CD/REG/04

Aligned Core Strategies Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Co-operate

Broxtowe Borough Council Borough Council City Council Aligned Core Strategies

Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

June 2013

This page in intentionally blank Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 'Duty to Cooperate' as set out in the Localism Act 2011 ...... 2 3.0 The Plan Area and Relationship to the Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area...... 4 4.0 Greater Nottingham Growth Point and the History of Cooperation...... 4 5.0 Summary of Cooperation with Prescribed Bodies and Outstanding Issues...... 6 6.0 Conclusions...... 20 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report sets out how Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Councils have complied with the duty to cooperate introduced under the Localism Act 2011.

1.2 There is a long history of joint working and cooperation between the three Councils, other Councils and key stakeholders within and adjoining Greater Nottingham. The preparation of Core Strategies in Greater Nottingham has been part of this process, with on-going and constructive engagement between constituent and neighbouring authorities and relevant organisations since the process began in 2008. Indeed, the early stages of Core Strategy preparation saw the publication of a single document including the aligned Core Strategies for all the local planning authorities making up Greater Nottingham (apart from Ashfield 1). Thus the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies Issues and Options (2009) and the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies Option for Consultation (2010) covered the administrative areas of Broxtowe Borough, Erewash Borough, Gedling Borough, Nottingham City and Borough Councils.

1.3 Although the Core Strategies of both Erewash and Rushcliffe Boroughs have subsequently been submitted separately, this has been in the context of the duty to cooperate, and on the basis of a common evidence base and with most policy areas being aligned.

1.4 The Core Strategies are all supported by a common Infrastructure Delivery Plan which has been prepared with the full positive engagement of the Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, Homes and Communities Agency, Clinical Commissioning Groups (role formerly provided by Primary Care Trusts) the Highways Agency and the three Highway Authorities.

1.5 There has been much debate over the previous year as to whether the duty to cooperate amounts to a duty to agree. Inspectors do seem to be taking a hard line at Examinations in ensuring that cross boundary housing needs are met in the Housing Market area as a whole. However, the working arrangements in Greater Nottingham area are considered to be an example of good practice and despite earlier disagreement with Rushcliffe, it is now considered that all five Councils will jointly be meeting the full and objectively assessed housing need across the five Council areas. Subject to Rushcliffe agreeing to increase their Housing provision by the 3,550 new homes 2 (that is

1 Only the part of Ashfield District is part of Greater Nottingham, Ashfield District Council are therefore preparing a separate Local Plan for their area, but within the context of the Duty to Cooperate. 2 On 14 May Rushcliffe agreed to undertake public consultation and necessary supporting work to increase housing provision within the borough to 2028 by 3,550 additional homes.

1 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

identified as the HMA wide shortfall to 2028), then all five Councils will be in a stronger position in terms of fully meeting the duty to cooperate.

1.6 Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Councils are therefore confident that their Aligned Core Strategies have been prepared in full compliance with the duty to cooperate.

2.0 'Duty to Cooperate' as set out in the Localism Act 2011

2.1 The 'duty to cooperate' is set out in Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 which requires an amendment to Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.2 The Act makes clear that the 'duty' applies to all those with planning responsibilities, including local planning authorities and other planning bodies, undertaking the preparation of Local and other prescribed plans in so far as these plans relate to a 'strategic matter'. The new duty:

• Relates to sustainable development or use of land that would have a significant impact on at least two local planning areas or on a planning matter that falls within the remit of a County Council;

• Requires that Councils set out planning policies to address such issues;

• Requires that Councils and public bodies ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ to develop strategic policies; and

• Requires Councils to consider joint approaches to plan making.

2.3 Paragraphs 178 to 181 of the NPPF give guidance on planning 'strategically across local boundaries' and highlight the importance of joint working to meet development requirements that cannot be wholly met within a single local planning area, through either joint planning policies or informal strategies such as infrastructure and investment plans.

2.4 The NPPF states that: "The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities" 3 and further that: "Local planning authorities should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans." 4.

