Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 Contents

1 Introduction 3 2 Background and context 4 3 Cooperation and partnership working 6 4 Outcomes and future arrangements 22 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters 44 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters 73 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters 126

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 1 Introduction

1.1 Strategic planning is a key element of plan-making to ensure that social, economic and environmental issues are properly addressed at a larger then local scale. This is because the actions of people, businesses and services have consequences which go beyond a single local authority area.

1.2 In order to address strategic planning issues, relevant local authorities and other public bodies are required to work together through the ‘duty to co-operate’ as set out in the Localism Act 2011 and described further in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and draft National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The purpose of the duty is to ensure that local authorities and public bodies that are critical to plan making cooperate with each other and that they are involved in continual constructive and active engagement as part of the planning process

1.3 The purpose of this Statement is to provide an overview of how the Council has met its obligations under the Duty to Cooperate with regard to the High Peak Local Plan. The ‘duty to co-operate’ is a legal requirement of the plan preparation process and this Statement seeks to evidence the work that has been done in preparing the Local Plan and how this will be taken forward in future plan-making.

1.4 The remainder of this statement is structured around the following sections:

Section 2 (Background and context) - this sets out the statutory and policy requirements for the Duty to Cooperate and the background of the High Peak Local Plan Section 3 (Cooperation and partnership working) - provides details of cooperation matters and partnership working that have shaped the Local Plan and assist in its delivery Section 4 (Outcomes and future arrangements) - provides a summary of outcomes of cooperation and how they will be implemented over the plan period

1.5 The following appendices also accompany the statement:

Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters Appendix 3 - Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 3 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 2 Background and context

Localism Act 2011

2.1 Section 110 of the Localism Act sets out a ‘duty to cooperate’ for local planning authorities and other prescribed bodies in relation to planning for sustainable development when preparing Development Plan Documents, other Local Development Documents and other plans relating to strategic matters. Specifically, the 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 to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ to develop strategic policies; and Requires Councils to consider joint approaches to plan making.

2.2 The ‘prescribed bodies’ which the Council has a duty to co-operate with are set out in the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended by The National Treatment Agency (Abolition) and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2013. In addition to Local Planning Authorities, those relevant to High Peak Borough Council are:

Environment Agency Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage) Natural England Civil Aviation Authority Homes and Communities Agency Clinical commissioning groups established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006 (North Derbyshire CCG & Tameside and Glossop CCG) National Health Service Commissioning Board Office of Rail Regulation Integrated Transport Authority (Transport for Greater Manchester) Highway authorities within the meaning of section 1 of the Highways Act 1980 (Highways Agency & Derbyshire County Council)

2.3 Whilst Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships are not subject to the Duty to Cooperate, local planning authorities should have regard to their activities. In addition, to the above bodies to which the Duty to Cooperate is directly applicable, the Borough Council also has ongoing engagement with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) on cross boundary matters, including strategic transport and economic development. The GMCA comprises of representatives of all Greater Manchester local authorities, including Stockport MBC and Tameside MBC which border High Peak.

National Planning Policy Framework

2.4 The NPPF specifies national planning policies for England. Paragraphs 178 to 181 emphasise the importance of planning strategically to address issues across administrative boundaries, particularly priorities that relate to:

the homes and jobs needed in the area;

4 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 2 Background and context

the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development; the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat); the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape

2.5 The outcome of collaborative working on such priorities should be reflected in the Local Plan. This includes the outcome of joint working with relevant local planning authorities to ensure that development requirements are met when they cannot be fully provided in a single Local Plan area due to physical or national policy constraints. The preparation of joint policies, strategies or a Memorandum of Understanding are all advocated as means of ensuring that an agreed position will continue to be adhered to during the plan period.

2.6 Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is necessary for the Local Plan to be adopted. As such, the Planning Inspector will consider this issue at the Examination of the Local Plan. The Council is also required to monitor and report on actions undertaken under the Duty to Cooperate on a annual basis.

Draft National Planning Practice Guidance

2.7 The draft NPPG was published in 2013. The document provides further practical guidance and clarification regarding the Duty to Cooperate and wider planning policies.

High Peak Local Plan

2.8 The High Peak Local Plan as published in 2014 has been informed by ongoing joint working with partner organisations and consultation dating back to before the Duty to Cooperate was introduced in 2011. This includes work on the former Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy that commenced in 2009. A draft Joint Core Strategy was issued for consultation in 2010. The Core Strategy provided strategic planning guidance and some development management policies for the parts of High Peak and Derbyshire Dales that lie outside of the Peak District National Park. The plan was underpinned by a joint evidence base for the whole of the Peak Sub-Region as defined by the now abolished East Midlands Regional Plan. This included High Peak, Derbyshire Dales and the Peak District National Park Authority, Whilst broad locations for development were identified, specific land allocations were not included in the Core Strategy.

2.9 Joint working with Derbyshire Dales District Council on the Joint Core Strategy ended in April 2012. This was due to a desire to provide a quicker and less costly single Development Plan for the Borough which could more closely reflect the vision and aspiration of local communities and accommodates Neighbourhood Plans. Joint work with Derbyshire Dales District Council to consider housing requirements also identified differences in the housing markets across the two authorities which suggested that locally-tailored approaches would be required. However, cooperation on strategic planning issues has continued with partners in the former Peak Sub-Region and beyond in order to ensure that cross boundary issues are addressed.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 5 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

Cooperation issues

3.1 The NPPF specifies that public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly strategic priorities. The nature and scope of cross boundary cooperation will depend on the spatial relationship between public bodies. For example, shared housing market or travel to work areas or shared infrastructure.

3.2 The latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, 2014) recommended that due to the overlapping nature of housing market areas, migration and commuting patterns, the Council should focus its efforts for cooperation on housing matters with Stockport, Tameside, Cheshire East, Derbyshire Dales and Sheffield. As the High Peak Local Plan does not plan to accommodate all of the objectively assessed need for housing as identified in the 2014 SHMA within High Peak, close cooperation with these authorities is particularly important in order to ensure that housing needs are met as far as possible. A request was made from Derbyshire Dales District Council to assist in meeting their objectively assessed housing needs.

3.3 The Employment Land Review (ELR, 2014) indicated that cooperation of employment issues would be particularly relevant with authorities including Manchester, Tameside and Stockport due to the extent of out-commuting from High Peak to these areas. In particular, the report concludes that High Peak lies within a wider Functional Economic Area with Stockport and Manchester. The objectively assessed need for employment land in High Peak as identified in the 2014 ELR is met in the High Peak Local Plan. Tamesdie MBC has enquired about the scope to include land in High Peak as a potential alternative to a strategic allocation in Tameside at the eastern end of the M67.

3.4 The Quantitative Retail Study Update Report (2013) and subsequent Addendum (2014) identify leisure and retail needs for High Peak. Where a need for development has been identified, the High Peak Local Plan makes provisions to support it within the Borough. No requests from other authorities have been made for High Peak to accommodate any unmet needs for retail or leisure.

3.5 In view of the relationship between High Peak and some Greater Manchester authorities, particularly in terms of commuting and migration, the Borough is recognised as forming part of the Manchester City Region. Given these issues, transport links that connect High Peak with Greater Manchester such as the A6, A57/A628 and Buxton-Stockport/Manchester, Glossop/Hadfield-Manchester and Hope Valley railway lines are important cross boundary links that require cooperation.

3.6 Common issues shared with the Peak District National Park Authority and partners across the wider Peak District such as the need to project the environment and support the local economy are also of significance.

3.7 Derbyshire County Council is also a key organisation for Local Plan preparation and delivery in High Peak, particularly in terms of its capacity as the local highways authority, waste and minerals planning authority, lead local flood authority and provider of other infrastructure including education.

3.8 Further details of the spatial relationship between High Peak and partner organisations are provided in the Table 1.

6 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

3.9 The High Peak Local Plan identifies twelve Strategic Objectives (SO) that relate to three themes; Protecting Peak District Character, Enhancing Prosperity and Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Communities:

Protecting Peak District Character

SO1: To protect create and enhance the Green Infrastructure Network SO2: To maintain, enhance and conserve the Borough’s distinct landscape characteristics, biodiversity, and cultural and historic environment. SO3: To ensure new development is well designed, promotes local distinctiveness and integrates effectively with its setting. SO4: To protect and enhance the character, appearance and setting of the towns and villages SO5: To address, mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change on people, wildlife and places; promoting the safeguarding and prudent sustainable use of natural resources.

Enhancing Prosperity

SO6: To welcome development that supports the sustainable growth and diversification of the local economy, including the mixed-use development of industrial legacy sites. SO7: To further develop the Borough’s tourism and cultural offer as part of a wider Peak District destination. SO8: To strengthen the vitality and viability of town centres by adapting to changing consumer habits in shopping and leisure.

Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Communities

SO9: To provide an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures in sustainable and accessible locations that meets the needs of all residents in the Borough. SO10: To protect existing, and support the delivery of new services, facilities and infrastructure that improve accessibility and connectivity SO11: To promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles and support developments that minimise risks to health SO12: To encourage the efficient use of previously developed land and buildings whilst minimising the use of greenfield land.

3.10 Table 1 provides an overview of the spatial relationship of each Duty to Cooperate body with High Peak, associated strategic cooperation matters, engagement methods and the Local Plan objectives that cooperation supports.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 7 8 High 3 Duty Table 1 Spatial relationship and Duty to Cooperate matters with partner organisations Cooperation to Peak Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperate Objectives methods

Local Derbyshire Local highways authority for High Peak Ensuring that County Council led infrastructure SO1, SO5, SO6, Meetings, County Waste and minerals planning authority for High has sufficient capacity to accommodate planned SO7 SO10, consultation, Council Peak growth SO11 partnership Plan Need for coordinated polices and designations working, joint Lead local flood authority for High Peak Statement Key infrastructure provider in High Peak, in respect of the High Peak Local Plan and evidence - Derby and Derbyshire Minerals and Waste Plan gathering

August including; education, libraries, transport and green infrastructure Collaboration on regeneration and economic and development - August 2014

Peak District Neighbouring local planning authority that Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO1, SO2, SO3, Meetings, partnership National Park partially lies within the same Travel to Work Area needs for development for the whole of High SO4, SO5, SO6, consultation, Authority as the south of High Peak (Buxton TTWA) Peak Borough SO7, SO9, partnership Local planning authority for the majority of High Taking account of housing delivery in the areas SO10, SO11 working, joint 2014 Peak Borough area which lies with the National of High Peak that lie within the National Park evidence Park Need to consider the landscape setting of the gathering Parish and town council boundaries that span National Park to mitigate unacceptable adverse border of the National Park and High Peak Local impacts Plan areas Consideration of the capacity of shared

Main settlements within High Peak Local Plan infrastructure to support growth and local working area function as service centres for communities communities and visitors in the National Park Joint support for Neighbourhood Planning for Shared transport infrastructure links - A6, A57, parish and town councils with land in both plan A628 Hope Valley rail line, numerous public rights areas of way, cycle trails and bridleways Supporting the wider Peak District Economy

Tameside Neighbouring local planning authority which lies Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO9, SO10 Meetings, Metropolitan within the same Travel to Work area as the north needs for housing within the overlapping consultation, joint Borough of High Peak (Manchester TTWA) housing market areas working Council Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's Supporting the local economy

i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to Trends of migration from Tameside to High Peak Consideration of cross boundary transport Cooperate Trends of commuting from High Peak to infrastructure required to support development Tameside and into Manchester and address existing issues Shared transport infrastructure links - A628/A57 Coordination of Green Belt reviews that affect and Glossop - Manchester rail line the shared Green Belt boundary

Shared Green Belt boundary in the Glossopdale Statement / Longdendale area

Stockport Neighbouring local planning authority which lies Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO9, SO10 Meetings, and Metropolitan within the same Travel to Work area as the north needs for housing within the overlapping consultation, joint

Borough of High Peak (Manchester TTWA) housing market areas evidence - August

Council Lies within the same Functional Economic Area Supporting the local economy gathering partnership Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's Consideration of cross boundary transport Trends of migration from Stockport to High Peak infrastructure required to support development

Trends of commuting from High Peak to and address existing issues 2014 Stockport Coordination of Green Belt reviews that affect Shared key transport infrastructure links - A6, the shared Green Belt boundary Buxton - Manchester and Hope Valley rail lines Shared Green Belt boundary

