County Durham Plan
Durham County Council Response to the Inspectors Initial Questions
18 July 2014
Contents
1 Submission of the County Durham Plan 2
2 Hearing Sessions 4
3 Pre-Hearing Meetings 5
4 Representations 6
5 Council's Responses to Representations 7
6 Meetings with Representors 8
7 Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Plan 9
8 Main Modifications 10
9 Legal and Procedural Requirements 11
10 Duty to Co-operate 12
11 Sustainability Appraisal 13
12 Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations 15
13 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 18
14 List of "saved" Local Plan Policies Superseded by the Submitted Plan 20
15 Topic / Background Papers 21
16 Programme Officer 40
17 Hearings 41
18 Website 42
19 Note-taking 43
20 Guidance 44
21 Future programme 45
22 Procedure and Experiences 46
23 Paragraph 23 47
Inspector's Initial Questions 1 Submission of the County Durham Plan
Submission of the County Durham Plan
1.1 The County Durham Plan (CDP) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 25 April 2014, along with the submission documents, a copy of the representations and a list of documents in the evidence base. Electronic and paper copies of the evidence base documents were also submitted.
1.2 Can the Council confirm that all the documents and information included in the Local Planning Regulations(i) have been submitted to the Secretary of State, with links on the Council’s web-site? Are there any outstanding documents, reports or studies to be submitted, and if so, what is the likely timetable for completion?
Council's Response
1.3 The Council is satisfied that all the documents and information as required by Regulation 22 have been submitted to the Secretary of State with links on the Council's website. Unless otherwise stated, the documents can be viewed at: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cdpev/
a. The sustainability appraisal report (Doc Refs K28, K37, K38, K39, K40, K41, K42, K43, K44, K45, K46, K47, K48, K49)
b. The submission policies map (Doc Ref K9)
c. The bodies and persons invited to make representations (Doc Ref C5)
d. How those bodies were invited to make representations pursuant to Regulation 18 (Doc Refs K23, C6 and C14)
e. A summary of the main issues raised and how they have been taken into account pursuant to Regulation 18
Statement of Consultation June 2010 (Issues Paper) (Doc Ref C12)
Statement of Consultation Related to Core Strategy Issues and Options Report (Doc Ref C11)
Statement of Consultation - Policy Directions (Doc Ref C9)
Local Plan Preferred Options Statement of Consultation (Doc Ref C8)
f. Copies of any representations made in accordance with regulation 20
Representations which were submitted before the closing date on the 9th December 2013 can be viewed at: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ps/psdlp?tab=list
g. Supporting evidence documents can be found within the document library on the Council's website. Following the advice from the Planning Inspectorate's Bristol office, paper copies of primary evidence were submitted and electronic versions of both the primary and secondary evidence was provided.
i Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 [SI. 2012/767] (Reg.22)
2 Inspector's Initial Questions Submission of the County Durham Plan 1
h. As soon as practicable after submission, documents stipulated in accordance with regulation 35 have been made available at the principal office and on the Council's website. Details of the places and times the document library can be viewed is stipulated on the website. i. Notification was sent to all representors notifying them that the County Durham Plan, CIL Draft Charging Schedule and associated evidence bases have been submitted to the Secretary of State and a copy of this letter can be viewed at: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cdpexam/
1.4 In terms of any outstanding documents, reports or studies:
The Durham City Playing Pitch Action Plan is currently in a draft format and discussions are continuing with Sport England to ensure that this action plan is robust and credible. Whilst there are no definite timescales for the completion of this, both the Council and Sport England are committed to having this completed by the deadline for submission of further statements.
Edge Analytics undertook initial projection and forecasting work during 2013 which forms the basis of the scenarios set out in the Population, Housing and Employment Projections Paper (Doc Ref R5). Following the recent release of the 2012-based Sub National Population Projections on the 29th May 2014, the Council are working to redevelop the scenarios in order to fully understand any implications on the County Durham Plan. The redeveloped scenarios will include 2012-based SNPP projections from ONS; alternative 2012-based trend projections using the latest mid-year estimates and employment-led scenarios (linked to the growth in the size of the labour force). The redeveloped scenarios will be developed and presented in a consistent way with Doc Ref R5 to ensure that the outcome of each scenario growth trajectory is comparable in terms of population change, household change, net migration, net dwelling growth and jobs growth. The Council understand that the key variable that has changed, at this stage, is the projected growth in population. This update will be completed by the deadline for submission of further statements.
The Council is busy updating its five year land supply position to reflect its latest position as reflected within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Doc Ref H1). This update will be completed by the deadline for submission of further statements.
The Council is continuing to work with the Home Builders Federation to ensure that a mutual position can be reached on the assumptions contained within the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2013 (Doc Refs R10 and R12). It may be necessary for an additional summary report although at this stage it is anticipated that a Statement of Common Ground will be produced between the Council and the Home Builders Federation and submitted by the deadline for submission of further statements.
Inspector's Initial Questions 3 2 Hearing Sessions
Hearing sessions
2.1 The Inspector understands that the Council would like the hearing sessions of the examination to take place in three stages with Stage 1 commencing 30 September 2014, with additional sessions during the weeks commencing 6 and 13 October 2014, if required; about 6-9 hearing days will probably be needed for Stage 1, commencing on Tuesday 30 September 2014. At least 6 weeks notice of the start of the hearing sessions is needed.(ii) The Inspector understands that the hearing sessions will take place in a meeting room at the Emirates Durham International Cricket Ground, Riverside, Chester-le-Street. The Programme Officer and Inspector will also need separate rooms, and reserved car parking spaces.
2.2 Can the Council confirm that these dates have been reserved for the hearing sessions and that it will make the necessary arrangements, including accommodation for the Inspector and Programme Officer?
Council's Response
2.3 The Council can confirm that a suitable meeting room has been reserved for the hearing sessions plus a suitable room each for both the Inspector and Programme Officer at the Emirates Durham International Cricket Ground on the following dates:
31st July
30th Sept - 2nd Oct
7th - 9th Oct
14th - 16th Oct
2.4 The Council has also spoken with the cricket club and they have confirmed that two reserved car parking spaces is possible for these dates.
ii Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 [SI. 2012/767] (Reg. 24 & 35)
4 Inspector's Initial Questions Pre-Hearing Meetings 3
Pre-Hearing Meeting
3.1 Pre-Hearing Meetings (PHM) are not normally held nowadays for Local Plan examinations. However, where complex or contentious issues are raised and/or large numbers of unrepresented people have raised objections, a PHM can be useful, to explain the examination process and the procedural and administrative arrangements; where the issues are relatively straightforward, a PHM may not be necessary.
3.2 The Inspector considers a PHM would be helpful in this case; 4 weeks’ notice of the PHM is needed. Can the Council confirm whether it considers a Pre-Hearing Meeting will be necessary in this instance and that the date of 31 July 2014 would be appropriate?
Council's Response
3.3 The Council agrees that a Pre-Hearing Meeting would be necessary given the number of representors expressing an interest in participating in the hearing sessions. The suggested date of the 31st July 2014 is acceptable to the Council. The Council are aware that some of the representors have expressed concern that the date falls within the summer holiday period however the Council feel that this is unavoidable in these circumstances.
Inspector's Initial Questions 5 4 Representations
Representations
4.1 The Council has confirmed that some 3,964 representations were made on the Pre-Submission version of the Plan by 1,315 organisations/individuals between 14 October and 9 December 2013 along with 44 late representations; these have been forwarded to the Inspector. Links to the representations should be available on the Council’s web-site.
4.2 Can the Council confirm firstly, whether they have formally accepted the late representations, and secondly, that links to the representations will be included on the Council’s web-site.
Council's Response
4.3 The Pre Submission Draft version of the County Durham Plan was subject to consultation between the 14th of October and the 9th December 2013.
4.4 A total of 44 representations were received after the consultation period had closed on the 9th December 2013. These late representations were submitted alongside the County Durham Plan on the 25th April 2014. As these representations were received outside of the consultation period, the Council has not formally accepted the representations. On this basis they have not been published on the Council’s website and the Council has not considered their content. However, the Council has no objections to the Inspector giving consideration to the late representations as part of the Examination, should he so choose.
4.5 If the Inspector decides to give consideration to the representations received after the 9th December then the Council will make provision to upload the representations to the Durham County Council website. The representations would be made available to view, alongside the representations made during the consultation period, on the Council's website.
6 Inspector's Initial Questions Council's Responses to Representations 5
Council’s Responses to Representations
5.1 The Council has summarised the main issues raised in the representations (iii), including legal compliance and Duty to Co-operate; housing requirements, housing supply and “omission” sites; settlement hierarchy; development strategy policies and strategic allocations; executive housing policies; Economy & Infrastructure policies (including road proposals, employment and town centres); Environment & Surroundings policies including Green Belt; and other issues (including Habitat Regulations Assessment) and Minerals and Waste. The examination hearings are likely to focus on these issues. However, apart from proposing some minor changes to the plan, the Council has not responded to the main issues identified.
5.2 Does the Council intend to respond to the main issues raised in the representations, or will this be done in the Council’s statements to the hearings?
Council's Response
5.3 Following the consultation on the Pre Submission Draft, the following documents were prepared for submission to the Planning Inspectorate alongside the County Durham Plan.
Pre Submission Draft Consultation Feedback Report(Doc Ref C1)
Pre Submission Draft Consultation Feedback Report – Policy 30 (Housing Allocations)(Doc Ref C2)
CIL Feedback Report(Doc Ref C3)
5.4 These documents set out a summary of main issues raised by the representations, by policy area, site or document as appropriate. These documents also set out the Council’s response to the summary of main issues.
5.5 Any minor (additional) changes arising from representations have been recorded within the County Durham Plan Submission Draft (Tracked Changes)(Doc Ref K7) and are itemised within the Pre Submission Draft Local Plan Schedule of Minor (Additional) Modifications(Doc Ref K8)
5.6 In preparing statements in response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions, the Council will address the relevant main issues raised as part of the consultation.
iii Document C1–C3
Inspector's Initial Questions 7 6 Meetings with Representors
Meetings with Representors
6.1 The Inspector would like to know whether the Council’s officers are having any meetings with relevant bodies and key representors with a view to resolving the issues in dispute before the hearings commence. Statements of Common Ground can be useful in narrowing the issues in dispute, and should be submitted well before the hearings commence.
6.2 Can the Council indicate whether any meetings are being held/to be held with relevant parties before the hearings commence?