2.5 Part 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 which came into effect on the 6 th April 2012 clarifies

3 See NPPF para 178 4 See NPPF para 179

2 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

that the bodies prescribed for the purposes of section 33A (1) (c) of the Localism Act 2011 (in relation to the duty to cooperate) comprise the following 5:

• (1) Local Planning Authorities, either neighbouring or making up the Housing Market Area • (2) Environment Agency • (3) English Heritage • (4) Natural England • Mayor of London • (5) Civil Aviation Authority • (6) Homes and Communities Agency • (7) Primary Care Trusts and successor bodies • (8) Office of the Rail Regulator • (9) Highways Agency • Transport for London • Integrated Transport Authorities • (1) Highway Authorities • Marine Management Organisation • (10) Local Enterprise Partnerships • (11) Local Nature Partnerships

2.6 However, some of these prescribed bodies are not relevant to Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough or Nottingham City:

• Mayor of London • Transport for London • Integrated Transport Authorities • Marine Management Organisation

2.7 There are two main separate aspects of the duty:

i. The legal requirement to cooperate. PINs will need to see sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the duty to cooperate has been undertaken in accordance with the 2011 act appropriately for the plan being examined.

ii. If PINS consider that the legal requirement to cooperate has been met through joint working but there is disagreement about the policy outcome (for example the proposed level of housing provision), then this will need to be resolved through the examination process based on the evidence. 6

2.8 This document sets out how the legal duty has been met by Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Councils, how the strategic issues have been resolved through the duty, and highlights

5 The numbers in brackets are used later in this report for each Prescribed Body. 6 See para 182 of NPPF (2012)

3 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

where issues remain which may need to be considered at the Examination.

3.0 The Plan Area and Relationship to the Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area

3.1 The plan area covers the administrative areas of Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City. Broxtowe and Gedling are located within the administrative boundaries of County Council, where a two tier local government system operates, whilst is a Unitary Authority. All three include large parts of the built up area of Nottingham and the surrounding area.

3.2 Erewash Borough and Rushcliffe Borough also include parts of the main built up area of Nottingham, and Erewash also includes the Sub Regional Centre of Ilkeston. Erewash falls within the administrative boundaries of County Council. The five Councils make up the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area.

3.3 Ashfield District Council is part of the Nottingham Outer Housing Market Area, but includes the Sub Regional Centre of Hucknall, which is functionally part of Greater Nottingham. Greater Nottingham therefore consists of the five Council areas plus the Hucknall part of Ashfield.

4.0 Greater Nottingham Growth Point and the History of Cooperation

4.1 In 2005 the three cities of , and Nottingham and their surrounding three counties of , Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were jointly recognised as a new Growth Point by the Government (known as the 6Cs). Whilst the 6Cs worked together on strategic issues, local partnerships were formed to guide the Growth Point initiative for each of the 3 areas and a new partnership was established for Greater Nottingham.

4.2 The Greater Nottingham Growth Point covers the administrative areas of the following Councils:

• Broxtowe Borough Council • Erewash Borough Council • Gedling Borough Council • Nottingham City Council • Rushcliffe Borough Council • The Hucknall wards of Ashfield District Council 7.

7 Although the Hucknall wards of Ashfield are part of Greater Nottingham, note that the whole of Ashfield District is part of the Nottingham Outer HMA.

4 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

4.3 One of the key roles of the Greater Nottingham Growth Point was to respond to the Government's challenging targets for housing growth. Through the Greater Nottingham Growth Point, local planning authorities have been working together to:

• Align their planning documents and policies as far as possible; • Share expertise; • Jointly commission technical studies; • Ensure future housing is located on the most sustainable sites and is of the highest design standards; • Ensure future development is supported by appropriate services and infrastructure, including green infrastructure; and • Guide the investment of Growth Point funding to support housing growth.

4.4 A new governance structure was established to guide growth proposals in Greater Nottingham with representation from all of the Councils set out in paragraph above plus Nottinghamshire County Council and Derbyshire County Council. The Greater Nottingham Joint Planning Advisory Board which is comprised of senior political representatives, meets approximately every two months and provides strategic guidance on policy alignment and the Growth Point Programme of Development. The Councillors are supported at the meetings by senior officers of each Council.

4.5 This Joint Planning Advisory Board is supported at officer level by an Executive Steering Group chaired by Nottinghamshire County Council which meets on a regular basis approximately every two months and has dedicated support from three Growth Point officers. Generally these meetings are attended by the Head of Service or Planning Policy Managers. Weekly Housing Market Area meetings are also held at an operational level to progress policy alignment and programme delivery. This is regularly attended by each Council’s lead Planning Policy Officer.

4.6 This partnership has ensured a continual open dialogue with partners and the development of a coherent planning framework across Greater Nottingham in the form of broadly Aligned Core Strategies and jointly commissioned technical studies. This partnership working has been welcomed by key stakeholders as it has meant that agencies such as the Environment Agency and Highway Agency have been able to discuss strategic issues with several authorities in a co-ordinated and cost-effective manner.