Manchester Local planning authority that lies within the same Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO9, SO10 Consultation, working City Council Travel to Work area as the north of High Peak needs for housing within the overlapping meeting (ii) (Manchester TTWA) housing market areas Lies within the same Functional Economic Area Supporting the local economy High Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's Consideration of cross boundary transport Shared key transport infrastructure links - A6, infrastructure required to support development Peak A57, Buxton - Manchester and Glossop - and address existing issues Manchester rail lines Local Plan i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least

- two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is August strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 2014 ii Whilst Manchester does not share a boundary with High Peak, it is included here due to the prevalent commuting and migration patterns between the two authorities. 9 10 High 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to Peak Trends of migration from Manchester to High Cooperate Peak Local Trends of commuting from High Peak to Manchester

Plan Cheshire East Neighbouring local planning authority which Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO2, SO9, SO10 Meetings, Statement Council partially lies within the same Travel to Work area needs for housing within the overlapping consultation, joint

- as the north of High Peak (Manchester TTWA) housing market areas evidence August

Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's Consideration of cross boundary transport gathering and Shared key transport infrastructure links - A6 and infrastructure required to support development and address existing issues Buxton - Manchester rail line - August 2014

Trends of migration between the two authorities Policies required in respective Local Plans to partnership Trends of commuting from High Peak to Cheshire have regard to purposes of the Peak District East National Park Coordination of Green Belt reviews that affect Shared responsibility to have regard to the 2014 purposes of the Peak District National Park the shared Green Belt boundary Shared Green Belt boundary

Derbyshire Local planning authority within same Local Working towards meeting objectively assessed SO2, SO6, SO7, Meetings, Dales District Strategic Partnership area needs for housing within the overlapping SO9, SO10 consultation,

Council Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's housing market areas partnership working Neighbouring district (local planning authority working, joint area separated from High Peak plan area by Policies required in respective Local Plans to evidence National Park have regard to purposes of the Peak District gathering Shared responsibility to have regard to the National Park purposes of the Peak District National Park Shared transport infrastructure links through the Consideration of the capacity of shared Peak District National Park - A6, A515, public infrastructure to support growth and local rights of way, cycle trails and bridleways communities

Supporting the wider Peak District Economy

i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to Sheffield City Housing market area overlaps with High Peak's Policies required in respective Local Plans to SO2, SO9 Consultation Cooperate Council Neighbouring district (local planning authority have regard to purposes of the Peak District area separated from High Peak plan area by National Park National Park) Working towards meeting objectively assessed Shared responsibility to have regard to the needs for housing within the overlapping housing market areas

purposes of the Peak District National Park Statement

Staffordshire Neighbouring district (local planning authority Policies required in respective Local Plans to SO2, SO6, SO7, Consultation,

Moorlands area separated from High Peak plan area by have regard to purposes of the Peak District SO9 Strategic and District National Park) National Park Alliance, joint Council evidence Shared responsibility to have regard to the Supporting the wider Peak District Economy -

gathering, August purposes of the Peak District National Park partnership partnership

Oldham Neighbouring district (local planning authority Landscape impact of renewable energy SO2 Consultation Metropolitan area separated from High Peak plan area by developments on the southern Pennines, 2014 Borough National Park) including the Peak District National Park Council Shared responsibility to have regard to the Policies required in respective Local Plans to purposes of the Peak District National Park have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park

Kirklees Neighbouring district (local planning authority Policies required in respective Local Plans to SO2 Consultation working Metropolitan area separated from High Peak plan area by have regard to purposes of the Peak District Borough National Park) National Park

High Council Shared responsibility to have regard to the purposes of the Peak District National Park Peak Local Plan - August i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of 2014 land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 1 1 12 High 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to Peak Barnsley Neighbouring district (local planning authority Policies required in respective Local Plans to SO2, SO10 Consultation, Cooperate Council area separated from High Peak plan area by have regard to purposes of the Peak District joint evidence

Local National Park) National Park gathering Shared transport infrastructure links through the Consideration of cross boundary transport Peak District National Park - A628 infrastructure required to support development Plan Shared responsibility to have regard to the and address existing issues Statement purposes of the Peak District National Park - August

Natural Statutory body with responsibility for the Input on Habitats Regulations Assessment, SO2, SO5 Consultation, and England conservation, enhancement and management of including potential impacts of development on meetings the natural environment in England European designated sites in the Peak District - August 2014 National Park partnership

Environment Statutory body with responsibility for a range of Input on Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, SO2, SO5 Consultation, Agency environmental issues including; flood risk, water including potential downstream cross boundary meeting quality and climate change in England flood risk matters 2014

Highways Highways authority for the A628 in Glossopdale Consideration of impact of development SO10 Consultation, Agency and beyond proposals in Local Plan on A628 / A57 trunk meetings road in High Peak and neighbouring authorities

English Statutory body with responsibility for the historic Partner in the delivery of strategic heritage led SO2, SO3, SO4, Consultation, working Heritage environment in England regeneration projects, particularly the Buxton SO7 meetings Crescent and Spa Hotel (Grade 1 listed)

National Statutory body with responsibility for Provision of additional health care infrastructure SO10 Consultation, Health commissioning primary health care and and services to support growth where meeting Service supporting Clinical Commissioning Groups necessary Commissioning (CCG's) in England Board (NHS England)

i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to North Plan and purchase health care for residents in Provision of additional health care infrastructure SO10 Consultation Cooperate Derbyshire North Derbyshire, including the Buxton and and services to support growth where CCG Central Area in High Peak necessary

Tameside and Plan and purchase health care for residents in Provision of additional health care infrastructure SO10 Consultation Glossop CCG Glossopdale and services to support growth where necessary Statement

Office of Rail Regulate the rail industry in the UK No strategic matters identified Consultation and Regulation -

Transport for Integrated Transport Authority for Greater Supporting role in identifying and providing SO10 Consultation, August Greater Manchester with influence on connecting public cross transport infrastructure and services that meetings,joint partnership Manchester transport services in High Peak connect High Peak with Greater Manchester evidence gathering 2014 Civil Aviation Statutory body with responsibility for safety and No strategic matters identified Consultation Authority management of UK airspace

Homes and Agency with responsibilities including supporting Partner in the delivery of affordable housing SO9 Consultation Community affordable housing delivery in High Peak

Agency working D2N2 Local Local Enterprise Partnership for Derby, Local Plan should reflect and assist in delivering SO6, SO7, SO8 Consultation Enterprise Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, the LEP's objectives. Partnership including High Peak High Peak District Partnership of individuals, businesses and Local Plan should reflect and assist in delivering SO1, SO2, SO5 Consultation Local Nature organisations with role in improving the local the LNP's objectives

Peak Partnership natural environment of the Peak District, including the High Peak Local Plan area

Local Greater Authority with powers relating to transport and Supporting role in identifying and providing SO6, SO7, SO8, Meetings Manchester economic development across Greater cross transport infrastructure and services that SO9, SO10 Combined Manchester connect High Peak with Greater Manchester Plan - August i Defined in Localism Act 2011 as: "sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, and (b) sustainable development or use of 2014 land in a two-tier area if the development or use (i)is a county matter, or(ii)has or would have a significant impact on a county matter" 13 14 High 3 Duty Organisation Spatial relationship (i) Strategic Engagement Strategic matters Cooperation Objectives methods to Peak Authority Working towards meeting objectively assessed Cooperate (GMCA) needs for housing within the overlapping

Local housing market areas Supporting economic development and business growth Plan Statement - August and - August 2014 partnership 2014 working

Cooperation methods

Identifying and meeting objectively assessed development needs

3.11 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF makes it clear that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed development needs unless any adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the benefits when assessed against wider NPPF policies or when specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The needs for housing, employment and retail/leisure development have been objectively assessed to inform the Local Plan. It is acknowledged in the Local Plan that the objectively assessed need for housing in High Peak is not fully accommodated due to development constraints.

3.12 The Local Plan makes provision for an average of 360 homes to be built per year whilst the objectively assessed need as identified in the 2014 SHMA was in the region of 420 to 470 homes per year (please see the Housing Topic Paper for further details). In order to attempt to take up the shortfall, the Borough Council has engaged with neighbouring local planning authorities and beyond to determine the scope for them to take on some of High Peak's unmet needs. Engagement with neighbouring authorities was also undertaken prior this period to help inform the housing requirement and to promote its delivery in full. This has included:

Informal consultation with neighbouring authorities on the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Housing Target Options - 2012 (Appendix 3) Formal consultation on High Peak Local Plan Options, Preferred Options, Additional Consultation and Submission - 2012-2014 Meetings with neighbouring authorities with a higher number of potential cross boundary issues to identify and discuss potential approaches to cross boundary issues, including housing requirements and provision - 2011-2014 (Appendix 2) Consultation on new Strategic Housing Market Assessment, including a stakeholder workshop -2013 Invitation sent to all neighbouring local planning authorities and Manchester City Council to support High Peak in meeting some of its unmet housing need in light of its newly proposed housing target (360 dpa) and objectively assessed need (420-470 dpa) - 2014 (Appendix 3) Preparation of Memoranda of Understanding with neighbouring local planning authorities where required - 2014 (Appendix 1)

Partnership working

3.13 The Borough Council has a longstanding record of working with partner organisations that goes beyond the Duty to Cooperate requirement specified in the 2011 Localism Act. Indeed, in many cases cooperation on planning and related matters with partners pre-dates the Act. This includes joint working with neighbouring authorities on collecting evidence, infrastructure delivery planning, and the Local Strategic Partnership that has helped to shape the vision and objectives of the Local Plan.

Local Strategic Partnership

3.14 The vision and strategic objectives for the Local Plan (and the former Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy) have been informed by the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Sustainable Community Strategy as published by the Local Strategic Partnership (now known as

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 15 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

the Peak District Partnership). The partnership consists of several voluntary, private and public sector organisations with responsibilities for supporting communities across Derbyshire Dales and High Peak, including those covered by the Duty to Cooperate.

Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Local Enterprise Partnership (D2N2)

3.15 The Borough Council actively supports and engages with the D2N2 LEP to assist with the delivery of the LEP's objectives and vice versa. This includes representation through the Derbyshire Economic Partnership and D2 Board on which the Borough Council is represented. D2 is a joint committee of all local authorities in Derbyshire with a remit to enhance the economic prosperity of the County. Local Plan Policy S4 and supporting text provides explicit support for the objectives of LEP and identified growth sectors for the area. Similarly, the D2N2 Strategic Economic Plan (2014) reflects the growth and infrastructure aspirations of the High Peak Local Plan, including the development of the Fairfield Link Road, Gamesley Station and works to further support Buxton's development as a spa town destination.

Business Peak District

3.16 Business Peak District consists of representatives from the business community along with the Peak District, National Park Authority, High Peak Borough Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. Business Peak District's vision is that the Peak District will be a distinctive, high quality rural environment with an enterprising, growing and sustainable economy. A concordat signed by members identifies priorities for the partnership which include the development of sites to support business growth. Research undertaken also identifies that business growth in the Peak District is dependant on links to the surrounding cities. The High Peak Local Plan seeks to address both issues through the identification of employment land and support for transport infrastructure. A Growth Strategy for the Peak District is now under preparation.

Visit Peak District

3.17 Visit Peak District is the tourist board for the Peak District and Derbyshire. The Borough Council has a Serve Level Agreement with Visit Peak District and supports the work which seeks to enhance and promote the visitor economy. The importance of supporting the tourist industrial is reflected in Local Plan Strategic Objective 7 and Policy E6 (Promoting Peak District Tourism and Culture). The Derbyshire Tourism Impact Study commissioned by D2N2 to inform Visit Peak District's work programme. The study identifies numerous projects in High Peak that are supported by the Local Plan. These include the Buxton Crescent and Spa Hotel, the White Peak Loop cycle trail and the re-development of Torr Vale Mill.

Evidence base

3.18 Numerous joint evidence base studies have shaped the Local Plan and those of neighbouring authorities. In addition, when not directly involved in relevant studies, neighbouring authorities and other stakeholders have also been consulted on the approach and initial findings of evidence base studies to ensure that a consistent approach. A summary of joint working on the High Peak Local Plan evidence base is provided below.