Council's Response
6.3 The Council is having ongoing discussions with representors with the aim of resolving issues in dispute prior to the commencement of the hearings. In this regard, it is intended that a Statement of Common Ground will be prepared with the following organisations by the deadline for submission of further statements:
Northumbria Water Limited;
Sport England;
English Heritage:
The Home Builders Federation on the assumptions contained within the Local Plan CIL Viability Study (Doc refs R10 and R12)
6.4 The Council is also intending to prepare a Statement of Common Ground for each of the Strategic Housing Allocations.
6.5 The Council is having ongoing discussions with Darlington Borough Council regarding the representations made at the Pre Submission Draft Stage. A summary of the Main Issues raised by Darlington Borough Council is available within the Pre-Submission Draft Consultation Feedback Report(Doc Ref C1).
6.6 Once finalised, these documents will be forwarded to the Inspector, via the Programme Officer, and published on the Council’s website.
8 Inspector's Initial Questions Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Plan 7
Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Plan
7.1 The Inspector understands that the Council has already made some minor changes to the Pre-Submission version of the CDP, which have been incorporated into the Submission version; these seem to cover factual updates, clarifications and correction of errors.
7.2 Does the Council envisage making any further changes to the submitted Plan, and would such changes require public consultation and further sustainability appraisal?
Council's Response
7.3 The Council is not promoting any further changes at this stage, however if circumstances change, the Inspector (together with the public) will be informed at the earliest opportunity. Wherever necessary changes would be subject to sustainability appraisal and appropriate public consultation.
Inspector's Initial Questions 9 8 Main Modifications
Main Modifications
8.1 The 2004 Act (as amended) distinguishes between “Main Modifications” and “Additional Modifications”. “Main Modifications” are changes needed to ensure the plan is sound and can be adopted, and are limited to rectifying issues of legal compliance and/or soundness(iv). “Additional Modifications” are minor changes which do not materially affect the policies in the plan, when taken together with the “Main Modifications”. The Council can make “Additional Modifications” at any time before adoption; these are not formally considered at the examination or recommended by the Inspector. However, the Inspector cannot consider or recommend “Main Modifications” unless specifically requested to do so by the local planning authority(v). Without this request, his report will be confined to identifying any soundness or legal compliance failures and possibly recommending non-adoption of the plan.
8.2 The Council will therefore need to advise the Inspector whether they wish him to consider and recommend modifications under Section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act.
Council's Response
8.3 As agreed at Full Council on the 2nd April 2014 and using the powers delegated to the Director of Regeneration and Economic Development, the Council grant authority to the Inspector appointed to hold the Examination in Public to make modifications to the County Durham Plan Submission Document under Section 20 (7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended.
iv Revised s20(7B) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 v Revised s70(7C) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
10 Inspector's Initial Questions Legal and Procedural Requirements 9
Legal and Procedural Requirements
9.1 Can the Council confirm whether the preparation of the Local Plan has had regard to and been prepared in compliance with the Local Development Scheme, Statement of Community Involvement, Sustainable Community Strategy, Local Planning Regulations and national planning policy? Has the Local Plan been subject to Sustainability Appraisal, including a final report on the submitted plan? Has the Council undertaken a Self-Assessment of Legal Compliance and Soundness of the Local Plan, including the NPPF? Can the Council confirm that the submitted plan is both legally compliant and sound, and that there are no failings in the legal/procedural requirements or shortcomings in terms of soundness?
Council's Response
9.2 The Council can confirm that the Local Plan was prepared in compliance with the Local Development Scheme and the Statement of Community Involvement.
9.3 The County Durham Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) reflects the priorities of communities across County Durham to 2030, and provides a strategic context for the development of the County Durham Plan. The County Durham Plan builds on the SCS to demonstrate how economic, social and environmental priorities will be delivered.
9.4 More detail on compliance with all three of these documents is provided here: SCI, LDS and SCS Compliance Report (Doc Ref K24)
9.5 The Council can confirm that the Local Plan has been prepared in full compliance with the Local Planning Regulations and all relevant national policy. More detail is provided here: County Durham Plan Legal Compliance (Doc Ref 31)
9.6 At each stage of its preparation, the Local Plan was subject to a full Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The results of this exercise were used to inform policy development and allocation selection. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Local Plan to incorporate SA recommendations. Where the recommendations have not been incorporated an explanation is provided. The final report on the submitted plan can be found here: Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report (K28)
9.7 The Council undertook a self-assessment of the soundness of the Local Plan, including with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework using the latest template provided by the Planning Advisory Service. The full document can be found here: County Durham Plan Submission Draft Soundness in Relation to the NPPF (K30)
9.8 In summary the Council can confirm that the submitted plan is both legally compliant and sound, and that there are no failings in the legal or procedural requirements or shortcomings in terms of soundness.
Inspector's Initial Questions 11 10 Duty to Co-operate
Duty to Co-operate
10.1 The Inspector notes the submitted Statement on the Duty to Co-operate(vi).
10.2 Can the Council confirm that, in its view, it has fully met the legal requirements in terms of maximising the effectiveness of the plan-making process and co-operating and engaging with the relevant bodies on an on-going basis with regard to strategic matters, including cross-boundary issues?
Council's Response
10.3 The Council can confirm that, in its view, it has fully met the legal, policy and practice requirements of the duty to cooperate in terms of maximising the effectiveness of the plan making process and cooperating and engaging with the relevant bodies on an ongoing basis with regard to strategic matters, including cross boundary issues.
10.4 The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (Doc Ref K56), submitted alongside the County Durham Plan, sets out how the duty to cooperate has been fulfilled, by setting out a record of engagement over the stages of the plan making process and the outcomes of cooperation.
vi Document K56
12 Inspector's Initial Questions Sustainability Appraisal 11
Sustainability Appraisal
11.1 The Inspector notes the various documents on sustainability appraisal included with the submission documents(vii).
11.2 Can the Council confirm that the Sustainability Appraisal reports fully appraise all the various alternative options considered and clearly indicate why the preferred option was chosen, including any necessary mitigation measures and the reasons for rejecting other reasonable alternatives, and whether there are any outstanding issues related to the sustainability appraisal work?
Council's Response
11.3 The Council can confirm that the SA of the County Durham Plan is fully-compliant with the requirements of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC)(viii) and has been undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) as well as relevant guidance(ix)As such, the Council can also confirm the SA has comprehensively assessed all reasonable alternatives as well as helped to develop other reasonable options, which has informed the development of the Preferred Options and final Submission draft. A summary of the key options appraised and generated by SA are as follows:
Issues and Options: All options presented within the document were appraised. SA also appraised and recommended the following options, which were considered to be reasonable alternatives and/ or baseline scenarios;
Between Plan Developmental Stages (Towards Preferred Options);
Appraisal of all potential Strategic Housing Sites and any reasonable alternatives alongside appraisal of all potential housing sites of 1.5ha and above (approximately 400 sites in total), which informed the housing land allocations;
Appraisal of all reasonable alternative employment sites presented in the Strategic Employment Sites Selection Paper; and
Appraisal of each economic and housing growth scenario modelled.
Preferred Options:
Appraisal of all potential housing sites of 0.4ha and above (approximately 600 sites in total), which informed the housing lands allocations.
11.4 The Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report (Doc Ref K28) contains detailed summaries of the key findings for, and conclusions on, all policy options and potential site allocations considered at each stage. Each Sustainability Appraisal summary comprises of: a synopsis concluding predicted social, economic, and environmental effects with commentary on their likelihood, magnitude, geographic scale, and permanence; detailed mitigation recommendations for those effects considered likely to have adverse impacts and recommendations regarding how positive effects can
vii Documents K28, K39, K48, K49 & V2 viii As demonstrated on p. 4-5 of document K28. ix ODPM (2005), ‘A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ and ODPM (2005), ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’.
Inspector's Initial Questions 13 11 Sustainability Appraisal
be enhanced; commentary on how proposals align with Sustainability Appraisal recommendations made during previous stages of assessment; proposed changes to policy or allocation and justification; any outstanding issues to be addressed by other policy areas; and finally spatial policy response to the Sustainability Appraisal findings. The combination of noting how each policy aligned to the previous stage of assessment and concluding commentary from spatial policy demonstrates how the SA summaries provide an outline of the reasons for selecting/ rejecting options considered. Moreover the Report documents what broad changes were made at the previous stage of consultation to specific policies and why (e.g. rejection of potential land allocations previously considered reasonable and subject to SA), which provided an introductory context to further appraisal and the next stage of policy development. For example, the Sustainability Ranking of Potential Housing Sites (Doc Ref K40) provides site-specific commentary and mitigation for the housing land allocations as presented in the Submission Draft Plan (Doc Ref K7), along with the reasons why particular sites where either retained or discounted following the Preferred Options. The Council is therefore confident that K28 documents the ‘story’ of policy development for the County Durham Plan.
11.5 The Council is content that there are no outstanding issues, including those issues previously raised by statutory consultees, which is a result of the transparent, rigorous, and impartial Sustainability Appraisal process. Sustainability Appraisal recommendations have either been accepted and resulted in policy amendments / recognition of need for mitigation during the implementation process or rejected with reasoned justification provided. The Pre-Submission Draft Plan Sustainability Appraisal Report (Doc Ref K28) provides specific evidence of this for the Preferred Options (Table 124) and Pre-Submission draft (Section 10). To be fully-transparent about how Sustainability Appraisal influenced the County Durham Plan and present a logical continuous ‘story’ of policy development, the non-technical summary document (Doc Ref K48) summarises the key SA recommendations for each policy from Issues and Options, Preferred Options and the Pre-Submission stage along with associated responses and concluding commentary.
14 Inspector's Initial Questions Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations 12
Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations
12.1 The Inspector notes the various documents submitted under the Habitat Regulations, including Habitat Regulations Assessment of the Plan(x).
12.2 Can the Council confirm whether there are any outstanding issues relating to the Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations and other reports, and whether Natural England and other relevant bodies are satisfied with the approach, including the impact of development proposals in the Local Plan on internationally protected sites (e.g. SPA/SACs)?
Council's Response
12.3 A full and comprehensive HRA was undertaken. We believe there are no outstanding issues under the Habitat Regulations. Evidence within the Duty to Cooperate (Doc Ref: K56 - EA letter dated 8th April 2014) demonstrates that Natural England are satisfied with the approach and that the documents provided by the Council "provides further confidence that the measures required by Local Plan Policy 42 (and it's supporting text) will mitigate the Plan's adverse impacts upon the coastal Natura 2000 sites".
