and d) Delete all reference to a requirement to submit a Sustainability Statement.
Sequential Approach
Recommendation 3.2
Delete Policy 3 and a) substitute the following Policy
Local Development Frameworks should adopt a sequential approach to the identification of land for development to give priority to previously developed land and buildings in the most sustainable locations. All sites should be in locations that are, or will be, at lowest risk from flooding, having particular regard to the vulnerability of the proposed development to flooding. Locations should be selected in the following priority order:
a) Suitable previously developed sites and buildings within urban areas, particularly around public transport nodes;
b) Other suitable locations within urban areas not identified as land to be protected for nature or heritage conservation or recreational purposes;
c) Suitable sites in locations adjoining urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings; and
d) Suitable sites in settlements outside urban areas, particularly those that involve the use of previously developed land and buildings
For the purposes of this policy, urban areas are defined as the conurbations, main towns, towns in regeneration areas and rural service centres and other settlements identified in Local Development Frameworks as providing a significant opportunity in terms of previously developed land and buildings.
All sites identified for development should be in locations that are, or will be, well related to homes, jobs and services by all modes of transport, particularly public transport, walking and cycling.
PANEL REPORT D2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS b) Amend supporting text to commend joint action where it would maximise the development of previously developed land.
Consistency
Recommendation 3.3 a) Future reviews of the Regional Transport Strategy should be founded on a more comprehensive transport assessment that can be seen to be linked to the core assumptions. b) Consideration be given to the identification of more specific regeneration priorities.
Chapter 4: City Regions and the Rural Areas
Tyne and Wear City Region
Recommendation 4.1
Modify Policy 6 d) by the deletion of `and aspirations’ and the addition of `without adversely impacting on the regeneration initiatives within the Tyne and Wear conurbation’.
Green Belt & Environmental Strategy
Recommendation 4.2 a) Modify Policy 6, Tyne and Wear City Region, to include an additional section titled `Green Belt and Environment’. This to include a Green Belt policy, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Delete part of Policy 10 relating to the Green Belt and supporting text.
Recommendation 4.3
Reference to the deletion of the site of the proposed Tyne Wear Park from the Green Belt in Policy 10, as recommended to be modified by inclusion in Policies 6 and 8, be deleted.
PANEL REPORT D3
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 4.4 a) Include a policy concerning strategic networks of green infrastructure in the Green Belt and Environment section of Policy 6, Tyne and Wear City Region, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Include additional supporting text to distinguish between strategic and non- strategic green infrastructure and its purpose. c) Modify the Tyne and Wear City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 as appropriate to show:
i) Strategic recreation routes;
ii) Strategic wildlife corridors in Tyne and Wear, based upon the 1986 Tyne and Wear Nature Conservation Strategy and the more recently adopted UDPs. d) Delete the part of Policy 10 relating to green infrastructure and supporting text.
Tees Valley City Region
Recommendation 4.5
Modify Policy 7 c) to include `to meet local needs’ following `sustainable growth’ as set out in Appendix C.
Recommendation 4.6 a) Modify Policy 7 by the inclusion in the connectivity section of reference to the protection of the East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor, as set out in Appendix C. b) Include additional supporting text explaining the strategic significance and purpose of the EMTC, and confirming that the primary focus will be on public transport schemes.
Strategic Gaps & Environmental Strategy
Recommendation 4.7
Modify policies and supporting text to include reference to green wedges and strategic gaps, as set out in the sections above of our Report and Appendix C.
PANEL REPORT D4
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 4.8 a) Modify Policy 7, Tees Valley City Region, to include an additional section titled `Strategic Gaps and the Environment’. This to include a policy concerning the identification and function of strategic gaps, including additional strategic gaps, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Modify the City Region diagram to show the geographic extend of strategic gaps.
Recommendation 4.9 a) Include a policy concerning green infrastructure in the Strategic Gaps and Environment section of Policy 7, Tees Valley City Region, as indicated in Appendix C. b) Modify supporting text to include a broad environmental strategy statement, clarifying the role of strategic gaps, and their relationship with green wedges and green infrastructure. c) Include additional supporting text to distinguish between strategic and non- strategic green infrastructure and its purpose. d) Modify the Tees Valley City Region diagram and Environment Map 2 to show:
i) Strategic wildlife corridors in Tees Valley, as identified in the adopted Tees Valley Structure Plan.
Rural Areas
Recommendation 4.10
Delete the word `main’ from Policies 8 a) and 56 a).