4.7 In relation to co-operating with other Housing Market Areas, the Councils have a close working relationship with the authorities that border the plan area boundary and in particular the Derby Housing Market Area – , and Derby City Councils given the close relationship between the two cities. The Councils have positively engaged in discussions on potential options

5 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

for growth for the Derby Housing Market Area. Dialogue is continuing on cross-boundary issues with the Derby HMA

5.0 Summary of Cooperation with Prescribed Bodies and Outstanding Issues

5.1 This section sets the nature of cooperation with each Prescribed Body, gives a summary of cooperation, process of consultation and sets out what, if any, outstanding key strategic issues need to be considered at the Examination. It is the aligned Council’s view that the legal and soundness aspects of the duty to cooperate has been resolved, however, where prescribed bodies disagree, these issues are set out.

1. Local Planning Authorities

a) Nottinghamshire County Council

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board Member • Executive Steering Group Member • Member of staff seconded to Growth Point Team to assist with Joint Working • Signatory to Transport Modelling Memorandum of Understanding • Regular HMA meetings – including chairing and minute taking • Assisted on policy development and background work through working groups • Consultee

Summary of cooperation issues

The Councils have worked closely with Nottinghamshire County Council in developing the transport evidence base for the Core Strategies which is underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding - agreed between the three highway authorities covering Greater Nottingham and the Highways Agency. The Transport Background Paper and Addendum to that document for the Core Strategies has been prepared with direct consultation with Nottinghamshire County Council.

Close liaison has also taken place to establish requirements associated with education and waste and other functions carried out by the County Council.

Issues raised within the consultation on the publication version have been positively considered and amendments proposed to the document in the schedule of changes.

It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues for discussion at the Examination.

6 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate b) Derbyshire County Council

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board Member • Executive Steering Group Member • Signatory to Transport Modelling Memorandum of Understanding • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

There are close links between the Derby and Nottingham HMA and any under provision of housing in Nottingham HMA would have implications for Derby HMA (and vice versa).

In their consultation response, Derbyshire confirm the collaborative working with Derby HMA local authorities to discuss cross boundary issues is welcomed and supported and that the continuation of this cross boundary working particularly in the context of the ‘duty to cooperate’ is important.

Derbyshire goes on to support the overall spatial strategy of urban concentration with regeneration. In addition, considers that the overall housing numbers and distribution is appropriate acknowledging the fact that future housing needs of Nottingham City are unlikely to be accommodated within the City boundary.

The Councils have worked closely with Derbyshire County Council in developing the transport evidence base for the Core Strategies which is underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding - agreed between the three highway authorities covering Greater Nottingham and the Highways Agency. The Transport Background Paper and Addendum to that document for the Core Strategies has been prepared with direct consultation with Derbyshire County Council.

Close liaison has also taken place to establish requirements associated with education and waste and other functions carried out by the County Council.

It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues for discussion at the Examination.

c) Rushcliffe Borough Council

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board Member • Executive Steering Group Member • Regular HMA meetings • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

7 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

Rushcliffe have a close working relationship with the three Councils with much agreement and aligned policy position along with a shared evidence base. However Rushcliffe raised two issues in their representations to the Publication Version of the Aligned Core Strategies (2012). These were the difference in the plan period of the Core Strategies (Rushcliffe 2026 and the Aligned Core Strategies 2028) and the distribution of housing numbers. Each is explained in detail below; i) Plan Period

In order to ensure a 15 year time horizon for the Aligned Core Strategies, and a plan end date of 2028 the three Councils rolled forward the housing provision based on the Regional Strategy (East Regional Plan 2009) by two years. Erewash Borough adopted the same approach to its Core Strategy, and this was taken into account in the Housing Background Paper (2012), the Household Projections Background Paper (2012), and thus the objectively assessed housing needs takes account of the 2028 plan end date within the plan area.

Representations from Rushcliffe Borough argue that there is a lack of analysis regarding rolling forward Regional Strategy targets for a further two years, and that this rolling forward process places an unreasonable expectation that Rushcliffe should do the same. The published Rushcliffe Core Strategy had an end date of 2026.

Whilst it is unfortunate that the end dates of the Core Strategies do not currently align, it is considered appropriate to plan for a 15 year horizon in order to provide a long term framework for development within the plan area, and to ensure consistency with the NPPF. Notwithstanding that, it is good practice to review Development Plans about every five years or so, or if there are significant changes in circumstances. This provides adequate opportunity for the Councils to work together to ensure the various Core Strategies housing provision figures for the period 2026 to 2028 are consistent.