12.4 Natural England have suggested in their letter of 8th April 2014 that a 6km recreational impact zone would be acceptable as opposed to an 8km buffer as currently set out within Policy 42. The Council has not yet reached a view on this letter, as this approach has yet to be discussed with other relevant bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
12.5 All other prior issues raised by Natural England and the RSPB have been addressed within the Addendum to the HRA(Doc Ref: K33). In addition to the re-consideration of the 8km recreational impact zone, this document:
Re-iterates evidence that supports the suitability of alternative greenspace provision/enhancement as a mitigation measure;
Provides the rationale for the identification of potentially suitable green space sites in terms of their recreational capacity;
Presents the Heritage Coast Action Plan and associated costs of measures; and
Fully outlines the mitigation strategy
12.6 In line with advice from Natural England and comments received from the RSPB the mitigation strategy for relevant development in the buffer zone is no longer applied to the provision of alternative green space as a mitigation measure over contribution to specific mitigation targets detailed in the Durham Heritage Coast Action Plan (Doc Ref N7) (a sub-set of the Durham Heritage Coast Management Plan (Doc Ref N6)). Instead, the two strands of mitigation are not mutually exclusive and are tailored to fit the nature of individual developments on a case by case basis.
12.7 Natural England responded to the HRA Addendum by indicating that despite the absence of costings for greenspace creation/enhancement there is sufficient detail available to provide a level of certainty at the plan stage that measures will be available to avoid adverse effects on the protected coast. Indicative costs for the identified sites have since been derived by the Council to help aid pre-application discussions.
x Document K29, K33, K50, K51 & K52
Inspector's Initial Questions 15 12 Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations
12.8 Please note that the mitigation strategy fully outlined within the HRA Addendum and Natural Environment SPD (European Protected Sites, Habitat Regulations Assessment and Mitigation Measures chapter) is successfully being applied to developments within the buffer zone of the coast that contribute individually and cumulatively to the adverse effects of recreational pressure. All necessary mechanisms to secure and ring fence developer contributions towards HRA mitigation are in place, the majority of sites proposed for mitigation are owned by the Council and developers have not raised objections to the requirement. An assumption has been made within the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study (Doc Ref R10) to capture this mitigation aspect. Examples of where mitigation measures have been successfully negotiated are demonstrated in the table below:
Table 1
Application Development Detailed description of proposals Number
PL/5/2013/0106 (xi) Residential development of Approximately 28ha being developed, with an additional up to 900 no. dwellings & 22ha formally and informally landscaped to provide local retail centre (outline recreation and open space. Existing open application) space/agricultural fields will be enhanced to provide for and attract more visitors. Enhancements to include: New Footpaths and new recreational land to the edge of Easington Village to the north; New area of native woodland to the north, and a shelter belt; extensive area of species-rich grassland incorporating ponds and wetlands. Management and maintenance plan to ensure measures are in place in perpetuity. All to be provided in advance of people taking up residence on the site. Details to be secured under reserved matters.
DM/14/01195/OUT Residential development of Alternative greenspace to be provided both onsite, and (xii) 390 dwellings (Outline, all within the neighbouring little used former medieval village matters reserved except of Yoden (Owned by the Town Council) as shown in the access), North east Insutrial illustrative masterplan and landscape scheme. Proposed Estate, Stephenson Road, to upgrade existing footpaths, and provide new footpaths Peterlee to create circular walks, improved/enhance existing openspace, and the development of an appropriate land stewardship management plan – to be submitted and agreed prior to any works starting on site. The detail to be secured under reserved matters.
DM/14/00613/FPA Erection of 57 no. dwellings Have agreed a financial contribution towards the Heritage (xiii) with associated Coast Management Plan (£10,000) to be secured via S106 infrastructure, former agreement. registry office & Peterlee Area Education Office, York Road, Peterlee
CE/13/01085/OUT Outline Residential Applicant prepared to offer a financial contribution towards (xiv) development (80 houses) the enhancement and upgrade of the existing recreational land north of Windsor Drive, area immediately to the south of the site. Along with South Hetton providing a pedestrian link to the existing public right of way network which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. To be secured via S106 agreement. Additional contributions will be made for the general enhancement
xi http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage xii http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage xiii http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage xiv http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
16 Inspector's Initial Questions Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations 12
Application Development Detailed description of proposals Number
of recreational facilities and will be secured via a separate contribution.
CE/13/01568/OUT Residential development In support of this site a separate application for improved (xv) comprising 161 dwellings GI has been submitted (CE/13/01569/FPA). This including details of access concentrates on the existing openspace/agricultural fields (outline/resubmission) land to the south of the site where it is proposed to carry out to the south of Wellfield enhancements designed to attract more visitors by Road, Wingate providing a natural environment for recreational use. Proposals include – hedgebank creation, improved footpaths and landscape access enhancements. A series of new footpaths to provide circular walking routes within the site and provide links to the Hart to Haswell Walkway, as well as a commitment to provide a maintenance and management plan in order to ensure GI measures are in place in perpetuity.
12.9 With regard to other relevant bodies the Council has offered to meet with the RSPB should they have any outstanding issues with the approach or the wording of Policy 42 prior to the examination. It should be noted that no developers made representations against this policy.
xv http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
Inspector's Initial Questions 17 13 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
13.1 The Inspector notes that a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Level 1 & 2) has been undertaken(xvi), but understands that further work is likely to be undertaken, including a Flood Risk Sequential Test.
13.2 Can the Council confirm whether there are any outstanding issues relating to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and water management, and that the approach has been agreed with the Environment Agency? What is the timescale of any further work to be undertaken on flood risk issues?
Council's Response
13.3 We believe there are no outstanding issues relating to the SFRA and water management. The level 1 and 2 SFRA reports (Doc Refs: N44 and N45) identified areas of recorded flooding within the County and this information was used as part of the site selection process. As a result all of the areas allocated for housing development in the Plan are outside Flood Zones 2 and 3.
13.4 The Environment Agency (EA - Consultee ID: 806620) have confirmed, in their representations to the consultation, that they consider that the Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan is legally and procedurally compliant and sound. Where there have been localised or surface water flooding issues identified on specific allocations these have been incorporated into the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Doc Ref: H2). Where flooding issues have been identified on employment allocations for example Merchant Park (formerly Amazon Park) then it has been subject to the sequential and exceptions test and is now under construction.
13.5 With regards to wider water management issues, a number of evidence bases have been established with key organisations to ensure that the Council have a comprehensive understanding of the water related issues across the County. As well as the SFRA reports the evidence base includes the Water Cycle Study (Doc Ref: N47) and the Surface Water Management Plan (Doc Ref: N46). Where specific areas (for example Durham City) have been identified as having an issue with Sewage Treatment Work capacity, a statement of Common Ground is being drawn up between Northumbria Water Ltd, the Environment Agency and the Council, which demonstrates that the proposed development can be accommodated. This document has also been sent to the developers for comment and no concerns were raised at this stage. This Statement of Common Ground will be available by the deadline for submission of further statements.
13.6 Although NWL have used Policy 46 (Water Management) as an example of best practice in the region they did make representation at the consultation stage to highlight that standards are evolving and that the emerging Draft Guidance for the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage go a step further than this Policy, in suggesting that: for previously developed sites, the peak runoff rate from the development to any drain, sewer or surface water body for the 1 in 1 year rainfall event and the 1 in 100 year rainfall event must be as close as reasonably practicable to the greenfield runoff rate from the site for the same rainfall event, but must not exceed the rate of discharge for the pre-development scenario for that event. Their representation advocates this stricter approach and requests the Council consider this greater reduction in surface water run-off within at least the County's 'critical drainage areas' (Comment ID 3551). The Council believes that Policy 46 already looks to ensure significant improvements in the surface water run-off rates however it is acknowledged that these will need to be amended if the emerging guidance is adopted. At this stage however it is not clear when or if this is likely to come forward, as Defra have further delayed any announcements on adoption of the Standards. The Council feel that an amendment of this significance would therefore be premature if not required to meet national standards.
xvi Document N44 & N45
18 Inspector's Initial Questions Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 13
13.7 There is ongoing work around the technical delivery of the proposed solutions across the County as well as a Sustainable Drainage Study, for the Durham City area, which will help look at overall capacity and partnership lead improvements to the existing network.
Inspector's Initial Questions 19 14 List of "saved" Local Plan Policies Superseded by the Submitted Plan
List of “saved” Local Plan Policies Superseded by the Submitted Plan
14.1 The Inspector understands that the submitted CDP is intended to replace the policies in previously adopted Local Plans. The Local Planning Regulations (xvii) state that, where a local plan contains a policy that is intended to supersede another policy in the adopted development plan, it must state that fact and identify the superseded policy.
14.2 Can the Council confirm that it is intended that this new Local Plan will replace and supersede all the “saved” policies in the Chester–Le-Street Local Plan, Derwentside Local Plan, City of Durham Local Plan, Easington Local Plan, Sedgefield Local Plan, Wear Valley Local Plan, County Durham Minerals Local Plan & County Durham Waste Local Plan?
Council's Response
14.3 The Council can confirm that it intends that the County Durham Plan will replace and supersede all of the "saved" policies contained within the following Local Plans:
Chester -le- Street Local Plan
Derwentside Local Plan
City of Durham Local Plan
Easington Local Plan
Sedgefield local Plan
Wear Valley District Local Plan
Teesdale Local Plan
14.4 In respect of the following development plans it is intended that the County Durham Plan will only partially supersede them and therefore some policies within them will continue to be "saved" until such a time that daughter documents are prepared:
County Durham Minerals Local Plan
County Durham Waste Local Plan.
14.5 A full schedule of the intended status of all existing Local Plan policies post adoption of the County Durham Plan and the new policies that will replace them where relevant is set out in Appendix F (pages 294 - 339) of the County Durham Plan Submission Draft Tracked Changes (April 2014) (Doc Ref K7).
xvii Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 [SI. 2012/767] (Reg. 8(5))
20 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
Topic/Background Papers
15.1 The Inspector notes that a number of key evidence documents were produced to explain and provide the background to key elements of the Local Plan.
15.2 Can the Council confirm whether it intends to prepare any further Background/Topic Papers for the examination and indicate a timescale for publication?
Council's Response
15.3 It is not proposed to prepare any further Background / Topic papers for the Examination at this stage unless advised it would be beneficial.
15.4 Background/Topic Papers should be produced well before the hearings commence, preferably by mid-August 2014, but should be authorised by the Inspector before preparation. They should summarise and draw on material already in the evidence base, rather than introducing new evidence. It would also be helpful to have a copy of the Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report and any recent appeal decisions relating to housing land availability.
Council's Response
15.5 The Council's Annual Monitoring Reports are available on the website and paper copies are included in the evidence library.