Recommendation 4.11
Include additional supporting text supporting the innovative use of `exception sites’ as a sensitive approach to the problems associated with the increase in second homes in the more remote rural settlements.
Recommendation 4.12
Modify Policy 6 by the deletion of parts x) and y), and part z) be incorporated in the Economic Prosperity section, as illustrated in Appendix C.
PANEL REPORT D5
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 4.13
Modify Policy 27 as shown in Chapter 6 (recommendation 6.3) to read. a) No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new urban and suburban out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub- regional significance. b) Proposed regional and sub-regional rural leisure developments will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach (Policy 3) and locational strategy (Policy 5) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and having regard to the manner in which they assist rural regeneration and local communities.
Chapter 5: Economy
Economic Development, Regeneration Priorities & Employment Provision
Recommendation 5.1
The next RSS review should adopt a City Region approach to the analysis and allocation of employment land.
Provision of Employment Land
Recommendation 5.2
Modify Policy 18 so that the paragraph and criteria read:
“In determining the land portfolio in accordance with the provision set out above, planning authorities should undertake sub-regional and local employment land assessments based on a 25 year level of supply and take up, taking into account: a) the need to protect employment land and premises from redevelopment to alternative uses where they are an essential part of the long-term employment land and premises portfolio; b) the potential of existing employment allocations no longer required for employment purposes for reallocation to alternative uses or de-allocation; c) a presumption in favour of regenerating and upgrading existing employment land and premises in advance of allocating new sites on greenfield land;
PANEL REPORT D6
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
d) the need to ensure that peripheral sites in the counties around the Tyne and Wear conurbation are de allocated, commensurate with the supply of sites within the urban core; and e) the need for the Tyne and Wear authorities to seek to meet any shortfall of employment land supply through the intensification of sites around transport hubs and on previously developed land.”
Land Allocations at the Airports
Recommendation 5.3 a) Amend paragraph 3.33 by the inclusion of additional text which acknowledges likely environmental constraints and the resulting uncertainty over the future role of aviation and growth forecasts. b) Replace the list of airport related uses under paragraph 3.33 with the table of Airport Related Development above. c) Modify Policy 21 by the inclusion of reference to the list of Airport Related Development, and the exclusion of the section dealing with non-airport related uses. d) Paragraph 3.34 be deleted.
Brownfield Mixed - Use Developments
Recommendation 5.4 a) Modify Policy 7 a) by the deletion of reference to “Central Park Darlington” and replaced with “brownfield opportunities in Darlington”, in accordance with Appendix C. b) Amend paragraph 3.11 by the inclusion of a sentence which emphasises the consistency between the development of the brownfield mixed-use sites and the locational strategy. In particular, the focus on city regions and the objective of creating sustainable communities as set down in Policy 24. c) Modify the title of Policy 13 by the deletion of “Regional”. d) Modify the first paragraph of Policy 13 so that it reads, “Strategies, plans and programmes should support brownfield mixed use developments in sustainable locations throughout the Region and in particular continue to
PANEL REPORT D7
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
support and promote the following Regional Brownfield Mixed-Use Developments as major mixed-use regeneration projects in the conurbations and main towns:”. e) Modify Policy 13 by deleting the word “retail” from criterion d) and the inclusion of the words “of town centre uses” between the words “development” and “associated”.
Prestige and Reserve Employment Sites
Recommendation 5.5 a) Insert a new Policy 18A: Office Development outside of City and Town Centres, as set out in Appendix C. b) Modify Policy 19 to direct appropriate investment towards selected Prestige Employment Sites, as set out in Appendix C, and delete the symbols from the appropriate diagrams. c) Delete Policy 20 and the supporting text in paragraph 3.32.
Chapter 6: Urban and Regional Centres & MetroCentre
Urban and Rural Centres
Recommendation 6.1 a) Future RSS Reviews of retailing development matters should adopt a city region approach to analysis and policy development. b) Further work should be done to allow the next RSS Review to set out a more extensive hierarchy and provide guidance on the future of the hierarchy.
The MetroCentre
Recommendation 6.2
Modify Policy 26 to read:
No provision should be made for additional retail or leisure development at the MetroCentre or the surrounding retail complex.
