Broxtowe, Gedling and City Aligned Core Strategies

Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific

September 2013

Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement

Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement relating to the Inspectors Matters 2, 3, 6 and 7

Please also refer to the Site Specific Overview Statement.

Introduction

This paper has been prepared by Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City Councils in response to the Inspectors site specific queries within Matters 2, 3, 6 and 7. It focuses on specific strategic sites including the HS2 strategic location for growth, and key settlements but it should be read in conjunction with the full responses to Matters 2, 3, 6 and 7 and the site schedules within the Core Strategy (and Proposed Amendments). In particular the statement demonstrates the sustainability credentials of the options chosen, delivery progress on key sites and locations, and green belt issues. The questions this paper addresses are:

 Matter 2, Question 23:

 Matter 3, Question 3:

 Matter 6, Question 4:

 Matter 6, Question 7, 2nd bullet:

 Matter 7, Question 5:

The Inspectors Matter 2 Q7, Matter 6 Q10, and 6 Matter 7 Q6 are addressed in full in the respective Council statements on these matters.

Sustainability Issues

Sustainability Appraisal

The SA Non-Technical Summary (CD/REG/07) includes a summary of the reasons for the choice of site and settlement options in Broxtowe, at pages 15-16. The SA itself (CD/REG/06) includes a summary appraisal of Broxtowe’s chosen settlements and site options, at Table 15 (page 85). It also includes a written explanation of the reasons for including sites and settlements in policy 2, and the reasons for rejecting other sites at paragraphs 9.14 - 9.42 (pages 86-90).

The SA Appendices (CD/REG/08) include appraisals of Awsworth (pages 97-98 and 139-40), Brinsley (pages 95-96 and 137-138), Eastwood (pages 91-92 and 133-134), Kimberley (pages 93-94 and 135-136) and Field Farm (pages 89 - 90 and 117-118). They also include appraisals of several rejected sites (pages 103-108 and 123-128). The SA Addendum (CD/REG/09) includes (at appendix G, pages 39-41) Broxtowe’s comments on representations about the SA, several of which related to sites and settlements. The SA Addendum regarding (CD/REG/10) includes appraisal of

1 Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement the Toton site on the same basis as the appraisals in CD/REG/08, in appendix 3 (pages 13-14) and appendix 4 (pages 15-17).

Appraisal of Sustainable Urban Extensions

The Appraisal of Sustainable Urban Extensions (CD/KEY/08) includes an explanation of the consultants’ recommendations for development at Toton (pages 123-129) and Field Farm (part of the ‘North of Stapleford’ site, pages 144-148). It also includes explanations for the consultants’ rejection of Sustainable Urban Extensions at other locations in Broxtowe, including land west of (pages 79- 82), land at Bramcote (pages 118-122), land at (pages 136-140) and land east of Ilkeston (pages 155-158). The Green Belt was an important criterion in the consultants’ assessments, as mentioned at paragraph 2.2.1 (page 7) and as explained in detail at paragraphs 2.2.52-2.2.61 (pages 21-23).

With regard to the Toton location, the consultants considered the gap between Stapleford and Toton to be an “informal suburban amenity space”, “within the PUA” (Principal Urban Area, now referred to as the main built up area of Nottingham), rather than a strategic Green Belt gap between settlements (paragraph 4.14.23, page 126). The consultants concluded that “the opportunity for sustainable transport here, as well as the fact that coalescence concerns are less clear-cut than in many other locations, tips the balance narrowly towards development” (paragraph 4.14.28, page 127). While the Council has previously resisted development here (such as at the last Local Plan inquiry), when considered in a strategic, Greater Nottingham-wide context the Council agrees that this gap can reasonably be seen as less important than several others. In addition, since the consultants completed their report the opportunity for sustainable transport here, to which they refer, has increased as a result of the HS2 announcement, and also construction works are now underway to implement the tram with completion expected by the end of 2014.

The Greater Nottingham Sustainable Locations for Growth report

The Greater Nottingham Sustainable Locations for Growth report (CD/KEY/07) includes explanations of the scale and direction of the consultants’ recommendations for development at Awsworth (pages 57 and 166-168), Brinsley (pages 54 and 157- 159), Eastwood (pages 55 and 160-162) and Kimberley (pages 56 and 163-165).The remainder of northern Broxtowe, for which no development is recommended, is dealt with at pages 58 and 169-171. The Green Belt was again an important criterion in the consultants’ assessments, as mentioned at paragraphs 1.3.8 and 2.3.1 (pages 6 and 8) and as explained in detail at paragraphs 2.3.80-2.3.90 (pages 23-25).

The Accessible Settlements Study for Greater Nottingham

The Accessible Settlements Study for Greater Nottingham (BD/HOU/08) gives summary results for accessibility for settlements in Broxtowe at Table A1.1 (page 18). Table A1.2 (pages 22-23) gives scores for all settlements in Greater

2 Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement

Nottingham, in order of total score. All the chosen settlements in Broxtowe score relatively highly, with scores of over 200, within an overall range in Greater Nottingham of scores from 43 to 280.