Annual Monitoring Report 2012 - 13 (Doc Ref K17)
Annual Monitoring Report 2011 - 12 (Doc Ref K18)
Annual Monitoring Report 2010 - 11 (Doc Ref K19)
Annual Monitoring Report 2009 - 10 (Doc Ref K20)
Annual Monitoring Report 2008 - 09 (Doc Ref K21)
15.6 The Council can confirm that there have been no recent planning appeal decisions relating to housing land availability.
15.7 At this early stage, the Inspector considers it would be helpful if the Council could produce a brief background paper covering the following matters:
Duty to Cooperate
15.8 Duty to Co-operate: updated position statement addressing discussions, agreements and engagement with neighbouring local planning authorities (including the Tyne and Wear authorities, those in the Tees Valley, and authorities in North Yorkshire and Cumbria) about cross-boundary issues, including strategic housing provision and other strategic development/infrastructure requirements;
Council's Response
15.9 The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance(Doc Ref K56)was prepared to accompany the submission of the County Durham Plan in order to demonstrate how the Duty has been fulfilled. As set out within the statement, the Duty has been met through:
Undertaking regular meetings and the introduction of formalised working arrangements;
Inspector's Initial Questions 21 15 Topic / Background Papers
A collaborative approach towards policy development; and
The development of joint evidence base.
15.10 The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance(Doc Ref K56) provides evidence that the duty has been fulfilled in the form of tables setting out a record of engagement over the stages of the plan making process and the outcomes of cooperation.
15.11 This response provides:
a position statement on the main discussions, agreements and engagement with neighbouring local planning authorities (by sub region).
an update to the Duty to Cooperate Statement setting out further elements for consideration which have arisen since submission of the County Durham Plan.
Position statement on the main discussions, agreements and engagement with neighbouring local planning authorities (by sub region).
15.12 This section provides a summary of the main discussions and agreements with neighbouring local authorities. This information is summarised from the The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (Doc Ref K56). A more detailed record of dates of discussions, type of engagement, issues discussed along with actions and outcomes is contained within this document.
15.13 In response to the question, this summary excludes:
A list of meetings or other formalised arrangements established in order to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate;
Discussions, agreements and engagement with Prescribed Bodies as part of the duty to cooperate; or
Discussions, agreements and engagement with regional tier bodies including the North East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Combined Authority.
15.14 Full details of these matters are available in the Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (Doc Ref K56).
Tyne and Wear
Safeguarding of Transport Infrastructure: Gateshead, South Tyneside, Durham and Sunderland are supportive of the reopening of the Leamside Line. On this basis, the Leamside Line route is safeguarded within the County Durham Plan.
Strategic approach to green belt: Defining additional Green Belt in North West Durham was seen as being beneficial in reducing pressure for housing development close to inner Newcastle / Gateshead. The North West Durham Green Belt has been included in the County Durham Plan.
22 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
Impact upon transport infrastructure: Concerns have been expressed by Gateshead Council about the potential impact that additional traffic would have on congestion at the A1. The Highways Agency consultation response considered development objectives within the County Durham Plan and the impact upon the A1. The Highways Agency raised no objections to the Plan, as set out in the Pre-Submission Draft Consultation Feedback Report(Doc Ref C1).
Confirmation of Housing Market Areas: There has been discussions relating to defining housing market areas within the South of Tyne group of Local Authorities. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 Update(Doc Ref H7) determined that although there are links between County Durham and neighbouring authorities, County Durham is a self-contained housing market area.
Understanding assumptions in relation to development of housing requirement: Durham County Council met with Tyne Wear Authorities to discuss methodologies and assumptions for the development of housing related evidence base. This ensured alignment of population and housing evidence base in developing the objectively assessed need for housing.
Housing Sites: Sunderland City Council expressed concern in relation to the Preferred Options stage allocation at Picktree Lane, on the basis that the development would change the nature of the area and further add to the highways problems along Picktree Lane. In part due to the concerns raised by Sunderland City Council, Picktree Lane was not taken forward as an allocation to the Pre Submission Draft Version of the Plan(Doc Ref K6).
Minerals and Waste: The Council has worked extensively with Councils in Tyne and Wear on both minerals and waste matters. This has included work on low level radioactive waste and commercial and industrial waste and the preparation of a Joint Local Aggregate Assessment for County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear (April 2013). In relation to Gateshead the Council have discussed and shared information on the approach to brick clay provision in relation to the Union Brickworks at Birtley.
Tees Valley
The relationship between the County Durham Plan housing allocations and the Tees Valley authorities regeneration objectives: The Tees Valley Authorities expressed concern in relation to the County Durham Plan housing requirement in respect of the potential impact upon Tees Valley local authorities regeneration objectives including concern that alternative sites might be competing for the same market. This matter was resolved through defining the housing market area as part of the development of the County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 Update(Doc Ref H7). Durham County Council worked to engage with the Tees Valley Authorities as the housing requirement was developed.
The impact of County Durham Plan allocations on strategic infrastructure: Tees Valley Authorities sought confirmation that the allocations in the southern end of County Durham would not limit capacity on strategic infrastructure, specifically junction capacity on the A19 and A1M. This has been resolved through discussions with the Highways Agency who have undertaken an assessment of junction capacity in light of the County Durham Plan growth aspirations. The Highways Agency raised no objections to the Plan, as set out in the Pre-Submission Draft Consultation Feedback Report(Doc Ref C1).
Inspector's Initial Questions 23 15 Topic / Background Papers
Understanding assumptions in relation to development of housing requirement: Durham County Council met with Tees Valley Authorities to discuss methodologies and assumptions for the development of housing related evidence base. This ensured alignment of population and housing evidence base in developing the County Durham Plan.
The approach to assessment of wind turbine development: Concern was expressed that the Tees Valley Plain Area of Least Constraint, as designated in the North East Regional Spatial Strategy, should be reviewed following the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategy. This was reviewed as part of the plan making process, with the Policy in the plan being developed as a criteria based approach, as opposed to making use of an area of least constraint.
North Yorkshire
Minerals and Waste: North Yorkshire County Council confirmed that they have no specific comments to make on the Pre Submission Draft and generally support the Plan. In addition, the Council has engaged extensively with North Yorkshire County Council on both minerals and waste in response to numerous consultations including upon North Yorkshire’s Local Aggregate Assessment and the emerging Joint North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Cumbria
Minerals and Waste: Cumbria County Council consider the plan sound in respect of Minerals and Waste. No other issues have required discussions.
Northumberland
The approach to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB): The revocation of the North East Regional Spatial Strategy means that the County Durham Plan was required to provide a policy context for the AONB. A policy has been included in the County Durham Plan in this regard.
Strategic approach to Green Belt: Concerns were expressed that the proposed North West Durham Green Belt does not joint up with Northumberland’s green belt. The matter was resolved by ensuring the proposed North West Durham Green Belt ties in to Northumberland’s existing boundary.
Minerals and Waste: The Council has worked extensively with Northumberland County Council on both minerals and waste matters. This has included work on low level radioactive waste and commercial and industrial waste and the preparation of a Joint Local Aggregate Assessment for County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear (April 2013).
An update to the Duty to Cooperate Statement setting out further elements for consideration which have arisen since submission of the County Durham Plan on the 25th April 2014.
15.15 Whilst the Council is satisfied that the Duty to Cooperate was fulfilled at the point of the submission of the County Durham Plan, it is recognised that in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 181, cooperation should be a continuous process of engagement. Following submission on the 25th April 2014, the Council can provide an update upon the following areas of engagement with neighbouring local authorities and Prescribed Bodies:
24 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
ONS 2012
15.16 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published the 2012 based population projections on the 29th May 2014. Following the publication of ONS 2012 Durham County Council have met with Gateshead Council, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside Council, Darlington Borough Council and Sunderland City Council to discuss the ONS 2012 based population projections.
Highways Agency: Interaction between increased traffic flows on the A1(M) through Darlington in consideration of the combined effects of Durham and Darlington development.
15.17 On the 30th May 2014, Halcrow, in the role of spatial planning consultant to the Highways Agency, produced a Technical Note to assess the interactions of the Darlington and Durham Spatial Aspirations on the A1(M) corridor. It was concluded that the operation of Junctions 57 and 58 is not compromised by the combined spatial aspirations of the Durham Plan and Darlington Plan. The Highways Agency correspondence of the 30th May 2014 is attached to this document for convenience.
The North East Growth Deal
15.18 The North East Growth Deal was announced on the 7th July 2014. The document sets out the funding allocation in regards to the local growth fund, states the amount of pre-committed funding and details a number of key commitments for the North East Local Enterprise Partnership and the Government.
15.19 The North East Local Enterprise Partnership has secured £289.3m from the Local Growth Fund:
£47.9m of new funding confirmed for 2015/16 and £69.6 for 2016/17 to 2021 totalling £110.7m over the 6 years for 22 projects across the Transport, Skills, Innovation and Economic Assets & Infrastructure programmes
A provisional award of a further £78.7m of funding for transport projects starting in 2016 and beyond; and
£ 93.1m of pre-committed funding for projects including £31.1m for the Local Majors programme; 38.6m of other transport related pre-committed transport funding; and £23.4m for the Lets Grow Campaign awarded through RGF in April 2014.
15.20 In addition, not included in the funding above the Government have also committed to the following:
£0.5m for Growth Hub development;
Up to £1.7m for the Mental Health and Employment Project;
Establishing a North East Schools Challenge; and
Establishing a North East Investment and Development Fund which will be discussed with Government and partners over the coming weeks as they are taken forward.
15.21 The Growth Deal supports many projects in County Durham and a number of area wide projects which have delivery elements in the County. The Local Growth Fund money will support the provision for a new business park to be built adjacent to the Hitachi site in Newton Aycliffe, the
Inspector's Initial Questions 25 15 Topic / Background Papers
expansion of NETPark near Sedgefield, the improvement of East Durham College at Houghal (Durham City); investments and projects located within the rural areas of County Durham to support businesses and several transport improvements.