PANEL REPORT D8
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Out-of-Centre Retail and Leisure Developments
Recommendation 6.3 a) Modify supporting text to include reference to the material in the Annual Monitoring Report 2005/06, paragraphs 9.12 to 9.17 and Figure 9.1; and b) Modify Policy 27 to read:
a) No further provision should be made in Local Development Frameworks for new urban and suburban out-of-centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance.
b) Proposed regional and sub-regional rural leisure developments will need to be considered and justified through the sequential approach (Policy 3) and locational strategy (Policy 5) of the Regional Spatial Strategy, and having regard to the manner in which they assist rural regeneration and local communities.
Chapter 7: Housing
Scale of Provision
Recommendation 7.1 a) Modify Policy 30 on the basis of the 112,000 forecast, as set out in Appendix C. b) Modify Policy 28 to accommodate the modification to Policy 30, as set out in Appendix C.
Recommendation 7.2
The next review of housing matters should: a) Be based on broad city region housing market areas as set out in Appendix C iii); b) Take into account the implications of local housing market areas, which cover more than a single local authority area;
PANEL REPORT D9
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
c) Recognise mobile elements of demand across the city regions and also at the local housing market level; and d) Provide greater transparency on the application of strategic decisions.
Housing Market Restructuring
Recommendation 7.3
Modify Policy 29 as set out in Appendix C: a) by the deletion of the final paragraph; and b) to indicate that priority should be given to the most sustainable locations in the preparation of strategies for improving the housing stock.
Affordable Housing
Recommendation 7.4
Amend paragraph 3.81 to exclude reference to the opportunity to increase local provision due to the loss to second homes.
Land Supply
Recommendation 7.5
The next Review of RSS1 should be supported by a consistent approach to the assessment of the land supply, particularly the assessment of urban capacity.
Recommendation 7.6
Modify Policy 31 c) to include reference to the Districts of Blyth Valley and Sedgefield.
PANEL REPORT D10
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Previously Developed Land
Recommendation 7.7
Modify Policy 30 b) to identify the sub-regional targets for housing development on previously developed land and through the re-use of existing buildings, as indicated in Appendix C. and be further extended as follows:
To achieve the above targets the District Allocations set out above should not provide the justification for the refusal of windfall housing proposals that fall within the guidance set out for Urban Capacity Studies.
Recommendation 7.8
A regional approach to the assessment of Urban Capacity be prepared as a matter of urgency to guide the LDF process.
Phasing & Plan, Monitor and Manage
Recommendation 7.9 a) Include in the AMR an assessment of the need for a review of the RSS, taking into account an assessment of the continued validity of the housing forecasts and any changes in the context of the plan. b) An opportunity should be given for a contribution from members of the public to the debate on the conclusions of the AMR.
Housing Distribution
Recommendation 7.10
Modify Policy 30 as set out in Appendix C, subject to further consideration being given to: a) the allocations for Easington and Sedgefield, with a view to ensuring that they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments;
PANEL REPORT D11
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
b) the allocation for Blyth Valley, with a view to ensuring they are consistent with the Locational Strategy and our conclusions and recommendations on de-allocation and the UCS assessments; and c) any consequential adjustments arising from the review of the allocations for Easington, Sedgefield and Blyth Valley should reflect the opportunity to achieve a higher level of concentration of development in the conurbations.
Chapter 8: Environment and Resource Management
Flood Risk
Recommendation 8.1
Modify Policy 37 a) as follows:
a) tidal effects around estuaries and along the coast, including the effects of the latest predictions for sea level rise.
Recommendation 8.2 a) Modify Policy 36 e) as follows:
e) set a positive policy framework for delivering plans for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, River Basin Management, Shoreline Management and Catchment Flood Management for the Region’s coastal, estuarine and near- shore zones by adopting an eco-system based approach to promote the recovery and conservation of marine eco-systems, including designated sites, favouring the evolution of the coast, estuaries and near-shore zones through natural processes wherever possible. b) Modify Paragraph 3.113 by the inclusion of reference to coastal defences.
Recommendation 8.3
Modify the second part of Policy 37 as set out in Appendix C.
Energy & Renewable Targets
Recommendation 8.4
PANEL REPORT D12
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
a) Rename Policy 39 Sustainable Construction and modify to consist of Policy 39 a) as recommended to be modified below, Policy 39 b), c) and d) and Policy 40 c) (but see also below). b) Modify Policy 39 a) as follows:
a) ensure that the layout and design of new buildings and developments minimise energy consumption. c) Relocate Paragraph 3.131 to form part of the supporting text for Policy 39. d) Retain the balance of Policy 40 Renewable Energy and supporting text.