16 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

Table 2 Cooperation on the Local Plan evidence base

Study Study partners Consultees

Housing Target Options Derbyshire Dales District Council Neighbouring Local paper (2011) Planning Authorities

Peak Sub-Region Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Housing Market National Park Authority Assessment (2008)

Strategic Housing Market Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Neighbouring Local Assessment (2014) Planning Authorities

Peak Sub-Region Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Environment Agency, Strategic Housing Land National Park Authority Highways Agency, Availability Assessment Derbyshire County (2009) Council

Affordable Housing Derbyshire Dales District Council Viability Study (2010)

Derbyshire Gypsy and Derbyshire County Council, Peak District National Traveller Accommodation Park Authority and all other Local Planning Authorities Assessments (2008) within Derbyshire

Derbyshire and East Derbyshire County Council, Peak District National Staffordshire Gypsy and Park Authority, East Staffordshire Borough Council Traveller Accommodation and all other Local Planning Authorities within Assessments (2014) Derbyshire

Peak Sub-Region Derbyshire Dales District Council, Derbyshire County Employment Land Council, Peak District National Park Authority Review (2008)

Derbyshire Employment Derbyshire County Council, Peak District National Forecasts (2013) Park Authority and all other Local Planning Authorities within Derbyshire

Employment Land Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Neighbouring Local Review (2014) Planning Authorities

Peak Sub-Region Retail Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District and Town Centre Study National Park Authority (2009)

Quantitative Retail Study Staffordshire Moorlands District Council update (2013) and Addendum (2014)

Peak Sub-Region Open Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Space, Sport and National Park Authority Recreation Study (2011)

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 17 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

Study Study partners Consultees

Peak Sub-Region Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Environment Agency Strategic Flood Risk National Park Authority Assessment (Level 1)

Strategic Flood Risk Environment Agency Assessment (Level 2)

Habitat Regulations Derbyshire Dales District Council Natural England Screening Assessment (2010)

Habitat Regulations Natural England Assessment (2014)

Peak Sub-Region Climate Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Change Study (2009) National Park Authority

Local Plan Transport Derbyshire County Council Highways Agency Study (2014)

A6 Corridor Study (2014) Derbyshire County Council, Stockport Metropolitan Peak District National Borough Council, Cheshire East Council and Transport Park Authority for Greater Manchester

Gamesley Station Study: Transport for Greater Manchester, Derbyshire County Economic Appraisal Council (2009)

North Derbyshire Local Derbyshire County Council, Derbyshire Dales District Development Council Frameworks Strategic Transport Issues Report (2010)

North Derbyshire Local Derbyshire County Council, Derbyshire Dales District Highways Agency Development Council

Frameworks: High Peak and Derbyshire Dales Stage: Traffic Impacts of Proposed

Development (2010)

Community Infrastructure Derbyshire Dales District Council, Peak District Levy Study (2013) National Park Authority, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

Local Plan and Site Neighbouring Local Viability Study (2014) Planning Authorities

18 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

Infrastructure delivery planning

3.19 As infrastructure and services are often provided by bodies other than the Borough Council and frequently have cross boundary implications, engagement with relevant partner organisations has been undertaken to ensure that provisions are in place to support the Local Plan. The outcome of this work has also informed the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Sub-Area Infrastructure Appraisals (2012). Methods of engagement to support infrastructure delivery planning during the preparation of the Local Plan are as follows:

Strategies and studies

3.20 As identified in the table above, several evidence base studies have been prepared jointly with public bodies with responsibility for the provision and planning for infrastructure within High Peak and beyond. This approach has also been undertaken where detailed consideration of a specific strategic issue is required. These include;

Local Plan Transport Study - an assessment of the cumulative impact of planned development identified in the High Peak Local Plan on the highways network and identification of suitable mitigation measures A6 Corridor Study - identifies long term transport demands along the A6 corridor (highways, public transport and freight) in High Peak and the neighbouring authorities of Cheshire East and Stockport. A mitigation strategy is also recommended Gamesley Station Study: Economic Appraisal - an assessment of the economic viability of creating a new railway station at Gamesley North Derbyshire Local Development Frameworks: Strategic Transport Issues Report - identifies; existing transport conditions and issues, locations that are most sustainable in terms of accessibility to key services and facilities, potential impacts, mitigations measures and sources of funding North Derbyshire Local Development Frameworks: High Peak and Derbyshire Dales: Traffic Impacts of Proposed Development - an assessment of the cumulative impact of planned development identified in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy on the highways network and identification of indicative mitigation measures Community Infrastructure Levy Study - an assessment of the case for the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy and viable rates

3.21 The Borough Council is committed to continue working with partners to support the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified by these studies. In the case of the A6 Corridor Study, a Memoranda of Understanding have been agreed with Cheshire East Council and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council with a commitment to prepare a mitigation strategy for the corridor and provide support for measures in respective Development Plans.

3.22 In addition, the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan (DIP) prepared by Derbyshire County Council identifies the capacity of infrastructure provided by the County Council and possible future requirements. The Borough Council engaged with the County Council through the consultation process for the DIP and has sought to reflect its content in the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 19 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

3.23 Further to evidence base studies commissioned by the Borough Council and local partners, the Highways Agency is also now in the process of conducting the Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study. The study is intended to identify and assess the case for transport improvements to address issues on the Trans-Pennine Routes and to improve connectivity. The study area includes the A628, A57, A624 and the Hope Valley rail line. The study's conclusions are expected by the Autumn of 2014. The Borough Council is committed to assisting the Highways Agency through the established stakeholder group and will consider its findings in due course.

3.24 The Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study will draw on existing evidence and reports including the Trans-Pennine Connectivity Study (2012). The connectivity study was commissioned by Derbyshire County Council on behalf of a steering group consisting of High Peak Borough Council, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, the Peak District National Park Authority and the Highways Agency. The study concluded that there is a economic case to improve transport connectivity between the Manchester and Sheffield City Regions.

Workshops

3.25 A number of joint infrastructure planning workshops for High Peak, Derbyshire Dales and the Peak District National Park have been held during the preparation of the plan.

3.26 A series of workshops was held with infrastructure providers during 2009 to determine their views on existing capacity, improvements scheduled in their existing capital and service programmes and the likely implications of the level and distribution of development proposed in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy. A further workshop was held with infrastructure providers in May 2012. Further details of these workshops are provided in Appendix 2.

Consultation

3.27 Infrastructure providers have been consulted at each stage during the preparation of the Local Plan dating back to the Joint Core Strategy to the submission of the Local Plan to ascertain their views. The Borough Council has also responded to consultations conducted by bodies covered by the Duty to Cooperate when appropriate.

Partnerships

3.28 The Borough Council contributes to several partnerships with responsibilities for identifying, supporting and providing infrastructure improvements that support the Local Plan. These include:

High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership - a partnership including Derbyshire County Council, Northern Rail, Transport for Greater Manchester, Peak District National Park Authority and Cheshire East Council along with community groups that seeks to promote and enhance rail services in High Peak and the Hope Valley Wider Peak District Cycle Strategy Steering Group - a steering group of local authorities (including Derbyshire County Council and Derbyshire Dales District Council) and wider stakeholders to help shape and deliver the Wider Peak District Cycle Strategy which is led by the Peak District National Park Authority Trans-Pennine Trail Officer Working Group and Member Steering Group - groups of local authorities along the route (including Barnsley Council, Stockport MBC and Tameside MBC) of the trail formed to help improve and promote the Trans-Pennine Trail

20 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 3 Cooperation and partnership working

Derbyshire joint working

3.29 Local Planning Authorities across Derbyshire and Derbyshire County Council have a longstanding arrangement of working together on planning issues. Much of this work is coordinated through the following Derbyshire-wide officer groups:

Development Planning Officers Group (DPOG) - planning policy officers working group that facilitates coordination on planning policy matters between Derbyshire Local Planning Authorities and Derbyshire County Council Planning, Information and Monitoring Officers Group (PIMOG) - planning policy and monitoring officers working group that facilitates coordination on the monitoring of planning matters Conservation Officers in Derbyshire (CODS) - working group to coordinate conservation matters between Derbyshire Local Planning Authorities and Derbyshire County Council

3.30 In recognition of the need to work effectively between two tiers of local government, Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Borough Council agreed the Growth and Prosperity Concordat in 2014. The Concordat sets out joint priorities of the two Councils in relation to supporting economic growth in High Peak and outlines how the priorities will be acted upon. They include a reaffirmed commitment to help deliver the Buxton Crescent and Thermal Spa project, developing a growth fund to invest in stalled development sites, developing and implementing plans with the Manchester councils, to improve road and rail links particularly to improve congestion in Glossopdale and improve the speed and frequency of trains on the Buxton line and working together to support school capacity improvements needed to support housing and population growth. Joint working on these matters will greatly assist in delivering the Local Plan.

Strategic Alliance with Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

3.31 High Peak Borough Council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council have entered into a Strategic Alliance which has led to integration of staff and resources between the two authorities. Consequently, this lends itself to close cooperation on strategic planning and regeneration matters when applicable. This has included the joint commissioning of evidence base studies such as the 2014 SHMA and Community Infrastructure Levy Study.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 21 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 4 Outcomes and future arrangements

Meeting objectively assessed needs for development

4.1 As a result of cooperation with local planning authorities during the preparation in order to meet the shortfall in housing provision to be accommodated in the High Peak Local Plan, the following outcomes have been achieved:

Signed Memorandum of Understanding with Cheshire East Council which includes an agreement for the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy to include a 500 dwelling contribution towards housing needs in High Peak in the period 2020/21 to 2029/30 (Appendix 1). This is also reflect in High Peak Local Plan Policy S3 and Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG1 Signed Memorandum of Understanding with Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which includes a commitment for Stockport MBC to consider the scope to accommodate some of High Peak's unmet housing need as part of any future review of the Stockport Core Strategy (Appendix 1) Signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Peak District National Park Authority which agrees an estimated contribution of 110 dwellings towards High Peak’s housing needs which may be delivered within the part of High Peak which lies within the National Park. This figure relates to the High Peak Local Plan period (2011-2031) and is an estimate based on past delivery rates within the National Park. It does not represent a target for the Peak District National Park Authority due to the need to strictly control development in order to conserve the National Park (Appendix 1) Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council which includes an agreement for Tameside MBC and High Peak BC to jointly consider the scope to accommodate some of High Peak's unmet housing needs. Minutes of meetings with Tameside MBC confirm the nature of discussions to date (Appendix 2) Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority which includes and agreement to discuss the possibility of contributing to the future housing need of High Peak in the later phase of the Local Plan period (2026-2031) following the determination of Greater Manchester’s objectively assessed housing need Confirmation from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council that it will consider High Peak's request to accommodate some of the Borough's unmet housing needs during the forthcoming partial review of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy. The revised Core Strategy is expected to be adopted in 2016.

4.2 It is acknowledged that the above outcomes will not ensure that the objectively assessed needs for housing in High Peak will be fully met unless the future consideration by Tameside MBC and Stockport MBC is fruitful. The Council's approach to managing any remaining shortfall is outlined in the Housing Topic Paper.

4.3 An enquiry was received from Derbyshire Dales District Council to determine whether the High Peak Local Plan could accommodate additional housing growth support unmet needs in Derbyshire Dales. However, the Borough Council is not able to assist as it is unable to fully provide for housing needs for High Peak alone.

4.4 Requirements for employment and retail development in High Peak are accommodated by the High Peak Local Plan. As such, no requests have been made to other authorities for support. Tameside MBC has enquired about the scope for High Peak to accommodate some of its

22 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 4 Outcomes and future arrangements

requirement for employment land as a potential alternative to a proposed strategic site in Tameside at the eastern end of the M67. However, due to a limited supply of good quality sites, High Peak BC has been unable to assist.