Table 2
New LGF Award
Programme Project Title Location Total cost Total LGF £m £m
Skills Rural Skills Development, East Durham College Durham 11.11 10.00
Innovation NetPark Infrastructure Phase 3 Durham 8.00 6.80
Innovation CPI: Centre for Innovation in Formulation Durham 14.40 7.40
Economic Assets Infrastructure for Merchant Park, Newton Durham 10.00 10.00 and Infrastructure Aycliffe
Economic Assets North East Rural Growth Network Northumberland, 22.50 6.00 and Infrastructure Durham & Gateshead
Transport Local Sustainable Transport Fund Package Area wide 7.52 7.52 • Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) – improvements to UTMC systems in Tyne & Wear and Durham; £2.781m • Improving Key Transport Gateways (including Durham Station); £450k • Cycle schemes; £4.189m • The extension of the Green Light to Work (scooters) scheme – extending the scehme to the 7 la area - £100k
POST 15/16 PROVISIONAL AWARD
Transport Durham City western relief road Durham 37.02 6.3
Transport A1/A19 junctions improvement programme Area wide 20.4 19 A185 Access Improvements to Southern Portal of Tyne Tunnel (South Tyneside); A19/A189 Seaham/Murton Interchange Improvement (Durham) - £4.2m LGF A1/A690 Junction Improvement (Durham); £1.5m LGF Boldon Business Park Access Improvements (South Tyneside); A187/A193 River Tyne North Bank Access Improvements( North Tyneside)
PRE-COMMITTED FUNDING
Transport Horden Rail Station Durham 7.1 3.3
Business Support April 2014 announcement of Lets Grow Area wide 23.4 and Access to Campaign extension (NE LEP proportion of finance wider £30m programme which includes Tees Valley)
Development Strategy
15.22 Development Strategy: the basis and justification for the proposed development strategy and strategic allocations, including other alternative strategies and options considered;
26 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
Council's Response
Background
15.23 The Issues and Options Paper published in June 2010 (Doc Ref K2) gave consultees a choice between two options for the development strategy of County Durham shown below. However the question also gave respondents the opportunity to answer by identifying a combination of the two options.
Option A which emphasised increased economic development and primarily directed new jobs, housing, retailing etc, to those locations that had demonstrated strong economic performance, with the principal focus on Durham City, as the most effective way to increase the prosperity and economic performance of the County as a whole.
Option B which targeted the most deprived areas of County Durham and more widely distributing development across the County to try and increase the quality of life for residents and secure their regeneration.
15.24 The proposed development strategy identified in the subsequent Preferred Options (Doc Ref K5)and carried through to the Submission Plan document (Doc Ref K6) is a combination of Option A and Option B. The development strategy does more closely resemble Option A as it reflects the key role of Durham City and other Main Towns as drivers of growth but does also incorporate important elements of Option B recognising the important contribution other areas of the County can make with an increased emphasis on settlements outside of the Main Towns including the Smaller Towns and Larger Villages. The preferred development strategy is reflected in the spatial approach set out in Policy 2 (Spatial Approach) and the scale and distribution of development in Policies 3 (Quantity of New Development) and 4 (Distribution of Development).
15.25 At an early stage of the production of the County Durham Plan, a sustainability appraisal was carried out on Option A and B. The commentary from the sustainability appraisal was set out within the County Durham Plan Policy Directions (Doc Ref K4) and recommended a combination of the two approaches should be taken forward. A 'do nothing' or 'no change' approach was not considered to be reasonable alternatives and therefore were not considered by the sustainability appraisal.
Economic Justification
15.26 Despite sustained efforts to attract inward investment and to support the creation of new jobs and businesses, the gap in economic performance between County Durham and the regional and national economies has widened during the last decade.
15.27 County Durham’s pre-recession employment rate had been rising and was very close to the national average. The overall employment rate was 72.1% in June 2007 compared to the national rate of 72.5%. The recession has resulted in a steady and sustained fall in the employment rate and the rate is now below the Tyne and Wear and North East averages as well as that for the UK. The County suffered particularly from the large number of low-skilled manufacturing jobs that were lost in this period giving an average employment rate for 2013 of 66.1% compared to a national rate of 71.5%. To close this employment rate gap and to improve the County's economic performance the Plan identifies the achievement of a 73% employment rate as a key objective and uses it in the calculation of its economic and housing requirements. By increasing the employment rate we will then help to address other key measures of economic performance such as GVA, household
Inspector's Initial Questions 27 15 Topic / Background Papers
disposable income, the number of businesses in the County and the number of our areas in the top 20% of the Index of Deprivation's employment domain. This approach has also been adopted by the Council and its partners in the County Durham Economic Partnership.
15.28 Historically the approach to improving economic performance in County Durham reflected in previous structure plans was to focus development including housing, industrial and commercial development to the most deprived areas of the County to provide a catalyst for regeneration following industrial decline. This focus was supported by significant public sector investment and interventions such as the previous round of Enterprise Zones. The funding that supported this approach is no longer available and is unlikely to be for some time to come. It is also apparent that in some of those areas that received the investment it has had a limited impact on economic performance.
15.29 In order to achieve the improvement in economic performance the County needs, it is critical therefore that the development strategy reflects an understanding of the market and directs new development to locations that are attractive to the development industry and will be delivered. Similarly if other priorities, such as the provision of affordable housing, are to be delivered then development must be allowed in those areas where there is sufficient land values to fund them. As a result strategic sites and other allocations are concentrated in places with resilient land values and a track record of delivery.
15.30 A Partnership approach has been paramount to the production of a robust and credible evidence base for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA Report, 2013) (Doc Ref H1) where representatives from the development industry including planning consultants, housebuilders, land agents and Council representatives have provided market intelligence. Appendix 3 of the SHLAA report 2013 (Doc Ref H1) sets out the market commentary on individual settlements across the County and categorises them into either: strong, moderate or weak market areas. The development strategy seeks to locate development in the stronger housing market areas which will provide the best for delivery whilst supporting the contribution that the moderate and weak housing market areas can make to the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.
15.31 The development strategy takes advantage of County Durham's positive attributes and locational advantages including its excellent road and rail connections which provide access for goods, services and labour supply in the context of the wider regional and national economy. It also seeks to make the most of the opportunities that exist and capitalise on our strengths such as Durham City, Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe, access to universities and an excellent labour force. Building on and investing in these assets will release the County's potential for growth and link areas of growth with more deprived places in need of regeneration.
15.32 Durham City, located at the heart of County Durham, has performed, in economic terms, relatively well when compared with other parts of the County. This is reflected in the extent of economic activity within the city which contains 20 per cent of the County’s businesses and 33 per cent of its employment. The City offers major opportunities to leverage in private sector investment and support the growth in employment numbers needed, complemented by growth in the County's other economic market areas. Its location close to the main north-south axes of communication through the north east and between the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations makes it ideally located as a commercial centre, with over 1 million people of working age living within 45 minutes drive of the city centre. The Employment Land Review (Doc Ref E1) has also shown that Durham City is an attractive site for business and one of the few locations in the North East that can attract high quality, high growth industries.
15.33 As recognised by the Strategic Economic Plan (Doc Ref V3), Durham City is undeniably an asset on a local, regional and national scale however, it has been prevented from playing a bigger economic role as previous policies have concentrated on the regeneration of the surrounding towns
28 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
and villages. The development strategy seeks to harness the opportunities provided by Durham City to boost economic performance and to identify sites that will be attractive to investors and developers and have the best chance of being delivered.
15.34 It was evident from the Issues and Options (Doc Ref K2) that both Option A and Option B would necessitate a sustainable urban extension as a result of a lack of alternative suitable, achievable SHLAA sites. This remains the case despite several "call for sites" through the SHLAA process. Table 10 of the SHLAA report, 2013 (Doc Ref H1) clearly identifies that against a proposed housing figure of 8,010 for Central Durham delivery area within the Pre-Submission Draft County Durham Plan (Doc Ref K6), there is a shortfall of 3,110 houses on suitable, achievable sites. A reduction in this figure for Central Durham is not a reasonable alternative given the economic potential of Durham City, Durham City being cited at the top of the County's settlement hierarchy as set out in the Settlement Study (Doc Ref R2) and the strong housing market area as demonstrated by the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study (Doc Ref R10) and through the SHLAA Partnership (Doc Ref H1).
15.35 The economic circumstances when the Durham City Green Belt was first designated are very different to those today. Whilst the Green Belt designation was appropriate at the time and the context it was operating in, the development strategy proposed reflects the different economic challenges currently being faced. Whilst the Council believes there are exceptional circumstances to warrant a focussed re-assessment of the Green Belt, it remains committed to protecting the openness and permanence of the remaining Green Belt.
Strategic Sites
Strategic Employment Site
15.36 Durham City currently lacks a defined, modern business quarter, which would be attractive to occupiers, being located in a historic city with excellent transport links to Newcastle, Edinburgh and London. A new business quarter would be a pre-eminent office location and able to attract both national and international occupiers as well as having a positive impact to the vitality of the city centre retail offer. We are therefore proposing the redevelopment of Aykley Heads as a Strategic Employment Site (Policy 7) with up to 70,000sqm of floorspace and up to 6000 gross new jobs which will not only increase the economic potential for the City but will have significant economic benefits for the wider County.
15.37 The Plan identifies a portfolio of employment land across the County but none are defined 'Strategic' in the sense that they have the potential and the offer that Aykley Heads have. In that sense there are considered no reasonable alternatives to Aykley Heads as a truly strategic employment location. The uniqueness of the site is based on a combination of factors, the site is situated in Durham City and within walking distance of the City Centre, its attractive parkland location provides views from the site of Durham's historic core. The site has excellent transport links, located adjacent to Durham Railway Station which lies on the East Coast Mainline. Further to this it has excellent links to the A1(M), A690 and A167 providing fast access to Newcastle International and Durham Tees Valley Airports. The site location within Durham City also allows potential links to Durham University. While other sites at Newton Aycliffe and Drum have a significant role to play in providing employment opportunities within the County, Aykley Heads offers the opportunity to provide Durham City with a business district function.
15.38 A full Green Belt assessment has been undertaken for the Aykley Heads site (Doc Ref R34), and considers each of the development cells proposed by the Masterplan contained withing the draft Aykley Heads Supplementary Planning Document (Doc Ref SPD1) in detail. The assessment (Doc Ref R34) concludes that the deletion of a small area of Green Belt would have a minimal impact on the original aims of Green Belt. It is a very minor incursion into the current Green Belt which would not see a harmful encroachment into the countryside. Its impact on the setting of the City, particularly
Inspector's Initial Questions 29 15 Topic / Background Papers
in relation to the World Heritage Site would also be minimal. An analysis of key views from various vantage points across the city has identified that development would not materially change the character views. A key element of the proposal is the City Park concept which allows for the retention and strengthening of the area’s green infrastructure and improving its accessibility and amenity value to the City’s residents. It is anticipated that when developed as planned the area will make a more positive contribution to the City than it does at present, and that it will both enhance the setting of the city and reinforce its special character.