Since the representation was made by Rushcliffe on the Aligned Core Strategies they have submitted their Core Strategy to the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector assigned to examine their Core Strategy has raised a number of serious concerns about the soundness of the Strategy which Rushcliffe are currently considering. The examination of the Core Strategy by PINS is currently in suspension to allow Rushcliffe time to amend their Core Strategy. On 14 May 2013 the Council agreed to undertake public consultation and necessary supporting work to increase housing provision to 2028 by 3,550 additional homes.

Provided Rushcliffe agree to extend the plan period of their Core Strategy to 2028 in line with the Aligned Core Strategies there are no outstanding issues to be resolved by the examination process.

8 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate ii) Housing Provision

For the Housing Market Area as a whole, the objectively assessed housing need 2011 to 2028 8 is considered to be 49,950 new homes, with the plan area’s contribution being 30,550, as provided for in Policy 2 of the Aligned Core Strategies.

Rushcliffe Borough, whilst not disputing the overall housing provision for the Housing Market Area, adopted a local approach to housing provision within its own area, culminating in a provision of around 4,000 homes fewer than that proposed by the Option for Consultation (2010).

Rushcliffe Borough have made representations to the ACS arguing that the plan fails to critically assess whether a Regional Strategy led approach remains relevant given that it was soon to be abolished and there was new evidence that they say was not considered in the formulation of the Regional Plan in the Tribal reports of 2008 9 and 2010 10 , both of which provide evidence that challenge and undermine the Regional Plan and the extent to which it biases growth towards the South East of the main urban area. Rushcliffe Borough then go on to argue that there are other sites identified in the Tribal Report of 2008 within other Boroughs which should be allocated in place of the Gamston site. As a result of Rushcliffe Borough’s decision, a number of developer representations call for the resulting shortfall to be made up, either in Rushcliffe Borough, or in the wider Housing Market Area.

Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Councils consider the unilateral and different methodology used to derive housing provision in Rushcliffe Borough, resulting in a reduction of housing to below the level previously included in the Option for Consultation version of the Aligned Core Strategies, to be inappropriate. They consider that any change in housing provision and/or distribution should have been agreed on a strategic basis across the Housing Market Area. The three Councils consider that Rushcliffe’s approach represented a failure in its duty to cooperate, and that any shortfall in housing provision should be made up in the Rushcliffe Core Strategy.

The three Councils consider that the Housing Background Paper (2012), the Household Projections Background Paper (2012) and the Housing Background Paper Addendum (2013), when taken together report the full objectively assessed needs of the Housing Market Area and the plan area.

Prior to the publication of the initial results of the 2011 Census, the Housing Background Paper 2012 indicated that the combined housing provisions in Core Strategies for the Housing Market Area (including Rushcliffe Borough’s

8 The Councils consider that the Housing Background Paper (2012), the Household Projections Background Paper (2012) and the Housing Background Paper Addendum (2013), when taken together report the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Housing Market Area and the plan area’s contribution to meeting this need. 9 Appraisal of Sustainable Urban Extensions Study (2008) 10 Greater Nottingham Sustainable Locations for Growth Study (2010)

9 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate reduced provision) broadly met the objectively assessed housing needs. Notwithstanding this, the failure of Rushcliffe Borough to constructively engage with Housing Market Area partners and their unilateral decision to reduce the Borough’s housing provision had represented a failure in the duty to cooperate on their part, not on the part of the other Housing Market Area Councils.

The early results of the 2011 Census were issued after publication of the Core Strategies. Whilst the publication of the 2011 Census vindicates the Councils’ use of local data in determining housing need, it indicates that the housing provision allows for somewhat less in-migration to the area than set out in the Housing Background Paper 2012 and assumed in the publication version of the Aligned Core Strategies. (See Housing Background Paper Addendum 2013). An increase in housing provision of 1,950 up to 2026 11 across the Housing Market Area particularly in relation to migration and labour supply would allow for the same level of demographic change as implied by the publication Aligned Core Strategies. This level of provision is also somewhat less than the ‘Option for Consultation’ Aligned Core Strategies which Rushcliffe Borough were party to. As stated above, it is the Council’s view that any uplift in housing numbers apply only to the Rushcliffe Core Strategy, and the Option for Consultation demonstrates that opportunities exist within the Borough to accommodate this additional housing.