All outcomes and future arrangements

4.5 All outcomes of the cooperation undertaken during the preparation of the Local Plan in terms of its influence on the plan, its delivery and the plans and strategies of partners are specified in the table below. Details of how these outcomes will be taken forward and implemented during the plan period are also recorded. Appendix 1 of this document provides copies of agreements made with other local authorities in relation to the Duty to Cooperate and wider collaboration on shared initiatives and priorities. Appendix 2 provides minutes of meetings and Appendix 3 provides copies of correspondence relevant to the duty.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 23 24 High 4 Duty Table 3 Cooperation, outcomes and future arrangements Outcomes to Peak Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Cooperate

Local Derbyshire Ensuring that County Council led Local Plan's "strategic approach to development" and Implementation and monitoring of relevant County Council infrastructure has sufficient Policy S2 (Settlement Hierarchy) seek to concentrate policies (DCC) capacity to accommodate planned development in the main market towns where Plan growth infrastructure capacity is greater or has greater HPBC and DCC will continue to engage with Statement capacity to extend each other on a regular basis on infrastructure and - Policy H3 (Housing Allocations) and E2 (Employment issues arising from planning applications August Land Allocations) list of allocated sites informed by DCC feedback and analysis of infrastructure capacity, Continued dialogue on the delivery of measures including through the A6 Corridor Study, High Peak identified in Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan and future - August 2014 Local Plan Transport Study and analysis of schools High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan through capacity established partnerships and bi-laterally where Policies S5 (Glossopdale), S6 (Central Area), S7 appropriate. (Buxton), EQ7 (Green Infrastructure), EQ10 (Flood 2014 Risk Management), E2 (Employment Allocations), Schools capacity improvements to support arrangements CF1 (Retail and Town Centres), CF3 (Local growth and improvements to transport links Infrastructure Provision) and CF6 (Accessibility and between between High Peak and Greater Transport) specify infrastructure related requirements Manchester will be progressed in line with the for DCC provisions of the Growth and Prosperity Policy CF7 (Planning Obligations and Community Concordat agreed by DCC and HPBC (Appendix Infrastructure Levy) makes provisions for developers 1) to contribute towards the funding of infrastructure High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes County Council infrastructure projects identified in the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan that would support growth in High Peak. High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes measures identified by jointly Local Plan Transport Study which was jointly commissioned with DCC The Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan has also been informed by proposals in the draft Local Plan Joint commitment to continue working together to identify and discuss proposals for housing developments and their impact on education infrastructure, and to work strategically to ensure that the school capacity required to meet demand for places across the Borough is in place to support 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to population and housing growth as set out in the new Cooperate High Peak Local Plan Joint commitment between DCC and HPBC to develop and implement plans with the Greater Manchester authorities to improve road and rail links between High Peak and Greater Manchester Statement

Need for coordinated polices and Local Plan Policies Map to identify Minerals Consultation with DCC regarding proposals and designations in respect of the High Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas affected by the Safeguarding and Consultation Peak Local Plan and Derby and (when identified by DCC) Areas as appropriate

Derbyshire Minerals and Waste Policy DS16 (Land west of Tongue Lane) includes a future -

Plans requirement for further engagement with the Minerals Continued dialogue and joint work to address August Planning Authority and the operator of Ashwood Dale issues at Tongue Lane/ Ashwood Dale Quarry Quarry to identify and address potential conflicts as required by Policy DS16 between the housing allocation, Ashwood Dale Quarry 2014 and a potential extension to the quarry arrangements A proposed modification to the Introduction chapter of the High Peak Local Plan acknowledges and explains the roles of the Derby and Derbyshire Minerals and Waste Plans as forming part of the wider Development Plan for High Peak and their implications for the development management process

Collaboration on regeneration and Agreed shared priorities regarding growth and Priorities will be delivered in line with the

High economic development prosperity in High Peak, including the development of provisions of the Growth and Prosperity a growth fund to invest in stalled sites and supporting Concordat agreed by DCC and HPBC (Appendix the delivery of Buxton Crescent and Spa Hotel project 1) Peak (as supported by Policy S7 Buxton Sub-Area Strategy)

Local Peak District Working towards meeting Objectively assessed need for housing and Liaison with PDNPA on future updates to National Park objectively assessed needs for employment land identified in the SHMA and ELR evidence base studies in accordance with Authority development for the whole of High relates to whole of High Peak, including land within Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1)

Plan (PDNPA) Peak Borough the National Park Housing and employment development requirements Implementation and monitoring of relevant

- are reflected in Policy S3 (Strategic Housing) and policies

August Policy S4 (Maintaining and Enhancing and Economic Base) accordingly 2014 25 26 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak Taking account of housing delivery Agreement with PDNPA to count housing developed Housing monitoring coordinated with the PDNPA Cooperate in the areas of High Peak that lie within the National Park in High Peak towards the in accordance with Memorandum of

Local within the National Park Local Plan housing requirement for the Borough. An Understanding (Appendix 1) agreed allowance of 110 dwellings in the National Park is made in Table 2 of the supporting text to Policy

Plan (iii) S3 (Strategic Housing). Statement and

- Need to consider the landscape Local Plan Spatial Vision, Strategic Objectives 2, 3, Implementation and monitoring of relevant August setting of the National Park to 4 and Key Issues 1 and 2 highlight the need to protect policies, including agreement with the PDNPA mitigate unacceptable adverse the character and setting of the National Park on design and landscape matters as set out in

impacts Local Plan Landscape Impact Assessment considered the Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix future - August 2014 impacts on the National Park and informed housing 1) (Policy H3) and employment land (Policy E2) allocations. Mitigation measures to address impacts also incorporated into policy 2014 Policies S1 (Sustainable Development) (as modified), arrangements S2 (Settlement Hierarchy), EQ1 (Climate Change), EQ2 (Landscape Character), EQ3 (Countryside and Green Belt), EQ5 (Design & Place Making) (as modified), E6 (Peak District Tourism and Culture) and DS6 (Land at Woodhead Road) (as modified) require proposals to consider the setting of the National Park

Consideration of the capacity of Scale and location of development proposed in Local Implementation and monitoring of relevant shared infrastructure to support Plan including housing (Policy H3) informed by policies growth and local communities consideration of infrastructure capacity, including infrastructure shared with the National Park e.g. Continued working through established schools and highways partnerships and working groups to support Policies including S7 (Buxton) and EQ7 (Green infrastructure delivery Infrastructure) protect and support improvements to shared Green Infrastructure, including the proposed Consideration by HPBC to fund shared green White Peak Loop cycle trail infrastructure through CIL receipts (if adopted High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes shared by HPBC) and a commitment to continuing Green Infrastructure, including White Peak Loop cycle liaison on infrastructure planning matters as set trail out in the Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1)

iii Please note: the figure of 110 homes within the National Park is an estimate based on past delivery rates and does not represent a target for the PDNPA. The figure will be subject to monitoring 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Joint support for Neighbourhood Joint support for Neighbourhood Plans that cover both Continued support and collaboration on Cooperate Planning for parish and town Local Plan areas, including the emerging Neighbourhood Plans as set out in the councils with land in both plan Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge Neighbourhood Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1) areas Plans.

Policy S7 (Buxton) and Infrastructure Delivery Plan future - August Tameside Working towards meeting Agreement between HPBC and TMBC to assess the HPBC and TMBC to jointly consider the potential Metropolitan objectively assessed needs for scope for some of High Peak's unmet housing need for some of High Peak's unmet housing need Borough Council housing within the overlapping to be met in Tameside. This would be dependant on to be met in the emerging Tameside Core 2014 (TMBC) housing market areas TMBC being able to meet their own needs in the Strategy as set out in the Memorandum of arrangements Tameside Core Strategy following a review of housing Understanding (to be finalised) needs in conjunction with framework proposals being developed across Greater Manchester Consultation on future evidence base updates and joint working when appropriate as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (to be finalised)

High Supporting the local economy Consultation on respective Employment Land Consultation on future evidence base updates Reviews;TMBC has also enquired as whether any of and joint working when appropriate as set out Tameside's requirement for employment land could in the Memorandum of Understanding (to be Peak be met in the Glossopdale area of High Peak. HPBC finalised) confirmed that this would not be possible due to a constrained supply of suitable sites

Local See arrangements with GMCA below regarding Consideration of joint approach to economic economic development development with the Greater Manchester Combined

Plan Authority which represents all GM authorities (see below) -

August Consideration of cross boundary Agreement between HPBC and TMBC on the need Continued joint working on the matters identified transport infrastructure required to for a coordinated approach to addressing transport as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding support development and address constraints in the Glossopdale and Longdendale areas (to be finalised) existing issues Policy S5 includes a commitment from HPBC to 2014 continue to work with partners to address congestions 27 28 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak issues in the area. This will include input into, and Implementation and monitoring of relevant Cooperate consideration of, the findings of the Trans-Pennine policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Local Feasibility Study led by the Department for Transport HPBC and TMBC were partners on the Trans-Pennine Connectivity Study Plan Agreement to consider the scope to pool resources Statement from both authorities towards a suitable cross and - boundary transport solution. Such considerations may August include the receipts collected via the Community Infrastructure Levy (if adopted), or planning obligations (if appropriate). This would be subject to approval by future - August 2014 both Authorities High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies need to address cross boundary transport issues. Future iteration to consider scope to incorporate measures 2014 identified by the Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study arrangements

Coordination of Green Belt reviews Agreement to liaise on green belt reviews that would Memorandum of Understanding includes a that affect the shared Green Belt affect the common green belt boundary commitment to collaborate and consult on any boundary future Green Belt reviews that would affect the extent of Green Belt shared by Tameside and High Peak (to be finalised)

Stockport Working towards meeting In principle agreement for SMBC to consider the scope Memorandum of Understanding between SMBC Metropolitan objectively assessed needs for to accommodate some of High Peak's unmet housing and HPBC to include a commitment from SMBC Borough Council housing within the overlapping needs as part of any future update to Stockport's Core to consider the scope for to accommodate some (SMBC) housing market areas Strategy. This would be dependant at that time on of High Peak’s unmet housing need as part of SMBC being able to meet their own needs and any future review of the Stockport Core Strategy following a review of housing and other development (Appendix 1) requirements Consultation on future evidence base updates and joint working when appropriate as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1)

Supporting the local economy Consultation on with Stockport MBC on the High Peak Consultation on future evidence base updates Employment Land Review; Stockport MBC confirmed and consultations that there was no need for High Peak to accommodate 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to any sites to support Stockport's employment land See arrangements with GMCA below regarding Cooperate needs economic development Consideration of joint approach to economic development with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority with represents all GM authorities (see below) Statement

Consideration of cross boundary Joint working with other partners on the A6 Corridor Memorandum of Understanding includes a and transport infrastructure required to Study to identify transport issues along the corridor commitment to;prepare a delivery strategy for support development and address and agree a mitigation strategy the measures recommended by the A6 Corridor

existing issues Policies S6 (Central Area), S7 (Buxton), CF6 Study, provide policy support for these future -

(Transport and Accessibility), DS13 (Newtown, New measures in respective development plans and August Mills) and DS20 (Spring Gardens and Station Rd to work together to identify funding sources Regeneration Area) support mitigation measures (Appendix 1) identified by the study 2014 High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies arrangements mitigation measures recommended by A6 Corridor Study Implementation and monitoring of relevant policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Coordination of Green Belt reviews Agreement to liaise on green belt reviews that would Memorandum of Understanding includes a that affect the shared Green Belt affect the common green belt boundary in order to commitment to collaborate and consult on any boundary ensure a consistent approach future Green Belt reviews that would affect the

High extent of Green Belt shared by Stockport and High Peak (Appendix 1)

Peak Manchester City Meeting objectively assessed MCC confirmed that they were unable to Consultation on future Local Plan reviews Council needs for housing within the accommodate any of High Peak's unmet housing (iv) overlapping housing market areas requirements. This was due to constraints in Local (MCC) Manchester and the nature of its housing land supply

Plan Supporting the local economy Consideration of joint approach to economic See arrangements with GMCA below development with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority with represents all GM authorities (see -

August below)

2014 iv Whilst Manchester does not share a boundary with High Peak, it is included here due to the prevalent commuting and migration patterns between the two authorities. 29 30 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak Consideration of cross boundary Agreement to work together to address transport Memorandum of Understanding relating to joint Cooperate transport infrastructure required to constraints and to improve connectivity between High working arrangements and the provision of

Local support development and address Peak and Manchester development and infrastructure requirements existing issues (to be drafted)

Plan Cheshire East Working towards meeting Policy PG1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan (as Memorandum of Understanding with CEC sets Council (CEC) objectively assessed needs for published in March 2014) makes provisions for up to out agreement for CEC to make provisions to Statement and