Durham City Strategic Housing Sites
15.39 In terms of the Strategic Housing Sites within Durham City, it was evident at an early stage of the Plan preparation process that there were insufficient suitable, achievable sites to meet the development strategy. A three stage assessment was undertaken to identify the areas of least impact. The Green Belt Assessment Phase 1 (Scoping Report) (Doc Ref R31) acknowledged that an extension to the City would have to be linked closely to employment but achieved in the most sensitive social and environmental manner. A range of ecological, landscape, historic, open space and hydrological constraints were mapped to identify areas of search. The Green Belt Assessment Phase 2 (Doc Ref R30) then considered these areas of search in greater detail: Sniperley Park; North of Arnison; Whitesmocks; Ramside; Sherburn Grange; Sherburn Road; and Mount Oswald and Merryoaks. The sites that remained after this process were carried forward into the Green Belt Assessment Phase 3 (Doc Ref R29). This document concluded that Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Sherburn Road should be identified as strategic sites and that Merryoaks (Mount Oswald now had a separate planning permission) was now too small to be considered strategic and should be included in the housing allocation process. Due to a number of concerns regarding the site it was determined at this stage that Sherburn Grange was not needed to meet the needs of the City. Public consultation was undertaken at each stage of the assessment process and sustainability appraisal was a pivotal consideration to the determination of the sites selected.
15.40 Through this comprehensive assessment process, the Council believe that the strategic sites will provide the most benefit to the economy and can be developed to the high standards necessary to make them attractive and sustainable places to live in accordance with NPPF.
15.41 Sniperley Park will deliver 2,200 homes within the Plan period and a further 300 homes beyond 2030. The houses will be complemented with associated retail, services and facilities including a primary school to ensure a vibrant and self-sustaining community. The strong landscape structure as set out within the draft Sniperley Park Supplementary Planning Document (Doc Ref SPD2) will ensure that the locally important Sniperley Hall with its walled gardens and parkland will be protected as well as capitalising on the site's natural features and integrating with its surrounding landscape.
15.42 North of Arnison will deliver at least 1,000 homes and a superstore forging strong links with the successful and vibrant Arnison Centre. The A167 and the east Coast Mainline provide strong defensible boundaries to the east and west of the site whilst to the north the draft North of Arnison Supplementary Planning Document (Doc Ref SPD3) identifies a new and enhanced landscape structure tying it into the broader landscape. The site will also include a primary school as well as other social infrastructure necessary to meet its community's needs.
15.43 Sherburn Road is likely to offer a different offer of houses to both Sniperley Park and North of Arnison because of the lower economic value of the site. It does however offer significant regeneration benefits to this part of the City providing a diversification of the existing housing stock. The site affords the opportunity to create a positive gateway into the City whilst accepting that no development shall take place over the 80m contour line in order to protect the character of the surrounding area.
30 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
15.44 An Independent Marketing Report (Doc Ref R14) has been undertaken by a local surveyor to consider the demand for new housing across the City, anticipated sales revenues and delivery rates should the County Durham Plan be found sound. The Report concludes that there is a shortage of housing land across the City which has been persistent for many years resulting in considerable latent demand.
Western and Northern Relief Roads
15.45 As part of the wider road network modelling, Jacobs were asked to consider the road network impacts of the proposed Development Strategy versus a more dispersed scenario. The Durham Local Plan Option Appraisal 2013 - Volume 2 - Results (Doc Ref T27) concluded that in terms of the road network, the dispersed scenario had greater adverse impacts which were not as easily mitigated as the proposed development strategy.
15.46 In order to facilitate the development of the strategic sites at Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and the housing allocation at Merryoaks, the Western Relief Road is shown to be required by the transport modelling (Durham Local Development Framework (LDF) Option Appraisal 2012 Doc Ref T28 and Durham Local Plan Option Appraisal 2013 - Volume 2 - Results Doc Ref T27). The route proposed is the shortest route possible to alleviate the traffic congestion and also to enable the development proposed. The Western Relief Road will provide the capacity within the highway network to enable the delivery of Sniperley Park, North of Arnison and Merryoaks and sites to the west of Durham City.
15.47 The evidence is clear that the Western Relief Road is necessary to make the three sites acceptable in planning terms and that the infrastructure is directly related to the development. It has been agreed through discussions with the site promoters of the sites that a Section 106 Agreement will be entered into which is fair and reasonable across all parties to recover the costs of the road scheme. Statements of Common Ground are currently being drawn up and will be submitted in time for the deadline for submission of further statements. There is a Council commitment to financially support the delivery of the Western Relief Road (Doc Ref R20). Together with the recent Local Growth Deal announcement of £6.3 Million towards the Western Relief in years 2016/17 (xviii) the Council is confident of the deliverability of the Spatial Approach for Durham City.
15.48 The Northern Relief Road has been a longstanding proposal to improve the road network around the City. The infrastructure will provide an alternative crossing of the River Wear and will allow capacity to be taken out off Milburngate Bridge improving traffic flows through and around the City. The Northern Relief Road will also improve links between the north west of the County and the A1(M). The modelling (Doc Ref T27) indicates that only one relief is required by 2021 but that both relief roads will provide the more effective transport mitigation by 2030. Given the need for the Western Relief Road to allow the development of the strategic housing sites the Plan prioritises the Western over the Northern Relief Road. Due to the wider benefits of the Northern Relief Road, it is proposed that this will be funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy plus any other funding sources that may be available.
Executive Housing Allocation
15.49 As well as a focus on Durham City, the identification of land at Lambton Park Estate for 400 executive homes has an important role in helping meet the Council's wider economic growth objectives particularly in terms of attracting and retaining high earners. The need to plan for the provision of ‘executive housing’ was a long recognised issue identified at the County Durham Plan Policy Directions stage (Doc Ref K4) which suggested that housing supply needs to be matched to housing aspirations
xviii https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-growth-deals
Inspector's Initial Questions 31 15 Topic / Background Papers
in order to attract higher skilled workers and entrepreneurs to improve the attractiveness of an area as a place to live and invest in and to drive economic growth. A subsequent "call for sites" was undertaken.
15.50 The Lambton Park Estate site was identified following an intensive site selection process following the initial "call for sites" (Doc Ref R26). The site was identified because of its prestige and unique location coupled with its heritage and community benefits. The Council understand that the 'Trust' promoting the site are currently developing their Heritage Management Plan in discussion with English Heritage. This will be available together with a Statement of Common Ground by the deadline for submission of further statements.
Other Strategic Sites
15.51 In some of the main towns, as identified by the Settlement Study (Doc Ref R2) it was apparent at an early stage of the Plan preparation process that strategic opportunities were not possible where there were insufficient suitable SHLAA sites to meet the desired level of growth. The Policy Directions (Doc Ref K4) suggested that rather than redistribute the required housing to smaller settlements it is preferable to locate the housing in sustainable urban extensions. The towns where strategic sites were proposed were: Bishop Auckland, Newton Aycliffe, Peterlee and Stanley. Consultation was undertaken on these strategic options. Through the process of sustainability appraisal and consultation it later became apparent that the strategic option for Stanley was not deliverable. It also became apparent that there were insufficient suitable, achievable sites to meet the level of identified growth in Crook which therefore required a further strategic site to be identified.
15.52 In order to ensure that development is directed to locations that are attractive to the development industry and help achieve the improvements in economic performance, other strategic sites are proposed at Bishop Auckland, Crook and Newton Aycliffe. The strategic site at Peterlee has since been granted planning permission for housing on the 1st July 2014 subject to the finalisation of a Section 106 (xix)
15.53 Woodhouses Farm in Bishop Auckland is proposed for 600 new homes and retail/service convenience provision providing a sustainable extension to the town. The site is being proposed by Taylor Wimpey and Gladedale/Avant Homes and are fully supportive of the draft Woodhouses Farm Supplementary Planning Document (Doc Ref SPD8). A Statement of Common Ground is currently being drawn up between the site promoters and the Council and this will be available for the submission of further statements.
15.54 High West Road in Crook is proposed for 600 new homes and retail/service convenience provision and will result in a sustainable urban extension to the town. The site is being proposed by Persimmon Homes and are fully supportive of the draft High West Road Supplementary Planning Document (Doc Ref SPD5). A Statement of Common Ground is currently being drawn up between the site promoters and the Council and this will be available for the submission of further statements.
15.55 Low Copelaw in Newton Aycliffe represents a significant opportunity for 950 new homes and a primary school and convenience retail and service provision. This site requires a new junction onto the A167 and a redesign of the existing junction to the north of the site. Traffic management measures will promote sustainable modes of transport creating sustainable access to the town centre and Aycliffe Business Park. A strong landscape framework and green infrastructure will capitalise on the site's natural features and and ensure integration with the surrounding landscape. The Council and the Church Commissioners are joint landowners.
xix http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N55QAHGDGKC00
32 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
Minerals and Waste Development Strategy
15.56 The overarching approach that the Council has taken to minerals and waste is explained in chapter 10 and Appendix C of the Submission Local Plan (Doc Ref K7). The County Durham Plan sets out strategic policies and strategic allocations for minerals and waste (where required). It is proposed that a Minerals and Waste Allocations document will set out specific policies for a number of minerals which are not currently worked at this point in time, specific development management policies and where necessary allocating any non-strategic mineral or waste site required to meet the longer term need.
15.57 The policy approach of the County Plan has been developed through extensive consultation in addition to joint working with neighbouring councils. In particular, the Issues and Options paper published in June 2010 (Doc Ref K2) identified a range of issues and options for minerals and waste. Specific spatial options were posed for key minerals including magnesian limestone, carboniferous limestone, sand and gravel, natural building and roofing stone. In addition the Issues and Options paper discussed brick making raw materials, fireclay, surface mined coal, mineral safeguarding and the criteria for identifying both strategic and non-strategic mineral sites. In relation to waste, the Issues and Options Paper sought comment on the approach that should be taken to providing for the management of future waste arisings, the location of new waste management facilities, the approach to landfill, and the criteria for identifying both strategic and non-strategic waste sites.
15.58 Following this consultation stage, further consultation on the approach to minerals and waste then occurred in December 2010 through four Minerals Technical Consultation Papers (Doc Refs M3, M9, M10, and M17), in May 2011 through a Waste Technical Consultation Paper (Doc Ref M24), in September 2012 through consultation on the Local Plan Preferred Options (Doc Ref K5), and in October 2013 through the Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan (Doc Ref K6). Through successive stages of consultation the approach that has been taken to minerals and waste has evolved, where appropriate taking into account the views of those that had been consulted and the evidence base for minerals and waste, see in particular the consolidated minerals and waste technical paper (Doc Ref M1).