The Inspector examining the Rushcliffe Core Strategy has raised concerns on housing numbers to be provided within Rushcliffe and the Council are currently considering increasing their housing provision to plan for at least 3,550 additional homes. On 14 May 2013 the Council resolved to;

• accept the Planning Inspectorate’s offer of a temporary suspension of the examination; • carry out public consultation and necessary supporting work undertaken on proposals to amend the Core Strategy to plan for at least 3,550 additional homes by 2028 • present a revised Core Strategy to Full Council in October 2013.

Outstanding Issues for the Examination

Provided Rushcliffe amend their Core Strategy inline with the above, this would ensure that the objectively assessed housing needs across the Housing Market Area are met and that Rushcliffe’s objections to the Aligned Core Strategies could be withdrawn leaving no outstanding issues to be discussed at the Examination.

d) Erewash Borough Council

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board Member

11 2026 is the current end date for the Rushcliffe Core Strategy

10 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

• Executive Steering Group Member • Regular HMA meetings • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

Given the close working relationship and aligned position with Erewash there are no outstanding issues to resolve. e) Ashfield District Council

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board Member • Executive Steering Group Member • Regular HMA meetings • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

Representations from Ashfield District Council express concern that the necessary discussions about the impact of strategic sites in Gedling (adjoining Hucknall) has not taken place and considers that Gedling Borough has not fulfilled the duty to cooperate. Ashfield District have expressed concerns about the impacts of these potential developments on Ashfield’s infrastructure and services. Ashfield also raised concerns that evidence and information was not available prior to publication and in particular they refer to the availability of transport evidence.

Concerns are also expressed that Hucknall residents directly affected by the proposals were not included in a Gedling-wide resident consultation on the prospective housing sites.

There are long standing arrangements for coordinating strategic planning between the Greater Nottingham authorities and these have been in place since 2008. Therefore there has been ample opportunities for Ashfield District to discuss relevant issues.

A number of meetings to discuss the impacts of strategic site allocations within Gedling Borough on the infrastructure and services in Hucknall have taken place during 2012 and are continuing (on 3 rd July, 24 th July, 18 th September and 6 th December 2012). To date these meetings involving officers from Gedling Borough, Ashfield District and (when appropriate) the Growth Point Team have discussed transport, education requirements, health facilities, employment, site viability, the Habitat Regulations Assessment, Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Regarding the points made about the availability of information and evidence, some of the evidence informing the Aligned Core Strategy has been prepared on a HMA-wide basis and has therefore covered Ashfield (such as the Water

11 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

Cycle Study 2010, Sustainable Urban Extension Study 2008, Accessible Settlements Study 2010 and the Nottingham Core Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment 2007). Gedling Borough has made available all relevant evidence on its website and has also provided Ashfield District with extracts from key parts of the evidence base and provided written answers to questions when requested to do so by Ashfield District.

Turning specifically to transport, it is the case that the stage 1 Transport study was not available until late July 2012 although it is worth emphasising that the stage 1 report indicated that there were no major transport constraints that would act as potential “show stoppers” to the strategic sites. However, an early draft of the stage 2 Transport study setting out public transport mitigation was supplied to Ashfield District by the Growth Point Team and subsequently discussed at the meeting on July 24 th 2012.

Ashfield representations raise concerns about the housing provision in Rushcliffe’s core strategy and that the Aligned Core Strategies does not acknowledge this and as such address the risks associated with the lower levels of housing growth proposed in this area. Ashfield are concerned about how this lower level of growth may impact on the remainder of Greater Nottingham including the Hucknall part of Ashfield.12

Within the context of the need to cooperate, the representations also refer to the need to recognise the significance of the Rolls Royce site in terms of providing opportunities for employment as a strategic sub regional site for the whole of Greater Nottingham. It is agreed that the Rolls Royce site will provide important employment opportunities for the conurbation of Greater Nottingham and proposed changes to the Aligned Core Strategies include amendments to this effect.

Regarding consultation, the “Special Contacts” publication which is a regular bulletin to Gedling residents was sent only to Gedling households during the autumn of 2011. This additional publicity was sent out in order to raise awareness of the Aligned Core Strategy across Gedling Borough and was additional to the formal consultation held during the summer of 2011 which had received a healthy response from the public and other stakeholders especially from people living close to potential development sites (including from within Ashfield District). Planning officers from Gedling also attended public meetings involving Ashfield Councillors, local representatives and local residents including at the Hucknall Partnership meeting on 5 th March 2012 which was also attended by Mark Spencer MP and at a local meeting arranged by and Parish Councils which was open to all local residents from both Ashfield and Gedling.