- housing within the overlapping 500 additional homes to be developed in Cheshire accommodate 500 homes towards High Peak's August housing market areas East to assist in meeting the housing needs of High requirements in the period 2020/21 to 2029/30 Peak. The policy specifies that the homes will be with a commitment to continue to liaise and

developed in the period 2020/21 to 2029/30 at an consult on relevant evidence base work and future - August 2014 average of 50 homes per year development plan reviews (Appendix 1)

Implementation and monitoring of relevant policies 2014 arrangements

Consideration of cross boundary Joint working with other partners on the A6 Corridor Memorandum of Understanding includes a transport infrastructure required to Study to identify transport issues along the corridor commitment to;prepare a delivery strategy for support development and address and agree a mitigation strategy the measures recommended by the A6 Corridor existing issues Policies S6 (Central Area), S7 (Buxton), CF6 Study, provide policy support for these (Transport and Accessibility), DS13 (Newtown, New measures in respective development plans and Mills) and DS20 (Spring Gardens and Station Rd to work together to identify funding sources Regeneration Area) support mitigation measures (Appendix 1) identified by the study High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies Implementation and monitoring of relevant mitigation measures recommended by A6 Corridor policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan Study 500 homes towards High Peak requirement to be developed in Cheshire East to help minimise traffic growth on the A6

Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Memorandum of Understanding includes joint Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park commitment to protect the landscape, setting purposes of the Peak District 500 homes towards High Peak requirement to be and habitats of Peak District National Park National Park developed in Cheshire East to help minimise the through relevant Development Plan preparation impact of development on the Peak District National and implementation along with the determination Park of planning applications (Appendix 1)

Consultation on future Local Plan reviews 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Monitoring of relevant policies Cooperate

Coordination of Green Belt reviews Agreement to liaise on green belt reviews that would Memorandum of Understanding includes a that affect the shared Green Belt affect the common green belt boundary in order to commitment to collaborate and consult on any boundary ensure a consistent approach future Green Belt reviews that would affect the extent of Green Belt shared by Cheshire East Statement and High Peak (Appendix 1) and

Derbyshire Dales Working towards meeting Initial joint consideration of housing requirements and Consultation on future evidence base updates

District Council objectively assessed housing affordable housing viability to inform the Joint Core and Local Plan reviews joint working when future -

(DDDC) needs for housing within the Strategy appropriate August overlapping housing market areas DDDC confirmed that they were unable to (v) accommodate any of High Peak's unmet housing requirements. This was because DDDC was unable 2014 to meet its own housing requirements arrangements HPBC confirmed that it would not be able to meet any of DDDC's unmet housing requirements as it was unable to meet its own needs

Policies required in respective Derbyshire Dales Local Plan and High Peak Local Consultation on future Local Plan reviews Local Plans to have regard to Plan share common Strategic Objectives in relation purposes of the Peak District to Protecting Peak District Character Implementation and monitoring of relevant National Park Policies in respective plans have regard to the policies

High purposes of the Peak District National Park

Consideration of the capacity of Joint evidence gathering in relation to infrastructure Implementation and monitoring of relevant Peak shared infrastructure to support requirements policies growth and local communities Policies including S7 (Buxton) and EQ7 (Green

Local Infrastructure) protect and support improvements to Continued working through established shared Green Infrastructure, including the proposed partnerships and working groups to support White Peak Loop cycle trail which is proposed to infrastructure delivery

Plan connect both Local Plan areas through the Peak District National Park -

August Supporting the wider Peak District Policy E6 (Promoting Peak District Tourism and Continued joint working through partnerships Economy Culture) supports proposals that would enhance the including Business Peak District, Visit Peak

2014 v Please note: DDDC's and HPBC's stated positions are that they are not able to fully meet housing needs due to development constraints 31 32 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak visitor economy whilst protecting the character of the District and the Wider Peak District Cycle Cooperate wider Peak District Strategy Steering Group Local Support for the Wider Peak District Cycle Strategy in Policy S7 (Buxton) and Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Plan Sheffield City Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Consultation on future Local Plan reviews Statement Council (SCC) Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park and - purposes of the Peak District Implementation and monitoring of relevant August National Park policies future - August 2014 Working towards meeting SCC confirmed that they were unable to accommodate Consultation on future evidence base updates objectively assessed needs for any of High Peak's unmet housing requirements. This and Local Plan reviews and joint working when housing within the overlapping was because Sheffield's own housing requirement appropriate housing market areas and scope to accommodate it was now being 2014 re-considered as part of its Local Plan review. arrangements Furthermore, SCC's SHMA concluded that there was not a functional housing market between Sheffield and High Peak.

Staffordshire Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Coordination of planning and regeneration Moorlands Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park initiatives through the Strategic Alliance between District Council purposes of the Peak District HPBC and SMDC (SMDC) National Park Consultation on future Local Plan reviews

Implementation and monitoring of relevant policies

Supporting the wider Peak District Policy E6 (Promoting Peak District Tourism and Continued joint working through partnerships Economy Culture) supports proposals that would enhance the including Business Peak District, Visit Peak visitor economy whilst protecting the character of the District and the Wider Peak District Cycle wider Peak District Strategy Steering Group Support for the Wider Peak District Cycle Strategy in Policy S7 (Buxton) and Infrastructure Delivery Plan 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Oldham Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Consultation on future Local Plan reviews Cooperate Metropolitan Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park Borough Council purposes of the Peak District Implementation and monitoring of relevant National Park policies

Kirklees Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Signed Memorandum of Understanding between Statement Metropolitan Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park numerous LPAs in the southern Pennines and Borough Council purposes of the Peak District Agreed framework to ensure a consistent approach (Appendix 1) National Park to renewable energy particularly to wind energy in the

southern Pennines. This covers development Consultation on future Local Plan reviews future -

management, strategic planning and monitoring August between neighbouring local authorities Implementation and monitoring of relevant policies 2014 arrangements Barnsley Council Policies required in respective Policies in respective plans have regard to the Signed Memorandum of Understanding between Local Plans to have regard to purposes of the Peak District National Park numerous LPAs in the southern Pennines purposes of the Peak District Agreed framework to ensure a consistent approach (Appendix 1) National Park to renewable energy particularly to wind energy in the southern Pennines. This covers development Consultation on future Local Plan reviews management, strategic planning and monitoring between neighbouring local authorities Implementation and monitoring of relevant policies High

Consideration of cross boundary HPBC and Barnsley Council were partners on the Implementation and monitoring of relevant Peak transport infrastructure required to Trans-Pennine Connectivity Study policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan support development and address Policy S5 includes a commitment from HPBC to existing issues Local continue to work with partners to address congestions Consultation on future Local Plan reviews issues in the area. This will include input into, and consideration of, the findings of the Trans-Pennine

Plan Feasibility Study led by the Highways Agency High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies need to address cross boundary transport issues. Future -

August iteration to consider scope to incorporate measures identified by the Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study 2014 33 34 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak Natural England Input on Habitats Regulations Findings of the Habitats Regulation Assessment have Consultation on planning applications Cooperate (NE) Assessment, including potential informed Local Plan policies, including S5

Local impacts of development on (Glossopdale), S6 (Central Area), S7 (Buxton), EQ1 Implementation and monitoring of relevant European designated sites in the (Climate Change), EQ4 (Biodiversity), H3 (Housing policies Peak District National Park Allocations), H6 (Rural Exceptions Sites), H7 (Gypsies, Plan Travellers and Travelling Shoe People) and E2 Consultation on future evidence base updates Statement (Employment Land Allocations) (as modified) and Local Plan reviews and

- Joint consideration between EA, NE, HPBC and August Severn Trent Water to explore and address the implications of phosphate levels arising from

development in the Buxton area on the Peak District future - August 2014 Dales Special Area of Conservation.

Environment Input on Strategic Flood Risk Findings of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment have Consultation on planning applications Agency (EA) Assessment, including potential informed Local Plan policies, including; EQ10 (Flood 2014 downstream cross boundary flood Risk Management), H3 (Housing Allocations), E2 Implementation and monitoring of relevant arrangements risk matters (Employment Land Allocations) and various Strategic policies Development Site (DS) policies Policy EQ10 also requires the Council and developers Consultation on future evidence base updates to have regard to the EA's Catchment Flood and Local Plan reviews Management Plans in High Peak Joint consideration between EA, NE, HPBC and Severn Trent Water to explore and address the implications of phosphate levels arising from development in the Buxton area on the Peak District Dales Special Area of Conservation.

Highways Consideration of impact of Highways Agency input into the Local Plan evidence Discussion through the Trans-Pennine Agency development proposals in Local base which has informed policy and the development Feasibility Study stakeholder group Plan on A628 / A57 trunk road in strategy High Peak and neighbouring Policy S5 (Glossopdale) (as modified) includes a Consultation on planning applications authorities commitment by the Council to continue work with partners to address traffic congestion issue and to Implementation and monitoring of relevant enable the delivery of improvements identified in the policies, including S5 and H2 High Peak Local Transport Plan Study and Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study. The policy also Consultation on future evidence base updates highlights the potential for Policy H2 (Phasing Housing and Local Plan reviews Development) to be used to phase development in the Glossopdale area to coincide with the delivery of any relevant transport improvements identified in the 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to emerging Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study that will be Cooperate necessary to support development.(Appendix 3) HPBC input into the emerging Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study (Appendix 2) High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies need to address cross boundary transport issues. Future Statement iteration to to incorporate measures identified by the and Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study

English Heritage Partner in the delivery of strategic Spatial Vision and Policy S7 support Buxton Crescent Discussion through Buxton Crescent and heritage led regeneration project, and Spa Hotel project Thermal Spa consents group future -

namely, the Buxton Crescent and Financial contributions from HPBC and English August Spa Hotel (Grade 1 listed) Heritage towards the project Consultation on planning applications Project included in High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan Implementation and monitoring of relevant 2014 policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan arrangements

National Health Provision of additional health care Policy CF5 (Provision and Retention of Local Consultation on planning applications Service infrastructure and services to Community Services and Facilities) supports retention Commissioning support growth where necessary and improvements to community facilities, including Implementation and monitoring of relevant Board (NHS health care policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan England) High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes provision to secure contributions towards health care

High improvements necessary to support growth when identified Peak North Derbyshire Provision of additional health care Policy CF5 (Provision and Retention of Local Consultation on planning applications CCG infrastructure and services to Community Services and Facilities) supports retention

Local support growth where necessary and improvements to community facilities, including Implementation and monitoring of relevant health care policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes

Plan provision to secure contributions towards health care improvements necessary to support growth when

- identified August Tameside and Provision of additional health care Policy CF5 (Provision and Retention of Local Consultation on planning applications Glossop CCG infrastructure and services to Community Services and Facilities) supports retention support growth where necessary 2014 35 36 High 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Peak and improvements to community facilities, including Implementation and monitoring of relevant Cooperate health care policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan Local High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes provision to secure contributions towards health care improvements necessary to support growth when Plan identified Statement and

- Transport for Supporting role in identifying and Joint working with other partners on the A6 Corridor Implementation and monitoring of relevant August Greater providing cross transport Study to identify transport issues along the corridor policies and Infrastructure Delivery Plan Manchester infrastructure and services that and agree a mitigation strategy

(TfGM) connect High Peak with Greater Policies S6 (Central Area), S7 (Buxton), CF6 future - August 2014 Manchester (Transport and Accessibility), DS13 (Newtown, New Mills) and DS20 (Spring Gardens and Station Rd Regeneration Area) support mitigation measures identified by the A6 Corridor Study 2014 High Peak Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies arrangements mitigation measures recommended by A6 Corridor Study Policy S5 (Glossopdale) informed by Gamesley Station Study: Economic Appraisal which was commissioned by GMPTE (former name of TfGM)

Homes and Partner in the delivery of No direct outcomes but Policy H5 makes provisions Implementation and monitoring of Policy H5 Community affordable housing for the development of affordable housing Agency Continued dialogue regarding funding D2N2 Local Local Plan should reflect and Policy S4 (Maintaining and Enhancing an Economic opportunitiesImplementationforandaffordablemonitoringhousingof Policy S4 Enterprise assist in delivering the LEP's Base) supports the delivery of the strategic priorities Partnership objectives. of the LEP Input into LEP initiatives when required Peak District Local Plan should reflect and Supporting text to Policy EQ4 (Biodiversity) includes Discussion regarding the Biodiversity Action Local Nature assist in delivering the LNP's a commitment to work with the LNP Plan and other LNP projects when appropriate Partnership objectives No direct outcomes but Policy EQ4 (Biodiversity) (LNP) makes provisions for the conservation and Implementation and monitoring of Policy EQ4 enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity of the Peak District. The policy also includes a commitment for the Council to work with help meet the objectives and targets in the Peak District

Biodiversity Action Plan or its successor 4 Duty Organisation Strategic matters Outcomes Future arrangements Outcomes to Greater Supporting role in identifying and Agreement to continue working together to develop Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Cooperate Manchester providing cross transport and implement improvements to transport links GMCA outlines commitments to future work and Combined infrastructure and services that connecting High Peak and Greater Manchester arrangements for related governance, Authority connect High Peak with Greater implementation, monitoring and review (GMCA) Manchester

Supporting economic development Agreement to work together to support growth in jobs Statement and business growth and investment across High Peak and Greater and Manchester and to better connect businesses in High Peak to opportunities in Greater Manchester future -

Working towards meeting Agreement for GMCA to consider the scope to August objectively assessed needs for accommodate some of High Peak's unmet housing housing within the overlapping needs in the later phase of the plan period housing market areas (2026-2031) 2014 arrangements High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 37 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 4 Outcomes and future arrangements

Local Plan representations from prescribed bodies

4.6 Representations to the Local Plan have been received from a number of the prescribed bodies with whom the duty to cooperate applies. None of these representations has stated that the Borough Council has failed to comply with the duty. A summary of these representations is provided below.