Recommendation 8.4 a) Rename Policy 39 Sustainable Construction and modify to consist of Policy 39 b), c) and d) and Policy 40 c) (but see also below). b) Relocate Paragraph 3.131 to form part of the supporting text for Policy 39. c) Retain the balance of Policy 40 Renewable Energy and supporting text. d) Modify Policy 39 a) to read as follows: a) ensure that the layouts of new developments are designed to minimise energy consumption.
Recommendation 8.5 a) Modify Policy 40 c) (which we recommend above be included in a recast Policy 39) as follows:
e) set local level size thresholds for major new development and require all relevant developments, particularly major retail, commercial and residential developments, to have embedded within them a minimum of 10% energy supply from renewable sources. b) The Glossary be modified to include a definition of `Major Development’, as it relates to retail, commercial and residential proposals, with explanatory cross reference to the definition of “Regional/Sub-Regional significance.”
Recommendation 8.6 a) Delete Policy 41 a).
PANEL REPORT D13
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
b) Reword the introductory text to Policy 41 as follows:
Strategies, plans and programmes should support and encourage renewable energy proposals and identify renewable resource areas.
In assessing proposals for renewable energy development significant weight should be given to the wider environmental, economic and social benefits arising from higher levels of renewable energy and the following criteria should be considered:
a) anticipated effects ………..etc.
Recommendation 8.7
Modify paragraph 3.137 by the deletion of `deliver significant community benefits and’.
Recommendation 8.8
Modify the area descriptions in Policy 42 b) as follows:
• Knowesgate Area,
• Kiln Pit Hill Area.
Recommendation 8.9
Modify Environment Map 1 to show: a) the Regional Assembley’s corrected locations of the ‘W’ symbols; and b) the key for Environment Map 1 to show that the ‘W’ symbol represents ‘broad areas of least constraint’.
PANEL REPORT D14
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 8.10 a) Amend Paragraph 3.141 to provide an adequate explanation of the scale/capacity issue, and to include reference to the future contribution the landscape capacity analysis study will make to assessing cumulative impact. b) Modify Policy 42 b) as follows-
b) the following areas have potential for small to medium scale development:
Minerals – Opencast Coal and Brick Clay
Recommendation 8.11 a) Modify Policy 45 as follows –
Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks and Local Development Frameworks should, in consultation with the coal industry, identify acceptable areas for the opencast extraction of coal.
Prior to an agreement on such areas the Minerals Authorities should adopt a presumption against opencast coal extraction unless:
1. the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations;
2. or the proposals can provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts.
Where opencast coal extraction is acceptable, provision should be made for the extraction and beneficial use of fireclay.
All extracted minerals should be transported by rail whenever possible.
Waste Management
Recommendation 8.12
Modify Policy 46 h) to include reference to the aims of the Regional Waste Management Strategy, as set out in Appendix C.
PANEL REPORT D15
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 8.13 a) Modify Table 2 to include the disaggregated waste arisings for the Borough Council areas in Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear. b) Modify Policy 47 by the addition of concluding text as set out in Appendix C c) Amend supporting text to indicate that the figures in modified Table 2 should be regarded as interim guidance only until more refined data can be substituted.
Recommendation 8.14
Additional supporting text be included to provide estimates of need, and details of current and planned capacity to address the tonnages of commercial and industrial and municipal waste streams requiring management, taking into account waste exported into / exported from other regions, disaggregated to Waste Planning Authority level, and subject to any necessary caveats concerning reliability.
Recommendation 8.15 Modify Policy 47 to incorporate the targets for different waste streams as indicated in Appendix C.
Chapter 9: Transport Strategy
Transport Proposals & Transport Investment Priorities
Recommendation 9.1 a) Review the content of the transport package with a view to achieving a more balanced approach. b) Reconsider the priorities set out in Table 3.
Recommendation 9.2
Future reviews of the Regional Transport Strategy should:
PANEL REPORT D16
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
a) be more spatially focused on improvements to corridors of movement, rather than individual schemes, and should identify how improvements will contribute to economic and social objectives. b) give greater emphasis to the contribution that demand management and bus and light rail operations can make to the strategy.
Recommendation 9.3
Modify Policy 49 and the supporting text to include the following:
To support and provide guidance on the development of the High Speed Rail Network within the region, strategies, plans and programmes should: a) Support an extension of the network through the North East: and b) Indicate a preference for a routing that serves Newcastle upon Tyne city centre.