Comments relating to the Habitats Regulations assessments and the need to take into account the proposals in Ashfield District have been taken into account to ensure that the in combination effects considered fully.

12 These concerns should be addressed if Rushcliffe agrees to increase housing provision along with the Council’s decision on 14 May 2013.

12 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

Ashfield have since confirmed that in light of the additional work that has been undertaken on the in-combination effects of proposed development affecting the Sherwood Forest Prospective SPA, that the document has addressed fully the concerns they raised to the Publication Version of the Aligned Core Strategy (ACS).

A key concern raised by Ashfield District Council relates to the impact of the sites proposed for development by Gedling Borough Council on Hucknall and this issue has been the key focus of discussions between officers to date. The requirement for future infrastructure in conjunction with the proposed development is set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. In order to provide clarity over the delivery of this infrastructure, a protocol is being drafted by Gedling Borough with input from Ashfield District Council which will set out the process by which this will be delivered through S106 contributions and/or CIL.

Gedling Borough is committed to working with Ashfield District to ensure that these strategic sites can be delivered within Gedling with the necessary supporting services and infrastructure to be provided within Ashfield where necessary.

Outstanding Issues for the Examination

Whether Gedling Borough has complied with its duty to cooperate with Ashfield District with regard to strategic sites adjacent to Hucknall. f) (neighbouring authority)

Nature of Cooperation

• Ad Hoc meetings • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

Ravenshead Key Settlement Identified for Growth

Representations from Newark and Sherwood District Council (neighbouring Council to Gedling Borough) express concern about the level of growth identified for , and consider that Gedling Borough has failed in its duty to cooperate, because Newark and Sherwood District Council was not aware of the total quantum of development allocated to Ravenshead until the publication of the Aligned Core Strategies.

A meeting was held between officers of Gedling Borough and Newark and Sherwood District Council around the time of consultation on the Option for Consultation Aligned Core Strategies (June 2009), where cross-border issues were discussed. Newark and Sherwood District Council would therefore have been aware that Ravenshead was a Key Settlement identified for growth and

13 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate of the total quantum of development proposed in Gedling Borough at this stage, and no objections regarding development at Ravenshead were raised either at the meeting or as part of the consultation process.

The level of development proposed at Ravenshead is relatively modest (up to 446 homes, of which 116 are existing commitments). Partly due to the modest level of growth, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan has not identified any significant issues with regard to the provision of infrastructure, and none which affect Newark and Sherwood District Council. Neither have Newark and Sherwood District Council identified and evidenced any cross border impacts. It would not appear therefore to be a strategic planning matter which has a significant impact on at least two local planning areas.

Notwithstanding this, Gedling Borough is working closely with Newark and Sherwood District Council to ensure any infrastructure requirements which do emerge are identified and suitably addressed, and ongoing dialogue will ensure the new development contributes adequately to any new infrastructure required as a result. In addition, a protocol is being drafted with input from Newark and Sherwood which sets out the process by which the impacts of new development will be managed through s106 and / or CIL.

Outstanding Issues for Examination

Whether Gedling Borough has complied with its duty to cooperate with Newark and Sherwood District Council with regard to development at the Key Settlement of Ravenshead. g) Amber Valley Borough Council, Derby City Council, South Derbyshire District Council (Derby Housing Market Area)

Nature of Cooperation

• Regular liaison meetings • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

A screening of cross-border major issues has identified housing provision as a significant matter of common interest. Derbyshire County Council submitted a supportive representation to the publication version of the Core Strategy (see above), whilst raising concerns with the Rushcliffe borough Core Strategy on their proposed housing provision 13 . No representations have been received from the other Derby HMA Councils. Derby HMA’s recent “Preferred Growth Strategy” consultation, has been broadly supported by Greater Nottingham HMA partners.

No outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

13 This concern would again be resolved provided Rushcliffe agree to increase housing number to meet the objectively assessed housing needs for the HMA.

14 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

2. Environment Agency

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have an ongoing collaborative relationship with the Environment Agency. The Agency has directly shaped the Core Strategies via a partnership approach and its role in jointly commissioning key evidence base studies and participation in theme based working groups (eg River Trent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Scoping and Outline Water Cycle Studies). The agency has provided assistance in drafting the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Core Strategy policies.

Issues raised within the consultation on the publication version have been positively considered and amendments proposed to the document. It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues.