38 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 4 Duty Table 4 Local Plan representations from prescribed bodies Outcomes to Prescribed body Summary of representation Council response to strategic matters raised Cooperate

Derbyshire County Support for housing target. Concerns regarding the landscape impact A modification is proposed to Policy DS6 relating to the housing Council (DCC) of housing allocation at Woodhead Rd, Glossop (G8-G10). Holding allocation at Woodhead Rd to reduce landscape impacts through objection to housing allocation at Tongue Lane (B8) due to potential design. implications for the scope to extend Ashwood Dale Quarry. This was identified as a strategic matter to be addressed under the ‘duty to The ongoing dialogue and joint working with the Local Highways Statement cooperate’. The County Council is actively engaged with HPBC and Authority has helped to shape the Local Plan and Infrastructure and the operator of Ashwood Dale Quarry to resolve this issue. Delivery Plan

General support for other Local Plan policies, including those relating As confirmed by DCC, the Borough Council continues to actively future to infrastructure delivery. Confirmation that the Highways Authority has -

engage with DCC and the quarry operator to further clarify issues August worked with the Borough Council throughout the Local Plan process relating to the Tongue Lane housing allocation and Ashwood Dale to provide advice on specific sites and the strategic implications of the Quarry (Appendix 3). Policy DS16 relating to the Tongue Lane Local Plan on transportation through the High Peak Local Plan allocation also includes a requirement to engage with DCC and the 2014 Transport Study. quarry operator to resolve the issues. arrangements

Several schools in the Borough where expansion would be required HPBC has actively engaged with DCC to identify issues and potential to accommodate the additional pupils that are projected to arise from solutions in relation to education infrastructure requirements the level of housing development proposed. These expansions could associated with the Local Plan. The plan includes policies to secure be delivered only with financial contributions from developers. The developer contributions towards education infrastructure potential solutions to deliver additional capacity are the subject of improvements where required. This is also reflected in the ongoing feasibility studies and discussions with Head Teachers and Infrastructure Delivery Plan. As set out in the Growth and Prosperity Governing Bodies. The outcomes of these studies and discussions will Concordat agreed between DCC, both authorities are committed to be shared with HPBC. Notified school sites are included in the Local continue working together to resolve any outstanding issues High Plan. (Appendix 1 and 3). Peak Peak District National Welcome proposed modifications to policies and supporting text. In addition to ongoing cooperation throughout the Local Plan process, Park Authority Subject to all these changes appearing in the plan, and in the including joint evidence gathering, minor modifications to Local Plan Local (PDNPA) memorandum of understanding where relevant , the Authority is policies S1 (Sustainable Development), EQ5 (Design and Place satisfied that it has no need to object to High Peak Local Plan Making) and DS6 (Land at Woodhead Road) are proposed in Submission Version. response to informal feedback from the National Park Authority. These Plan changes are proposed to provide further clarity on the requirements The Authority thanks you for your co-operation in understanding our for development to protect the National Park and reflected in the - agreed Memorandum of Understanding with the National Park

August concerns and accommodating our requests and offers all best wishes to High Peak Borough Council as you take the plan through the Authority (Appendix 1) examination stage. 2014 39 40 High 4 Duty Prescribed body Summary of representation Council response to strategic matters raised Outcomes to Peak Tameside No representation submitted Metropolitan Borough Cooperate

Local Council (TMBC)

Stockport General support for the Local Plan, particularly particularly with regards Cheshire East Council has submitted a Local Plan which they believe

Plan Metropolitan Borough to the outcomes of the A6 Corridor Study which will assist in mitigating to be sound. The plan includes a 500 dwelling contribution towards

Council (SMBC) the transport impacts of the Local Plans proposals. However, SMBC High Peak's unmet Statement

cannot support Policy S3 (Strategic Housing Development) on the and -

August basis that it is considered that the part of the full objectively assessed housing needs to be delivered during the period 2020- 2030. Whilst housing need (OAN) of High Peak proposed to be met in the area of the Cheshire East Local Plan has yet to be examined, High Peak the adjoining Cheshire East Council (CEC) is not deliverable. Borough Council and future - August 2014 Cheshire East Council have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding which 2014

includes a commitment from Cheshire East Council to deliver 500 arrangements homes beyond their own identified needs in support of High Peak. The use of such formal

agreements between local planning authorities at different stages of plan preparation who wish to agree on cross boundary issues is recommended by the

NPPG.

Cheshire East Support for Policy S3 (Strategic Housing Development) and Support from Cheshire East Council is welcomed and is also reflected Council (CEC) confirmation that the Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy in the Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1) submitted to the Secretary of State in May 2014 includes provision in policy PG1 ‘Overall development strategy’ for up to 500 homes to assist in meeting the housing needs of High Peak during the period 2020 to 2030.

Derbyshire Dales No representation submitted District Council (DDDC)

Sheffield City Council No representation submitted (SCC) 4 Duty Prescribed body Summary of representation Council response to strategic matters raised Outcomes

Staffordshire No representation submitted to Moorlands District Cooperate Council (SMDC)

Oldham Metropolitan No comments to make but wish to be consulted again in the future Borough Council Statement

Kirklees Metropolitan No comments to make and Borough Council

Barnsley Council No representation submitted future -

Natural England (NE) Natural England considers several policies of the Local Plan to be A number of minor modifications to the wording of policies considered August unsound, including S5, S7, EQ4, EQ9, E2, DS2, DS6, DS10 and DS19 to be unsound by Natural England are proposed to address their concerns.

Several amendments suggested to improve the Habitats Regulations 2014 Assessment Further changes made to Habitats Regulations Assessment to the arrangements satisfaction of Natural England (Appendix 3) In terms of the Sustainability Appraisal, Natural England considers that all the requirements of The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004 No.1633), which incorporates the European SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC), have been met. However concerns are raised regarding some sites and policies (see above) High Environment Agency No representation submitted (EA has subsequently confirmed that it (EA) has no comments to make - Appendix 3) Peak

Highways Agency The Agency welcomes the Council's duty to cooperate agenda which Minor modifications to Policy S5 (Glossopdale Sub-Area Strategy),

Local is consistent with national policy and the Council's acknowledgement supporting text and the supporting text to Policy H2 (Phasing Housing of infrastructure constraints. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, policies Development) have been agreed with the Highways Agency to CF6 (Glossopdale Sub-Area Strategy) and H2 (Phasing Housing address the issues raised (Appendix 3)

Plan Development) are supported. The final version of the High Peak Local Plan Transport Study also

- The A628 provides a key trans-Pennine route and a link between reflects the above.

August Glossopdale in the North East of the district and the Manchester conurbation. The link suffers from congestion and delays, particularly at the A628/A57 junction and the Local Plan Transport Study indicates that development in High Peak will further increase traffic on this route. 2014 Studies are currently being undertaken in order to investigate options 41 42 High 4 Duty Prescribed body Summary of representation Council response to strategic matters raised Outcomes to Peak for an improvement scheme to be implemented. However, this would not allow for unconstrained growth and the Agency is keen to ensure Cooperate

Local that the operation of the link is not significantly impacted upon by cumulative development coming forward in High Peak. Whilst the High Peak Local Plan Transport Study refers to the issue, it does not assess

Plan the A628/A57 junction and the impacts of the proposed development proposals for the Glossopdale area Statement and - August English Heritage English Heritage supports numerous Strategic Objectives and policies Minor modifications are proposed to policies to trey and address the in the Local Plan. However, Policies EQ6, H3, H7, DS6, DS9, DS12, issues raised by English Heritage future

DS18 are considered unsound as published - August 2014

Marine Management No comments to make Organisation 2014 arrangements National Health No representation submitted Service Commissioning Board (NHS England)

North Derbyshire No representation submitted CCG

Tameside and No representation submitted Glossop CCG

Office of Rail No representation submitted Regulation

Transport for Greater No representation submitted Manchester (TfGM)

Civil Aviation No representation submitted Authority

Homes and No representation submitted Community Agency

D2N2 Local No representation submitted Enterprise Partnership 4 Duty Prescribed body Summary of representation Council response to strategic matters raised Outcomes

Peak District Local No representation submitted to Nature Partnership Cooperate (LNP)

Greater Manchester No representation submitted Combined Authority

(GMCA) Statement and future - August 2014 arrangements High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 43 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Figure 1 South Pennine Renewable Energy Memorandum of Understanding

44 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 45 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

46 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 47 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Figure 2 Memorandum of Understanding between Cheshire East Borough Council and High Peak Borough Council

48 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 49 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

50 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 51 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

52 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 53 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Figure 3 Memorandum of Understanding between Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and High Peak Borough Council

54 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 55 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

56 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 57 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

58 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 59 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Memorandum of Understanding between the Peak District National Park Authority and High Peak Borough Council

60 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 61 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

62 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 63 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

64 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 65 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

66 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 67 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

68 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Growth and Prosperity Concordat

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 69 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

70 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 71 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 5 Appendix 1 - Copies of signed agreements relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

72 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of meeting Planning Policy between High Peak Borough Council and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council.

Date: 17 November 2011 Venue: Municipal Buildings, Glossop

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Stuart Wiltshire (TMBC) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Stefan Kukula (TMBC) Mark James (HPBC) Graham Holland (TMBC)

a) Introductions

Members of the respective teams introduced themselves. Gavin Clarke explained that as Principal Planning Officer for Staffordshire Moorlands DC, he now undertook this role for High Peak BC under the two Council’s strategic alliance. Tameside MBC clarified that Nigel Allen who had previously held discussions with High Peak BC on behalf of Tameside MBC regarding planning policy matters had left the authority.

b) Overview of plan making process in Tameside

Core Strategy

A stakeholder workshop to discuss Issues and Options for the Core Strategy was held in July 2011. This sought initial views on key issues including housing, the economy and options for the spatial strategy. The options were:

1. Concentrate growth in the urban area, specifically in regeneration areas, with employment focused on accessible locations. 2. Dispersed residential development within the urban area, with employment focused on accessible locations. 3. Dispersed residential development within the urban area, with the majority of employment focused on accessible locations, with targeted expansion to facilitate high quality residential and employment development.

Options 2 and 3 were viewed most favourably at the workshop. A note of the workshop has now been issued.

Options 2 and 3 could potentially lead to some housing development in the more rural east of the borough, close to High Peak. Business development at the eastern end of the M67 could also be promoted, subject to the provision of additional highway infrastructure (Glossop Spur / Mottram – Tintwistle Bypass).

A formal Issues and Options consultation is scheduled for early 2012. The current timetable indicates that the Core Strategy will be adopted in May 2013.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 73 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Housing targets

A target of 750 dwellings per year was identified in the North West RSS. This is unlikely to be achievable in the foreseeable future. This has led to a lack of a five year supply of housing as required by PPS3. In response, consideration is being given to the adoption of an interim housing target for Tameside that would be in place until the adoption of the Core Strategy.

c) Overview of plan making process in High Peak.