Public Transport Network Development
Recommendation 9.4
Modify the first and final paragraphs of Policy 51 and delete criterion f) as shown in Appendix C.
Recommendation 9.5
Modify Policy 51 by the inclusion of the following: j) support the extension of park and ride facilities to encourage greater public transport patronage.
Recommendation 9.6
Modify the first paragraph of Policy 52 as follows
‘Regional and city regional strategies will be prepared to support the development of a ‘Core and Feeder’ public transport system focussed on a
PANEL REPORT D17
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
network of key interchanges. Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should support the development of the interchanges’.
Recommendation 9.7
Modify Policy 52 a) as follows
a) be the focus for higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility, subject to the ability of the area to accommodate that development.
Recommendation 9.8
Modify Policy 52 d) as follows
d) focus higher density land uses and/or mixed land uses that require a high level of accessibility. The scale of development should reflect the role and function of each hub.
Demand Management
Recommendation 9.9
Insert a new Policy 53A and supporting text before Policy 53 to provide a Strategic Framework for Demand Management, as indicated in Appendix C.
Recommendation 9.10
Modify the first paragraph and criteria b) and e) of Policy 54 as follows:
The Regional Assembly will prepare statements on parking standards for each city region and for the rural areas. To complement these statements Local Transport Plans and other strategies, plans and programmes should:
b) set maximum parking standards for non-residential land uses in line with the standards set out in the statements for the city regions and the rural areas, seeking to reduce provision below these levels in locations with good public transport access, particularly in the Strategic Transport Hubs and to a lesser extent in the sub-regional and local hubs.
PANEL REPORT D18
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX D FOR THE NORTH EAST SUMMARY of PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
e) ensure that the pricing of new parking provision does not undermine local parking regimes.
Freight Transport - Road and Rail
Recommendation 9.11
Modify Policy 57 as follows: a) Modify criterion b) by the addition of ‘and Port of Tyne’ after ‘Teesport’ b) Replace criterion h) with the following:
h) protect the land at the former goods yard at Tweedmouth that may be required as part of the ECML improvements. c) The addition of a new criterion as follows:
k) encourage improvements to the ECML north of Doncaster to allow for direct and uninhibited access of full length (775m) freight trains to and from the Channel Tunnel.
Chapter 10: Monitoring and Implementation
Monitoring and Implementation
Recommendation 10.1 a) AMRs should include a wider evaluation of the context of the RSS, including an assessment of the forecasts, to provide an assessment of the need for a partial or total review. b) AMRs should give greater recognition of the city regions in the presentation of findings. c) consideration should be given to the involvement of the public and stakeholders in the consideration of the findings of the AMR.
PANEL REPORT D19
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY APPENDIX E FOR THE NORTH EAST GLOSSARY
Appendix E: Glossary
Abbreviations
Terms referred to in the Report AA Appropriate Assessment AMR Annual Monitoring Report AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
CO2 Carbon Dioxide ECML East Coast Main Line EiP Examination in Public ERM Environment Resources Management GVA Gross Value Added IRF Integrated Regional Framework LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework LTP Local Transport Plan MPG Minerals Planning Guidance MPS Minerals Planning Statement MWLDD Minerals & Waste Local Development Documnet PES Prestige Employment Site PDL Previously Developed Land PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement RES Regional Economic Strategy RHS Regional Housing Strategy RPG Regional Planning Guidance RPG1 Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) November 2002 (now RSS1) RSS Regional Spatial Strategy RSS Submission Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East Submission Draft, June 2005 RSS1 Approved Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East RTS Regional Transport Strategy SA Sustainability Appraisal
PANEL REPORT E1
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest TBP Technical Background Paper WLDD Waste Local Development Document WPA Waste Planning Authority ZNM Zero Net Migration
Participants/organisations referred to in the Report BNG Bridging NewcasteGatehead Pathfinder Initiative CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England DCC Durham County Council FOE Friends of the Earth GONE Government Office for the North East HBF Home Builders Federation NEA North East Assembly (Regional Planning Body) NCC Northumberland County Council One Northeast North East (Regional Development Agency) ONS Office of National Statistics SENNTRi South East Northumberland North Tyneside Regeneration Initiative TVJSU Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit TVR Tees Valley Regeneration T&W Tyne and Wear Authorities UCR Urban Regeneration Company
PANEL REPORT E2
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH EAST
PANEL REPORT D20
Draft Week 27