3. English Heritage

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

English Heritage were directly involved in policy development prior to the Publication Version going out to consultation. Issues raised within the consultation on the Publication Version have been positively considered and proposed changes to the document have been set out.

It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

4. Natural England

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Consultee • HRA Steering Group

15 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

Summary of Cooperation Issues

Discussions with Natural England have been ongoing since early 2010 in the context of the Habitat Regulations Assessment, and in particular in response to the Prospective Sherwood Forest Special Protection Area. Natural England are a member of the Steering Group involved in the preparation of the Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy ‘Option for Consultation’ document, namely the Habitats Regulations Appraisal Screening Record and Habitats Regulations Appraisal for Further Assessment (September 2010) and also formally commented on the work in November 2010. The formal response confirmed that the work was considered to be consistent with government guidance on HRA of development plans but noted that an ‘appropriate assessment’ may be required as it was not possible to rule out the likelihood of a significant effect on the Park Forest part of the prospective Sherwood Forest SPA.

Screening assessments of both additional nitrogen deposition and additional noise from the development at Top Wighay Farm (based on 500 dwellings) on the proposed SPA were undertaken in August and September 2011 respectively. Natural England confirmed on 1 st December 2011 that the air pollution and additional noise impact assessments concluded no significant effect.

The assessments were repeated based on different housing options of 1,000 and 1,500 homes. Both the air pollution and noise impact assessments concluded no significant effect and this was confirmed by Natural England on 8th February 2012.

Following a more refined approach being taken to the delivery of housing, the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies Supplementary Information (additional SHLAA sites) Habitats Regulations Appraisal Screening Record (February 2012) was undertaken which concluded that the proposed development locations around and Ravenshead would not be likely to have a significant effect. For Calverton, it was concluded that the proposed allocation of land for 1700 dwellings would be likely to have a significant effect in the absence of mitigation measures. Natural England’s response dated 22 nd March 2012 confirmed that the Aligned Core Strategies could highlight that any development proposal coming forward at Calverton would need to include an appropriate mitigation package that would meet the requirements outlined in the February 2012 work. It was also recommended that the Aligned Core Strategy could include an outline of principles of the mitigation strategy which would aim to prevent additional recreational pressure and disturbance as a result of development on nearby sensitive habitats. Subsequent revisions were made to this effect in the Publication Version of the Aligned Core Strategies.

Advice from Natural England (email dated 13 th Dec 2012) recommended that Gedling Borough Council consider the proposals within the Ashfield Local Plan Preferred Approach stage to see if any potential risks could be identified, to ensure that the Aligned Core Strategy has future proofed the plan as far as

16 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate possible at this stage. Relevant sites identified in Ashfield District Council’s Preferred Approach document have therefore been considered to assess whether they could act in combination with any of the sites identified by Gedling Borough Council in the Aligned Core Strategy to result in a significant effect on the prospective SPA. Natural England are supportive of the approach taken and consider that the Aligned Core Strategies has been “future proofed” as far as possible at this stage and therefore there are no outstanding issues to be resolved at the Examination.

5. Civil Aviation Authority

Nature of Cooperation • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed in a letter to Councils in August 2012 that is it not necessary to consult them on Strategic Planning Documents (eg Local Development Framework and Core Strategy documents). As such, they have been removed from consultation lists.

There are therefore no outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

6. Homes and Communities Agency

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Consultee • Key scheme implementation partner

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have an on going collaborative relationship with the Homes and Communities Agency in taking forward key strategic and local sites with a focus on the delivery of housing and economic growth. This directly supports the delivery of the Councils’ Local Development Frameworks.

The Councils have drawn on the agency’s technical expertise in developing their Growth Point Programme and in assessing the viability and deliverability of both strategic and local sites. This has directly informed the Councils’ proposals for the Core Strategies. The Councils have worked jointly with the agency to prepare a Greater Nottingham Local Investment Plan which in turn has informed the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The agency provides updates on HCA policy and programmes relevant to the partnership at Joint Planning Advisory Board meetings. The HCA is a member of the Housing Strategic Partnership convened by Nottingham City Council and all authorities are invited to attend the agency’s quarterly partner meetings.

No outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

17 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

7. Primary Care Trusts and successor bodies a) NHS Nottinghamshire County (Primary Care Trust) now replaced by Clinical Commissioning Groups

Nature of Cooperation

• Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have convened ongoing meetings with NHS Nottinghamshire to inform the development of the Broxtowe and Gedling Core Strategies. These meetings have directly informed the development of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and assisted in identifying areas for future collaboration, particularly for locations where NHS structures are in infancy. On-going dialogue will continue with new Clinical Commissioning Groups.