15.59 The County Durham Plan includes only two strategic allocations for minerals working. A strategic site allocation for carboniferous limestone working west of Heights Quarry in Weardale (Policy 61) and a strategic area of search for the extraction of brickmaking raw materials to the south of Todhills brickworks (Policy 62). These allocations are necessary. The allocation to the west of Heights Quarry, will principally assist in helping to meet the future forecast requirement for carboniferous limestone, in this regard a significant shortfall in provision has been identified in Policy 54 of the Submission Local Plan. Similarly, the strategic area of search at Todhills will provide the necessary 25 year stock of permitted reserves for Todhills Brickworks; provide security of supply for the owner of the Brickworks (Wienerberger) and a basis for future investment, thereby helping to guarantee its economic future; ensure the production of bricks and other clay based products for use in County Durham and the North East region; and help safeguard existing employment at the brickworks. In relation to these specific sites, no alternative site specific options were considered, as minerals can only be worked where they naturally occur and no alternative areas of working at or near these sites were proposed by the mineral operators who operate Todhills Brickworks or work Heights Quarry.
15.60 The strategic minerals and waste policies and strategic mineral site allocations within the Plan have been subject to Sustainability Appraisal and screening and where necessary further assessment under the Habitats Regulation Assessment process. This process which has been undertaken independently from the plan making process has resulted in numerous changes to the policies and the supporting text in accordance with the Sustainability Appraisal and the Habitats Regulation Assessment recommendations, see (Doc Ref K28 see pages 832-836) and (Doc Ref K29 see Appendix J).
Inspector's Initial Questions 33 15 Topic / Background Papers
Housing Provision
15.61 Housing provision: justification of the approach, methodology and outcome of the objective assessment of housing requirements, including how the plan has addressed any strategic and/or cross-boundary housing issues; how the plan intends to meet the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the relevant housing market area, including an assessment of the economic viability of affordable housing provision; current 5-year housing land supply; and a response to the other approaches and methodology of making an objective assessment of housing requirements put forward by other representors.
Council's Response
15.62 It is agreed that a brief background paper at this stage which summarises and draws together existing material will be beneficial to the Inspector and other parties participating in the Examination in Public on matters of housing provision. Amongst other documents, this section draws upon the Housing Implementation Strategy (Doc Ref R8)
Approach, Methodology and Outcome of the Objectively Assessed Housing Requirement
15.63 The County Durham Plan aims to build a prosperous and sustainable economy across County Durham. This is the backdrop to the determination of the County's housing requirement.
15.64 The following evidence papers provide the background to the justification of the approach, together these papers comprehensively outline the basis for how the Council has determined its objectively assessed need and housing requirement as set out in the County Durham Plan:
Table 3 Evidence Papers
Document Title Author Date Reference
R3 Integrating Demographic and Economic Edge Analytics for Durham July 2013 Forecasts County Council
R5 Population, Housing and Employment Durham County Council October 2013 Projections
R6 Population, Housing and Employment Durham County Council April 2014 Projections - Summary Paper and Assessment of Alternatives
H7 County Durham Strategic Housing Market Arc4 July 2013 Assessment 2013 Update
15.65 The Council have determined the County's objectively assessed housing requirement by using current evidence from a range of nationally recognised data sources (including Office of National Statistics (ONS) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)) together with consideration of how this data can be applied at the local level across the County Durham housing market area.
15.66 The County Durham Plan uses the industry recognised ‘POPGROUP’ model to produce a housing requirement. The outcomes from the modelling process have been applied consistently to inform all aspects of the planning process including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2013 (Doc Ref H7).
34 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
15.67 The County Durham Plan has been based on the most recent data and evidence available. These include ONS (April 2013) ‘re-calibrated’ mid-year population estimates for the 2002-2010 period, which took account of the 2011 Census and recalculated the components of change (specifically international migration) that drove local population growth between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses. Further, in April 2013, DCLG released its 2011-based Sub-National Household Projections (SNHP) based on the 2011-based interim Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) published by ONS in September 2012.
15.68 The overarching priority of the Council is to improve the economic performance of County Durham. This priority is reflected in the Sustainable Community Strategy (Doc Ref V2) and Regeneration Statement (Doc Ref V1) and is the central theme of the County Durham Plan. To achieve this, it is recognised that a significant step change will be required. In the absence of economic investment, the County will decline in terms of the size of its working age population over the next twenty years. The delivery of economic growth will be dependent upon a level of in-migration to the county of working age residents. On the basis of its existing demography, the County will not be able to achieve significant employment growth.
15.69 For these reasons an above trend scenario has been identified and developed for presentation in the context of the County Durham Plan.
Preferred Scenario
15.70 To accompany the population and household forecasts, the Council has developed six economic growth scenarios which evaluated potential changes to underlying rates of economic activity and associated employment rates. Six scenarios have been presented including a baseline scenario with an employment rate at 66% (scenario 1) along with employment rates at 73% (scenario 2) and 72% (scenario 3). Scenarios 4, 5 and 6 modelled identical employment rates plus a labour force target of 30,000. Each scenario sets out the projected population, migration, new jobs and net new dwellings implied by the employment rate (scenarios 1-3) and job uplift of 30,000 (scenarios 4-6).
15.71 County Durham’s employment rate is currently 66.1%, compared to the North East rate of 66.5% and national rate of 71.5% (2013). The measure captures the proportion of the working age population (residents) in employment. Prior to the Great Recession, County Durham’s employment rate had been rising and was close to the national average at 72% between 2006 and 2008. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that convergence with the national employment rate is a realistic growth ambition in a non-recessionary period. Even with reduced public sector resources, investment to support self employment and support into employment, (North East Local Enterprise Partnership and Combined Authority) to be delivered through the £290mn Local Growth Fund could, coupled with an expansion of the business base and associated supply chains, be expected to deliver this gap.
15.72 The projection work was undertaken in-house in relation to population and the components of population change, and externally, by Edge Analytics, in relation the housing and employment projections. Both aspects of the projections and forecasts used consistent data sets and POPGROUP software to project outcomes. The projection and forecasting work assessed how the different employment rates might affect future population, household and net dwelling growth, as well as net migration and job growth.
15.73 The preferred scenario (see table 4 below) forecasts the impact of a 73% employment rate and a labour force target of 30,000 resident based jobs. The target of 30,000 jobs was developed during previous consultation rounds in the planning process to reflect the need for existing residents of the County, who experience worklessness, to find routes to employment, and, to rebalance the
Inspector's Initial Questions 35 15 Topic / Background Papers
economy, through the attraction of more highly skilled employment opportunities for migrants. Migrant employment refers to the employment of persons not previously resident in the County who move here for work.
15.74 Based on 2001 Census commuting rates the labour force growth target scenario associated with a 73% employment rate for County Durham residents highlights that 23,016 of the 30,000 additional labour force growth target will be located in County Durham. The preferred scenario is as follows:-
Table 4 Preferred Scenario
Preferred Population Population Households Households Av. Per Av. Per Av. Net New Total Labour Scenario Growth Percentage Total Percentage year Net year Per Dwellings New Force Total Migration Dwellings year Jobs Growth jobs target
Employment 57,502 11.2% 30,083 11.8% 2,669 1,651 1,211 31,369 23,018 30,000 rate 73% plus 30,000 jobs
15.75 The Preferred scenario takes into consideration the following factors:
The County must have a challenging target for economic growth to mitigate against further decline;
Levels of net commuting should be taken into consideration when estimating both economic and housing need
15.76 Additional jobs taken by County residents that are outside the County boundary should be seen as a positive aspect i.e. commuting is not seen as constant. Anyone taking up employment in the County – who does not live here – would not affect the growth aspirations set out as the focus is on resident employment levels and an increase in employment participation. For this reason it is forecast that 23,000 of the 30,000 resident based labour force growth target will be located in County Durham.
15.77 The preferred housing requirement scenario is based upon a mid-point figure for DCLG 2008 and 2011 Sub- National Housing Projections to avoid the extremes of the economic cycle over the last five years.
15.78 The scenario was selected on the basis that a sustainable step change in the County’s economic performance can be delivered, predicated upon significant though realistic uplifts in economic growth prospects. This will be facilitated by a coherent development framework in which investment can take place.
15.79 In accordance with para 179 of the NPPF (xx), the Council has been working collaboratively with adjoining authorities and other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated. Whilst meetings and discussions have been held with adjoining authorities, as set out within the Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance, 2014 (Doc Ref K56), to discuss approaches, methodologies and outcomes no cross-boundary issues have arisen.
xx Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 2012
36 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
Meeting the Objectively Assessed Need for Market and Affordable Housing
15.80 Policy 3 of the County Durham Plan sets out the quantity of new development to be delivered by 2030 and the figure of at least 31,400 reflects the outcome of the objective assessed housing requirement. This equates to 1,650 net new homes per year. Historic rates of delivery suggest that this is a deliverable requirement. The 1,650 annual requirement is not a ceiling and should house building surpass this target over the Plan period this would indicate a successful and growing economy.
15.81 The actual amount of land allocations was determined having regard to housing completions since the start of the Plan period and sites with planning permission or under construction (commitments). Given the uncertainty surrounding public funding, no additional allowance was made for either bringing back into use empty homes, demolitions or windfall sites. As at the 31st March 2013, the residual number of houses for allocations was 15,583. This is set out within Table 2 of the Pre-Submission Draft County Durham Plan (Doc Ref K6). The site allocations meet the shortfall between the housing requirement and commitments and completions. The need for meeting objectively assessed needs is at the heart of local plan making within NPPF and the County Durham Plan goes beyond para 47 by identifying specific, developable sites for the full 20 year Plan period.
15.82 The County has a very diverse and granular housing market therefore viability can vary from site to site within settlements as well as between settlements within a short distance. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Partnership has been of paramount importance to enable the Council understand the strength of settlements across the housing market area. This positive relationship with the house building industry has enabled the Council to take a pragmatic view to identifying allocations which are both suitable and achievable (xxi)
15.83 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update, 2013 (Doc Ref H7) advises that an analysis of migration data indicates that 77.5% of households moving originated within County Durham therefore in accordance with guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government, the County is a self contained housing market.
15.84 The scale of affordable housing need has been out by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update, 2013 (Doc Ref H7) and has been calculated by taking into account the annual need from existing and newly-forming households within the County and comparing this with the supply of affordable (social and affordable rent and intermediate tenure dwellings). The overall net shortfall is 674 affordable dwellings across the County per year.
15.85 It is recognised that affordable housing delivered through the approval of planning applications, subject to Section106 agreements, has represented a relatively small proportion of the overall provision of affordable housing. The majority of affordable housing delivered in County Durham is funded through the Homes and Communities Agency programmes and is delivered by Registered Providers.
Economic Viability of Affordable Housing Provision
15.86 A full viability assessment has been undertaken to determine the appropriate level of affordable housing targets and other policy requirements as set out within the County Durham Plan.