Core Strategy

A draft version of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy was published for consultation in June 2010. The strategy sought to specify in broad terms where new development would be located up to the year 2026, including the housing target of 6000 specified in the East Midlands RSS. This was broken down as follows:

• Glossopdale – 1400 dwellings (including a broad location for 150-250 dwellings, employment and a new railway station at Gamesley) • Central Area – 1500 dwellings • Buxton – 2700 dwellings

The strategy sought to suppress housing and population growth in Glossopdale due to the well documented transport and congestion issues in the area and adjoining Tameside. There is a high level of out commuting from Glossopdale to Greater Manchester and currently there is no transport solution.

Buxton was the focal point of a large proportion of development earmarked for the borough to help sustain and the boost the economy of this relatively remote market town. There has been significant investment in recent years from major employers in the town such as the University of Derby, the Health and Safety Executive and Nestle (Buxton Mineral Water). Further investment is planned in projects such as the Crescent Spa Hotel which is hoped to bring other spin off benefits to the economy which would be supported by population growth.

In the light of consultation responses in relation to the distribution of development, the forthcoming revocation of the RSS and other policy changes proposed in the Localism Act and draft NPPF, High Peak is now reviewing the spatial strategy and housing targets for the borough.

Targeted consultations on options for housing targets and the spatial distribution of development are now expected in March 2012. Consultation on a revised Core Strategy is then due later in 2012 with adoption scheduled for July 2013.

74 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

ACTION: High Peak BC to consult with Tameside MBC on spatial strategy and housing targets in 2012.

Site Allocations

A separate Site Allocations DPD would be prepared following the Core Strategy.

d) Other matters

HPBC enquired as to whether there was any progress to report in relation to the Longdendale Integrated Transport Strategy (LITS). Options for a strategy had been consulted on by Tameside MBC in 2010.

ACTION: Tameside MBC agreed to look into the matter with colleagues and provide HPBC with an update.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 75 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Duty to Co-operate Meeting Note

9th April 2013

Glossop Municipal Building

Attendees: Simon Pateman (Tameside), Nigel Gilmore (Tameside), Mark James (High Peak), Hilary Senior (High Peak), Ian Fullilove (Peak Park), Gavin Clarke (Staffs Moorlands) and Chris Maidment (PhD Student).

Local Plan Updates

Tameside: Preferred Options consultation concluded in Feb 2013. Large number of responses due to inclusion of strategic sites, specifically the M67 site at Mottram. Currently dealing with summarising and writing up the Council’s response to these before they are approved and published. Several pieces of evidence base work are still to be concluded – Employment Land Review (including GVA assessment of existing supply and proposed strategic sites), SHLAA and five year supply update and plan viability testing.

Peak Park: Split Local Plan (Core Strategy/DM Policies). Recent consultation on DM Policies yielded about 500 comments for 70ish representations. Affordable housing a key issue i.e. exception sites. Strategic land assessment work ongoing – principally relates to housing evidence base. Sustainable building techniques and renewable energy SPD adopted.

High Peak: Preferred Options consultation finishes 10 th April. Approximately 100 responses thus far. The Issues and Options resulted in a large number of objections but this related to specific sites. The new sites included in the Preferred Options have been the most contentious. Consultation sessions have been well attended.

Housing

Tameside: The proposed approach to housing delivery is set out in the Preferred Options document. The phased housing targets are in Core Policy 4 (para 8.29). This proposes delivery of 11,000 dwellings over a 17 year period 2012-2029. Housing is almost certainly going to be the key issue at examination and will require very careful consideration in drafting the publication document. Currently in the process of updating the five year supply and compiling completions data. Also progressing SHLAA update after call for sites late last year. In addition there is a piece of work under way through AGMA to produce a GM housing and employment land position statement. The Council’s current position is that it does not have a five year supply and this position is unlikely to change after the reassessment.

Peak Park: Only new build will happen on exception sites. There is to be no new allocation of sites and no target because the core strategy carries on the approach of not permitting new housing in response to significant open market demand. Plan period runs up to 2026.

76 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak: The preferred option is for 270 dwellings per annum net. This is a phased approach from 2006-2028 and is split into three district areas (Glossopdale, Central and Buxton). The approach is 10% lower than that planned for in the East Midlands Regional Plan. High Peak is in the process of updating its SHMA jointly with Derbyshire Dales District Council and the Peak District National Park Authority to further consider housing needs. A Landscape Capacity Study is being produced to support the local plans approach in relation to housing. This will assess whether the landscape can accommodate the proposed levels of growth in the Preferred Options. Chapel-en-le-Frith will have its own neighbourhood plan and this will have to provide for the level of housing identified in the High Peak Local Plan.

Employment Land

Tameside: Currently working through the final version of the Employment Land Review. Part of this is being completed by GVA – specifically looking at the market attractiveness of sites in the existing supply plus remaining UDP development opportunity areas and Core Strategy Strategic Sites. Roughly speaking the plan will identify a need for approximately 90-110 hectares of land over the plan period 2012-2029.

High Peak: The Preferred Options identifies a gross requirement over the plan period (2013-2028) of 29.2 ha. This has been adjusted from the figure of 35ha specified in the Employment Land Review (2008- 2026) to take account of the reduced time period and land developed since 2008.

However this is still an oversupply of around 5ha. Issue was raised of Duty-to-Cooperate through the Tameside Preferred Options in terms of looking at the potential of available employment land in Glossopdale accommodating some economic growth rather than taking forward the M67 Strategic Site. This was dismissed because of the relatively small amount of land available in Glossopdale (13ha) and the need to protect and take this forward where appropriate to support economic growth in the High Peak and not of a neighbouring authority. So the available land in the Glossopdale area could not be seen to fulfil the strategic requirements of Tameside.

Peak District: No major changes in relation to the topic area.

Transport

Tameside: In general the transport infrastructure is seen as good. Rail improvements coming through the northern hub/electrification programme on the trans-pennine line. Metrolink is now open through to Droylsden and is under construction through to Ashton-under-Lyne. LITS – there is no actual identified funding in relation to the proposed scheme through TfGM. Following the LITS consultation in 2010 one of the proposed options was preferred but the Government spending review killed off the scheme in terms of central funding. Currently work is being carried out to understand the economic evidence to support the case for GM funding. This is a key issue in relation to both local plans and how we deal with congestion in the Longdendale/Glossopdale area.

High Peak: Bypass and tackling congestion are the key issues that the public raise in Glossopdale. Proposed station at Gamesley should be part of the wider LITS package. The TfGM Glossop Rail Corridor Study highlighted a couple of issues: the potential benefit of a new station at Gamesley (also serving the

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 77 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

wider area) and the existing rail service is very well used. High Peak would welcome further discussions to work jointly with Tameside and other relevant bodies to help address the traffic issues facing the area.

Date of Next Meeting – Suggested during week beginning 13 th May

78 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Date: 13 May 2013 Venue: Municipal Buildings, Glossop

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Simon Pateman (TMBC) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Nigel Gilmore (TMBC) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Longdendale Integrated Transport Strategy

NG confirmed that £100 million had been nominated for the project as part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund.

Further consideration of the project would be given by AGMA and TfGM during the summer as to determine whether it should form part of the first tranche of Local Transport Board (LTB) funding (2015-19). NG considered that this was unlikely, particularly as the entire LTB fund for the period was £65 million.

MJ asked whether TMBC could keep HPBC informed regarding the availability of funding.

2. Green Belt

SP stated that the only significant change proposed for the Tameside Green Belt in the emerging Core Strategy currently was the allocation of strategic employment site at Mottram. However, a Greater Manchester wide review of housing and employment and the Green Belt might result in further changes.

HS stated that High Peak were due to commission a landscape study that also would consider the scope for small scale modifications to the Green Belt boundary in High Peak to allow development to come forward in sustainable location.

A general discussion ensued regarding the need to ensure that any changes to the Green Belt in either LPA area considers the continued alignment of the Green Belt across the two areas as exists currently.

3. Retail

SM stated that the retail assessment for Tameside was completed in 2010. The subsequent approach will be to focus retail growth in Ashton.

MJ referred to the Peak Sub-Region Retail Study (2009) that identified a need for an additional foodstore in Glossop. The study is due to be updated during the summer of 2013.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 79 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

4. Next steps

MJ suggested that he would circulate a summary of shared planning issues between the two authorities that may require further consideration based on discussions to date. This would inform a discussion at a future meeting.

80 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Date: 3 September 2013 Venue: TMBC offices, Ashton-under-Lyne

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Simon Pateman (TMBC) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Nigel Gilmore (TMBC) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Local Plan / Core Strategy update

SM stated that the Tameside Core Strategy was currently due for publication in early 2014 with adoption scheduled for mid-2015. However, this might be delayed by the Greater Manchester wide review of housing requirements that may require further modifications to the plan. A viability assessment of the Core Strategy and SHLAA is also underway.

MJ provided an update on the progress of the High Peak Local Plan. Publication is due in March 2014. In the meantime, various assessments are being undertaken or refreshed to ensure that the evidence base is up to date, including; a new SHMA, a landscape impact and green belt review study and a plan viability study.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May

MJ agreed to circulate the note of the meeting held on 13 May for sign off.

3. Potential Duty to Cooperate matters

MJ circulated a note that identified potential areas of cooperation between the two authorities. The note also summarised the nature of discussions held between the authorities to date on the topic areas, any identified outcomes and suggested future arrangements to continue cooperation. MJ explained that this information, once agreed, would form the basis of a Duty to Cooperate Statement that would support the Local Plan submission.

SM and NG confirmed that the issues identified in the note (transport, Green Belt, employment land and housing) were appropriate. A discussion of these matters followed:

Transport

NG confirmed that the Longdendale Integrated Transport Strategy (LITS) would not be funded through the 2015-2019 Local Transport Body programme for Greater Manchester. NG explained that LITS remains on a long list of projects for future consideration. The Highways Agency were also believed to be in the early stages of considering possible small scale improvements in the Mottram area.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 81 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

NG requested that the discussion held to date regarding rail improvements should also be acknowledged in the future High Peak Duty to Cooperate Statement.

SM and NG agreed to the principle of the potential future arrangements for cooperation regarding transport as outlined in the note circulated, namely; a joint policy regarding transport in the Glossopdale and Longdendale areas to be included in the respective Local Plans, potential pooling of funding to contribute towards the costs of any future transport improvements to tackle the issue of congestion in the area and coordinated Infrastructure Delivery Plans. Final agreement of the above would be subject to further consideration of the above.

MJ agreed to circulate a suggested joint policy for further discussion.

Green Belt

The current Greater Manchester Green belt Review and High Peak Landscape and Green Belt Study were discussed. Both assessments have potential implications for the Green Belt.

It was agreed that both LPA’s would liaise with each other on current and future reviews of the Green Belt with a view to continuing a common approach. HPBC would also raise the Greater Manchester review with AGMA.

Employment land

The previous enquiry made by Tameside MBC to determine whether there was any scope for High Peak to accommodate some of Tameside’s employment development was discussed, namely the proposed strategic site at Mottram. MJ reiterated that due to the constrained supply of suitable land in High Peak and low level of demand, it would not be feasible for the Borough to accommodate Tameside’s requirement.

However, both LPA’s agreed to liaise with each other on future employment land reviews to explore the scope to coordinate the approach to land supply.

Housing

HS reiterated that HPBC are not proposing to meet their objectively assessed housing need. An annual requirement of 270 dwellings was identified in the Local Plan Preferred Options. Household projections indicate a need for 400. The approach is broadly similar to the requirement previously identified for High Peak in the East Midlands RSS (300) that was set in recognition of environmental constraints. The new High Peak SHMA would further inform housing policy in the new Local Plan. The SHMA will seek to determine the extent of the housing market area. This work will include liaison with neighbouring authorities.

82 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

SM and NG stated that the opportunity for Tameside MBC to meet any unmet housing requirements from elsewhere would be determined by the outcome of the current Greater Manchester review.

It was agreed that cooperation on SHMA’s and wider consideration of housing issues would be appropriate. HPBC resolved to contact AGMA to further discuss the Greater Manchester review.

4. Memorandum of Understanding

MJ proposed that the areas of cooperation as agreed at the meeting be formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that would outline how the two authorities would cooperate in the future. The MoU is likely to need member approval. The concept was agreed by SM and NG.