Delivery Issues

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (CD/KEY/01) includes summaries of a wide range of infrastructure issues in tables 7.12-7.31 (pages 32-96). These issues include transport, utilities, flooding, services, education and heritage. An overview of strategic infrastructure requirements relating to all sites and settlements, and how these requirements will be met, is given at pages 218-233. Summaries of infrastructure issues and solutions regarding Field Farm and Toton are at pages 106- 109 and 110-115 respectively. Similar summaries are included for the settlements of Awsworth (pages 116-119), Brinsley (pages 120-122), Eastwood (pages 123-125) and Kimberley (pages 126-128).

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes proposed timescales for the delivery of all the proposed strategic sites (Table 4.3, page 9). These timescales are 0-5 years for Field Farm and 6+ years for all other strategic sites and settlements in Broxtowe. A summary of the strategic transport issues for all sites and settlements is given at Table 7.12 on page 32. Table 7.2 on page 18 (as well as Table 1 on page 5 of the Transport Background Paper, CD/BACK/05) confirms that modelling for Field Farm has included the extension of a bus service into the site, whilst Table 7.10 on page 30 confirms that a transport assessment has been submitted as part of the planning application. Summaries of transport and other infrastructure issues for Awsworth, Brinsley, Eastwood, Kimberley and Field Farm are at pages 116-119, 120-122, 123- 125, 126-128 and 106-109 respectively.

The Toton Background Paper (CD/BACK/15) gives further explanation for the choice of the Toton location.

The County Council Transport Position Statement (CD/BACK/07) confirms the satisfaction, for ACS purposes, of the Highways Agency and the local highways authorities with the transport implications of the chosen sites and settlements. Further collaborative transport modelling work will be needed in future and this will be undertaken in conjunction with the forthcoming site allocations DPD. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (CD/KEY/01) confirms that transport assessments and further highway requirements are to be developed as part of master-planning work, with regard to both Eastwood (page 123) and Kimberley (page 126).

Taken together, these documents confirm that there is no need for more detail to be given at this stage and that there is confidence amongst the expert authorities that there will be no transport constraints which could prevent or significantly delay delivery, and the Highways Agency’s concerns have therefore been satisfactorily addressed.

3 Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement

Viability Issues at Field Farm

Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF relate to “ensuring viability and deliverability”. Section 9 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (CD/KEY/01, pages 208-210) deals specifically with the requirements of these paragraphs (and includes quotes from them). An indicative viability assessment for Field Farm is set out at page 210 of CD/KEY/01. This confirms that development will be viable at all potential market values. It also indicates that affordable housing requirements could be adjusted to take account of market values. Tables 7.20 (page 63) and 7.26 (page 76) in CD/KEY/01 provide estimated costs for GP and education requirements at Field Farm and these costs are incorporated in the viability assessment. It is acknowledged that development at Field Farm is not viable with a requirement for more than 25% affordable housing and this matter is dealt with in full in the Councils statement on Matter 7.

Green Belt Issues

The Nottingham-Derby Green Belt Review (BD/ENV/06) sets out its findings and conclusions about areas of Green Belt in Broxtowe in its section on ‘Assessment of Purpose and Role of the Green Belt’. The area between Nottingham and Ilkeston / is dealt with at paragraphs 15-18 (pages 4-5) and the area around Eastwood and Kimberley at paragraphs 35-39 (pages 8-9). Conclusions are at paragraphs 95-96 (page 19). The findings of this Review have been important factors behind the scale of the development that is proposed at the chosen settlements. The findings also influenced the choice of the Field Farm site and the Toton location.

The Green Belt Review Background Paper (CD/BACK/10) includes summaries, at appendix B, of the conclusions of CD/KEY/08, CD/KEY/07 and BD/ENV/06 (as referred to above). It also explains, at appendix C, the reasons for the choices of the Field Farm allocation and the Toton location.

The Green Belt Review Background Paper (CD/BACK/10) includes, at appendix B (pages 15-16), a summary of the two ‘Tribal’ studies and the previous Green Belt Review to explain the broad development choices in the ACS. These documents are referred to further below. CD/BACK/10 also includes, at appendix C, specific explanation of the choices of Field Farm and Toton.

Greasley parish is a location where Green Belt alterations are likely to be made as part of the Broxtowe Allocations DPD (part 2 Local Plan). The Parish of includes large areas of undeveloped land which are directly adjacent to the built-up areas of Eastwood and Kimberley (as well as land in the vicinity of Awsworth and Brinsley). It is not proposed that either the ACS or subsequent DPDs would make allocations on the basis of parish council boundaries. However, any allocations in the current area of the Green Belt in Greasley are unlikely to be extensive, and certainly not of a scale that would require allocation in the Core Strategy. Current information

4 Site Specific Response & Update Statement: Broxtowe Site / Location Specific Statement in the Broxtowe SHLAA (BD/HOU/49) is that that when allowing for urban land supply further allocations are likely to be required for 247 dwellings adjacent to Eastwood and 186 dwellings adjacent to Kimberley.

Conclusion

There is a very wide range of evidence that the sites and settlements named in policy 2 are the best options for growth. They have been selected following objective assessments of all reasonable alternatives through sustainability appraisal, and have been subject to extensive work on Green Belt issues including from independent consultants, and the extent of this work is appropriate to a Core Strategy. The evidence demonstrates that they are deliverable at the point envisaged in the Core Strategy.

The Council therefore considers that the ACS does not contain flaws with regard to any of these issues and should not be changed.

5