15.87 The first draft Affordable Housing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Viability Study (Doc Ref R13) was undertaken in 2012 which considered the affordable housing targets and Community Infrastructure Levy contributions only. The methodology to this work was changed following consultation and discussion with the development industry. The key assumptions which were changed to inform the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2013 (Doc Ref R10) are summarised in table 5 below:
xxi DCLG, Planning Practice Guidance "a site is considered achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that the particular type of development will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentially a judgement about the economic viability of a site, and the capacity of the developer to complete and let or sell the development over a certain period."
Inspector's Initial Questions 37 15 Topic / Background Papers
Table 5 Key Areas of Change Between Documents R13 and R10
Affordable Housing and CIL Viability Local Plan and CIL Viability Report Report (DOC REF R13) (DOC REF R10)
Developer Profit 20% Cost 20% GDV
Revenue Asking Price Sales Price
Internal Area Net Saleable Gross Internal
Marketing 2.5% on GDV 3.5% on GDV
Notional Sites 16 typical sites ranging from 2 to 288 7 sites per delivery area ranging from 20 units units to 350 units
15.88 The findings of the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2013 (Doc Ref R10) were such that the affordable housing targets were reduced to reflect the amended outcomes of the Study. Table 6 below sets out the variance in affordable housing targets since Preferred Options Draft of the County Durham Plan (Doc Ref K5) and Pre-Submission Draft County Durham Plan (Doc Ref K6). The Council took a precautionary approach despite general contentment within the Home Builders Federation (HBF) with the affordable housing targets as proposed within the Preferred Options stage as discussed at a workshop event on the 27th July 2013. The HBF confirmed that site by site viability testing is key to determining the level of affordable housing provision appropriate which is reflected within the Plan.
Table 6 Emerging Affordable Housing Targets
Preferred Options Pre-Submission Draft
Central 20% 20%
North 15% 15%
East 10% 10%
South 15% 10%
West 25% 15% (0.2 ha / 12 units)
15.89 It is evident from table 7.3 of the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study (Doc Ref R10) that the notional housing sites in Central Durham offer the greatest potential for the delivery of affordable housing. This confirms the need to direct development in areas of higher areas to increase the likelihood of delivery and to increase the chances of the full policy requirements being met. This confirms that the County Durham Plan's spatial approach is the most deliverable option.
15.90 Whilst the Local Plan and CIL Viability is a robust and cautious approach to viability modelling, table 7.3 does not give a full and accurate picture of development activity which is current being experienced on the ground to date. The Local Plan and CIL Development Viability Study - Pre-Submission Notes (Doc Ref R12) sought to reflect this and the representations received from the Home Builders Federation (Consultee ID 800172, Comment ID 1977). It is evident that in areas of poorest viability i.e. East Durham, 56% of the anticipated units are on Council owned sites. Whilst the Council will endeavour to seek best value for the land this will be done in the full policy and CIL context.
38 Inspector's Initial Questions Topic / Background Papers 15
15.91 Delivery of sites has been a key consideration in the identification of suitable sites to be allocated. Table 3 of the Housing Implementation Strategy (Doc Ref R8) sets out the relevant interests promoting the site for house building. The Council fully believes that the proposed housing allocations will be delivered within the Plan period and the affordable housing contributions are deliverable and based on robust evidence.
Current Five Year Land Supply
15.92 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Report, 2013 (Doc Ref H1) sets out the Council's five year land supply as at the 31st March 2013 in discussion with the SHLAA Partnership. In calculating its requirement for the five year land supply the Council has taken a cautious approach by agreeing to a 20% buffer and including the under-performance over recent years. Tables 5 to 8 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Report 2013 (Doc Ref H1) suggests that the Council can demonstrate a five year land supply against a revised requirement of 8,136 over five years. This is an annual requirement of 1,627 dwellings which is slightly less than proposed by the County Durham Plan.
15.93 The Council's five year land supply position is being updated to reflect the current position and this will be determined against the requirement set by the County Durham Plan. This update will be completed by the deadline for submission of further statements.
15.94 There have been no recent appeal decisions relating to housing land availability or five year land supply.
Response to alternative assessments of housing need proposed by representors
15.95 A range of scenarios have been prepared by planning consultants and others acting on behalf of land owners, developers and lobby groups. These suggest that the number of net new dwellings required ranges from 20,000 to 55,366. It is the view of the Council that its proposed number of 31,369 dwellings meets the requirements set out in the NPPF.
15.96 The Council has set out these alternative approaches and its response to them in the paper “Population, Housing and Employment Projections – Summary Paper and Assessment of Alternatives” (Doc Ref R6), specifically figure 1 on page 8). A range of projection methodologies and software packages have been deployed to develop a fan chart of projected housing requirements. These include POPGROUP software and the Chelmer Housing and Population Model.
15.97 The explanation for the varying population, housing and employment outcomes lies in the varying assumptions made in relation to population growth, economic activity and employment rates, levels of net migration, commuting ratios, unemployment levels and vacancy rates. In developing projections the Council has taken into consideration a wide range of potential scenarios associated with the variation of these input factors.
Inspector's Initial Questions 39 16 Programme Officer
Programme Officer
16.1 The Inspector is already in contact with the Programme Officer, Jayne Knight. The Council’s team will need to work closely with the Programme Officer in making the arrangements for the examination and hearing sessions. If the Council (or any representor) has any queries about the processes or procedures for the examination, they should not hesitate to contact the Programme Officer. In order to maintain continuity it would be helpful if the Council would keep the post holder in post throughout the examination process including the proposed modifications stage if modifications are proved necessary.
40 Inspector's Initial Questions Hearings 17
Hearings
17.1 The Inspector will produce Guidance Notes to outline the nature and scope of the hearing sessions. Please note that only those representors who seek some change to the plan can usually participate in the hearings. The Programme Officer will clarify and confirm the attendance of participants at the hearings. The hearing sessions are an informal round-table discussion, where the Inspector asks questions and participants discuss key matters based on the Matters & Issues identified for Examination. There is no need for legal representation, but lawyers can attend as a member of the team.
17.2 Has the Council decided whether they will be legally represented at the hearings and are there any additional bodies/organisations that should participate in particular hearing sessions?
Council's Response
17.3 The Council consider it appropriate, at this stage, to be legally represented at the hearings incase there are any unexpected issues which legal advice would be necessary to ensure any issues are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.
17.4 The Council note from paragraph 6.2 of the Inspector's "Guidance Notes for Participants" that legal and professional representatives are welcome to participate and ask questions but there is no presentation of evidence, cross examination or formal submissions.
17.5 Given the nature of the evidence base, the Council anticipate professional representatives to attend as part of the Council's team. Once the nature of the Inspector's matters, issues and questions are known, the Council will be able to provide a composite list of all professional representatives expected to participate in the hearing sessions.
Inspector's Initial Questions 41 18 Website
Website
18.1 The Council will need to set up/maintain a Local Plan Examination web-page. This should include the name and contact details of the Programme Officer, the name of the Inspector, the date/venue for the hearings/PHM, links to the examination library and core documents, copies of the representations, and any material produced by the Council, representors, Inspector and Programme Officer. This will need to be updated promptly with new documents and revisions to programme and examination timescales as the examination stages progress.
42 Inspector's Initial Questions Note-taking 19
Note-taking
19.1 In order to make efficient progress during the hearing sessions, the Inspector would like the Council to provide an independent note-taker to record the gist of the discussions. This is not intended as a verbatim report, but a summary of the key points/agreements/concessions made during the discussions. The note-taker can be a member of the Council’s Planning Department (although not someone directly involved in the preparation of the Plan), other departments or an external person. For this purpose, they are an officer of the examination, working under the direction of the Inspector. The Programme Officer will have other duties during the course of the hearing sessions but will be able to undertake this task if the note taker is unexpectedly unavailable.
19.2 Can the Council confirm that they will arrange for someone to take notes at the hearing sessions?
Council's Response
19.3 The Council can confirm that a person who was not involved in the preparation of the Local Plan will be available to take notes for the duration of the hearing sessions.
Inspector's Initial Questions 43 20 Guidance
Guidance
20.1 The Council should be fully aware of the published national planning policy guidance in the NPPF (March 2012). The Planning Inspectorate has also produced several guidance notes(xxii)(), which set out advice on the nature and process of examining local plans under the LDF regulations (including Procedure Guidance updated in December 2013).
20.2 Can the Council confirm that they are fully aware of this guidance?
Council's Response
20.3 The Council can confirm that they are fully aware of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (published 27 March 2012) and the Council consider that the Plan is in conformity with it. The Council can also advise that it is aware of the revised and updated web based Planning Practice Guidance launched on 6 March 2014.
20.4 In addition the Council are aware of the following documents published by the Planning Inspectorate:
Examining Local Plans Procedural Practice (PINS: December 2013 3rd Edition v.2)
20.5 And the following as detailed footnote 11 of the Inspectors initial questions to the Council:
Local Development Frameworks: Examining Development Plan Documents: Learning from Experience (PINS: September 2009)
Local Development Frameworks: Examining Development Plan Documents: Procedure Guidance (PINS: December 2013)
Local Development Frameworks – Procedural Advisory Note (PINS: August 2009)
xxii http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/planningsystem/localplans, including Local Development Frameworks: Examining Development Plan Documents: Learning from Experience [PINS; September 2009], Local Development Frameworks: Examining Development Plan Documents: Procedure Guidance [PINS: December 2013], Local Development Frameworks – Procedural Advisory Note [PINS: August 2009]
44 Inspector's Initial Questions Future programme 21
Future programme
21.1 The basic procedure is to confirm the date for the PHM and notify representors at least 4 weeks before of the date. Brief Guidance Notes on the examination process will be circulated by the Programme Officer in the next few weeks, along with the Matters & Issues for examination and draft programme for the hearings. The Council and other participants will be invited to provide brief statements addressing the Inspector’s Matters & Issues, to be submitted about 4 weeks before the hearings commence.
Inspector's Initial Questions 45 22 Procedure and Experiences
Procedure and Experiences
22.1 The Council may wish to contact representatives of other local authorities to check feedback/experiences of the process and procedure of examining a Core Strategy/Local Plan. The Inspector has examined many development plans, including Core Strategies and Local Plans. He has visited the area and is generally familiar with the issues involved.
46 Inspector's Initial Questions Paragraph 23 23
23.1 The Inspector would like an initial response to these questions by 18 July 2014, if possible, by adding their responses on this document under the appropriate section. This will then become an examination document.
Inspector's Initial Questions 47
To find out more about the County Durham Plan contact:
Write to: Spatial Policy Team Durham County Council County Hall Durham DH1 5UQ
Telephone: 03000 026 0000
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.durham.gov.uk/cdp
Interactive Website: http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning
[email protected] 03000 026 0000