It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues to resolve.

b) NHS Nottingham City (Primary Care Trust) now replaced by Clinical Commissioning Group

Nature of Cooperation

• Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have convened ongoing meetings with NHS Nottingham City to inform the development of the Nottingham City Core Strategy. These meetings have directly informed the development of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and assisted in identifying areas for future collaboration, particularly for locations where NHS structures are in infancy. On-going dialogue will continue with the new Clinical Commissioning Group.

Issues raised within the consultation on the publication version have been positively considered and amendments proposed to the document. It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues to resolve.

8. Office of Rail Regulation (Network Rail)

Nature of Cooperation

• Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Consultee

18 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

Summary of Cooperation Issues

No consultation response was submitted by Network Rail to the publication draft consultation, however Network Rail have directly participated in the development of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan particularly with regard to existing capacity and planned expansion of the rail network.

No outstanding issues to resolve.

9. Highways Agency

Nature of Cooperation • Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Infrastructure Delivery Plan participant • Signatory to Transport Modelling Memorandum of Understanding • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have worked closely with the Highways Agency in the developing the transport evidence base for the Core Strategies which is underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding - agreed between the three highway authorities covering Greater Nottingham and the Highways Agency. The Transport Background Paper and Addendum to that document for the Core Strategies has been prepared with direct consultation with the Agency.

Issues raised within the consultation on the publication version have been positively considered and amendments proposed to the document. It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

10. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)– Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire (D2N2)

Nature of Cooperation

• Joint Planning Advisory Board – observer status • Nottingham City Council is accountable body for the LEP • Consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

The Councils have engaged with the D2N2 LEP via Local Authority representation on the LEP’s officer group and the LEP Board. In view of the synergies between the work of the Growth Point Team (which directly supports the Joint Planning Advisory Board) and the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, the Growth Point Team have provided interim support to the LEP Board in developing its portfolio of capital investments across the LEP area.

19 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

The LEP has approved funding contributions to accelerate the delivery of Boots element of the Nottinghamshire Enterprise Zone (a strategic site which straddles the administrative boundaries of both Broxtowe and Nottingham Councils)

No consultation response was submitted by D2N2 LEP to the publication draft consultation.

No outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

11. Local Nature Partnership (LNP)- Lowland Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

Nature of Cooperation

• New prescribed body • Nottinghamshire County Council is a lead partner in LNP and consultee • Other partners - Derbyshire County Council • Other partners – Wildlife Trust, consultee

Summary of Cooperation Issues

No direct dialogue with this new organisation, although direct relationship and consultation with partner authorities. Issues raised as part of the consultation on the publication version with partners from the LNP have been positively considered and amendments proposed to the document.

It is not considered that there are any outstanding issues to resolve at the Examination.

6.0 Conclusions

6.1 The Councils believe the collaboration and cooperation highlighted in this paper, has resulted in the production of a robust evidence base for the Aligned Core Strategies. Where problems or issues have arisen the Councils have worked in partnership with the relevant bodies to consider options and find solutions including amending the text of the Aligned Core Strategies in direct response to the comments received through the various stages of consultation and on going dialogue.

6.2 There are key themes where it is considered that there are no outstanding duty to cooperate issues which need to be considered at the Examination. These include employment, retail and leisure, health, conservation and the built environment, education provision, mineral and waste, Green Belt review, approach to water use and flood risk etc.

6.3 The Councils has not received any objections relating to overall soundness or legal compliance from the Councils with which it shares administrative boundaries, except for Rushcliffe Borough Council who

20 Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

in their representation disagree with the Borough Council’s rationale for the way that the housing figure has been projected forward between 2026 and 2028. It is hoped that the on-going work that Rushcliffe is undertaken following direction from their Planning Inspector will ensure that any objections raised between the Councils can be withdrawn.

6.4 Gedling Borough is committed to working with Ashfield District Council to ensure that strategic sites can be delivered within Gedling with the necessary supporting infrastructure and services provided within Ashfield. The drafting of a protocol for addressing the cross-boundary impacts of new development with the input of Ashfield will help address concerns from Ashfield District Council.

6.5 The Councils are committed to continuing the high level of cooperation set out in this paper into the future and believe the duty to cooperate compliance requirement has been fully met.

21