MJ agreed to circulate a draft MoU for comment.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 83 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Date: 28 February 2014 Venue: Municipal Buildings, Glossop

Present: Simon Pateman (TMBC) Laura Smith (TMBC) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Background

MJ outlined the background to the meeting which was being held in relation to correspondence sent to Tameside MBC in January regarding the scope for the Tameside Local Plan to accommodate some of High Peak’s housing requirement.

MJ explained that the High Peak Local Plan was proposing to deliver a total of 7200 dwelling over the plan period. This was less than the objectively assessed need as identified in the draft SHMA which indicated that 8400 to 9400 dwellings were required. A shortfall of at least 1200 dwellings was therefore identified in High Peak. However, Cheshire East Council was due to consider including an allowance of 500 dwellings in its Local Plan towards High Peak’s need at a Council meeting on 28 th February.

An initial discussion following the January correspondence between Dai Larner (Strategic Director, HPBC) and Damien Bourke (Assistant Director, TMBC) had led to an agreement for HPBC and TMBC to identify and appraise possible options for Tameside to accommodate a proportion of High Peak’s housing. This would take the form of a joint paper that would be considered by the respective members of each authority.

2. Joint paper

SB explained that the objectively assessed need for housing in Tameside was yet to be determined. A review of housing and employment land needs across Greater Manchester was ongoing. TMBC were also due to commission a new SHMA although this was not expected to be completed until June at the earliest.

As the starting point for a Local Planning Authority to take on some of a neighbours unmet need is that it is planning to meet its own needs in full, TMBC was not in a position to agree to accommodate any of High Peak’s housing at this stage.

3. Further work

It was agreed to commence work on a joint paper to identify and appraise potential options for TMBC to take on some of HPBC’s unmet housing need.

84 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

The implementation of any options identified would be dependant on the TMBC being able to meet its own housing needs and consideration by members.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 85 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Date: 15 October 2012 Venue: Municipal Buildings, Glossop

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Richard Wood (SMBC) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Overview of plan making in Stockport

RW confirmed that the Stockport Core Strategy was adopted in March 2011. Work on a Site Allocations DPD has been delayed whilst matters relating to the availability of gypsy and traveller sites are resolved. The Joint Greater Manchester Waste Plan was adopted in April 2012. A Joint Greater Manchester Minerals Plan is scheduled for adoption in April 2013.

Work on the Community Infrastructure Levy is due to start towards the end of 2012.

2. Housing and population - Stockport

The Core Strategy makes provision for 450 homes per year across the plan period up to the year 2026. The planned level of housing growth broadly equates to household projections for Stockport in terms of overall requirements. The aspiration of the plan is to achieve 50% affordable housing across the Borough, although the level will vary due to differing rates of viability.

Stockport currently has a 4.2 year supply of housing land. However, the authority is confident that any shortfall can be robustly defended on the basis that the current state of the economy, rather than a shortage of land is the issue. Core Strategy Policy CS4 outlines the criteria under which alternative sites will be released in such circumstances with the relaxation of accessibility requirements.

The Core Strategy identifies that the majority of housing growth will come forward within the existing urban area with more modest developments being permitted in other accessible locations such as Marple. Significant housing growth is planned at Woodford. Other specific sites will be allocated in a separate DPD.

3. Retail and town centres – Stockport

Potential foodstore development highlighted in Marple with two alternatives sites under consideration. MJ suggested that this development may have implications for retail in High Peak, particularly New Mills. Investment in Stockport town centre is anticipated with plans to improve the Grand Central

86 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

area, increase office space, upgrade the bus station and develop a multi storey car park at Stockport train station.

4. Transport – Stockport

RW confirmed that a consultation on the SEMMMS Relief Road from the A6 at High Lane to Manchester Airport was due to commence shortly. Funding for the road is now secured. MJ highlighted the High Peak were keen to understand more about the scheme given its potential implications for the Borough.

5. Overview of plan making process in High Peak.

MJ explained that work had ended on a Joint Core Strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council. A single Local Plan for High Peak only has now proposed that would include sites and policies. The plan will cover the period up to 2028 and is scheduled for adoption at the end of 2014. Options for the Local Plan are subject to public consultation until 25 October.

An assessment to inform a potential Community Infrastructure Levy is underway. High Peak BC will reflect on its conclusion before deciding on whether to progress with a levy. No other DPDs are scheduled.

6. Housing and population – High Peak

The current Local Plan options consultation includes:

• Borough housing target options: 270 homes per year (preferred option), 300 homes per year or 330 homes per year. • Spatial strategy options: Focus development on Buxton-Chapel-en-le- Frith axis, focus development in two principal towns of Buxton and Glossop or distribute development more evenly across all market towns. • Options for housing sites

Current household projections indicate that over 400 homes per year in High Peak are required, however, due to a lack of available sites, all of the options subject to consultation propose a lower level of growth.

The Council has a 3.4 year supply of housing land and is currently evaluating its position in the light of a recent appeal decision.

7. Retail and town centres – High Peak

A potential need for a new foodstore in New Mills was identified in the Council’s Retail Study. However, a suitable site has yet to be identified. Retail requirements identified in Buxton and Glossop are unlikely to have any significant implications for Stockport.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 87 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

8. Transport – High Peak

Many High Peak residents commute into Stockport, Manchester and Tameside to work. Consequently, High Peak BC, is keen explore possible options to improve transport infrastructure. MJ queried the scope to improve parking at train stations, particularly New Mills Newtown to encourage rail patronage.

Action: RW to look into scope of improved parking provision at New Mills Newtown with transport colleagues.

88 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Date: 27 March 2014 Venue: Fred Perry House, Stockport

Present: Paul Lawrence (SMBC) Richard Wood (SMBC) Sue Stevenson (SMBC) Dai Larner (HPBC) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Background

The meeting had been arranged in light of recent correspondence from HPBC to SMBC regarding the scope for Stockport to accommodate some of High Peak’s unmet housing need and to discuss the A6 Corridor Study that was nearing completion.

2. Planning policy update

DL explained that the High Peak Local Plan had not been approved for publication at a recent Council meeting due to concerns regarding a potential housing site. The Council was working to identify a suitable way forward.

RW stated that Stockport’s Core Strategy was adopted but that it was based on the housing requirements of the now abolished North West RSS. A future review of the Core Strategy was therefore likely following the consideration of new housing evidence.

3. Housing

PL and RW discussed the Greater Manchester wide review of housing and employment land. The review would inform future housing and employment land policies for Greater Manchester Local Planning Authorities, including SMBC. In terms housing sites, the focus in Stockport is on developing former employment sites in the urban area and on regenerating the Woodford Aerodrome.

DL and MJ outlined that HPBC was unable to meet its housing requirement due to the constrained nature of the area. Evidence also highlighted the fact that a sizeable proportion of housing needs in High Peak were the result of migration from neighbouring areas such as Tameside and Stockport. High Peak also experiences a high degree of out-commuting to these same areas which places strain on connecting transport links including the A6, A57 and A628.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 89 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

4. A6 Corridor Study

MJ stated that the study had recently been considered by HPBC’s Regeneration Select Committee. The Committee was generally supportive of the study and the proposed mitigation strategy for the corridor. However, members were particularly keen for a delivery strategy to be agreed with all relevant partners to ensure that the recommended improvements were implemented.

SS provided an update on the consideration of the study by SMBC members. The need to deliver the High Lane – Disley Bypass and mitigation measures proposed in Hazel Grove were particular issues raised by members.

5. Cheshire East

PL provided an overview of the background and content of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that had been agreed between SMBC and Cheshire East Council. The MoU outlines areas of common ground and the respective commitments from each authority to address planning issues, including those related to the proposed Handforth Sustainable Village allocation.

PL and RW noted that Cheshire East Council had agreed to accommodate 500 homes towards High Peak’s objectively assessed need for housing. MJ explained that this agreement was on the basis of the need to minimise transport congestion on the A6 and to avoid over development on the edge of the Peak District National Park.

6. Further work

It was agreed to prepare a MoU between SMBC and HPBC regarding the delivery of transport mitigation measures as recommended by the A6 Corridor Study. Subject to wider agreement, this could also include the other A6 Corridor Study partners, namely; Derbyshire County Council, Cheshire East Council and Transport for Greater Manchester.

It was also agreed that the MoU between SMBC and HPBC would include a commitment from SMBC to consider the scope for Stockport to accommodate some of High Peak’s unmet housing need as part of a future review of the Stockport Core Strategy. The accommodation of any of High Peak’s housing would be subject to Stockport being in a position to fully meet its own identified needs in the first instance.

ACTION: MJ to draft and circulate a MoU for comment by the end of April.

90 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of planning policy between High Peak Borough Council and Manchester City Council

Date: 28 August 2013 Venue: Manchester Town Hall

Present: Gavin Clarke, High Peak BC (GC) James Shuttleworth (Manchester CC (JS) Hilary Senior, High Peak BC (HS) Mark James, High Peak BC (MJ)

1. Introductions

Members of the respective teams introduced themselves. GC explained that as Principal Planning Officer for Staffordshire Moorlands DC, he now undertook this role for HPBC under the two Council’s strategic alliance. MJ and HS confirmed that they work in the Planning Policy team at HPBC. JS confirmed his position at the Planning Strategy Manager within a new City Policy team.

2. Current planning policy position of each authority a. Status of respective Core Strategies /Local Plans

Manchester

JS stated that Manchester’s Core Strategy was adopted in July 2012. A number of UDP policies also remain saved. Consideration of a review of Core Strategy is likely to be the next piece of work undertaken, as it was adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. Introduction of CIL is being considered, and this will include the scope to align CIL and Core Strategy review is both progress. In terms of sites, a neighbourhood based approach will be taken with the emphasis being on flexibility to help meet strategic priorities.

High Peak

MJ explained that HPBC were now working on a single Local Plan for the parts of the Borough that lie outside of the Peak District National Park. Previous work on a joint Core Strategy with the neighbouring district of Derbyshire Dales had been abandoned. A Preferred Option version of the Local Plan was issued for consultation in February 2013. The Council intends to publish the plan in March 2013 and submit in July 2014. GC stated that an assessment of the scope for CIL in High Peak had been carried out but no decision had yet been made on whether to pursue the matter further.

b. Overview of objectives of Local Plans and key issues to be addressed

Manchester

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 91 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

The adopted Core Strategy is supportive of growth in terms of housing and employment and reflects the approach of the North West RSS. The Core Strategy plans for 60,000 additional dwellings up to the year 2027 which is above the implied requirement identified in the 2011 household projections. These most recent household projections indicate a significant decline in household growth in Manchester – a trend reflected in other University towns. The majority of this development will occur within the northern and eastern districts of Manchester as well as the city centre where the potential for further apartments has been identified. Comparatively fewer homes are planned for southern parts of the city such as Didsbury due to a limited land supply. The majority of housing will be located on previously developed land. Significant economic regeneration is also planned around Airport City and Eastlands (now known as the Etihad).

High Peak

MJ explained that the Preferred Options Local Plan sought to provide an average of 270 homes per year across High Peak. This is below the projected household requirement of 400 homes per year and previous RSS requirement of 300 to help address landscape, environmental and infrastructure concerns. To address an identified oversupply of employment land, the plan seeks to re- allocate some constrained employment land for housing and other uses.

c. 5 year housing land supply

JS and HS discussed the respective positions in relation to the 5 year housing land supply requirement.

3. Previous policy approach for coordinating development in the North West and East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategies

MJ outlined the historic approach taken at a regional level to coordinate development between the North West and High Peak that was acknowledged as being within the Manchester City Region by the North West RSS. The East Midlands RSS sought to restrict housing growth in High Peak to below trends levels to reduce past levels of in-migration from Greater Manchester. This approach was adopted in response to environmental constraints and to support the regeneration of Greater Manchester.

MJ explained that HPBC was keen to re-establish the principle of below trend housing growth with Manchester, Stockport and Tameside as High Peak continues to experience in-migration from these areas.

4. Discussion around potential areas of cooperation a. Housing / SHMA

GC provided an overview of the proposed High Peak SHMA to be commissioned shortly. Due to the identified migration patterns between High Peak and Greater Manchester, the SHMA would seek to investigate this issue further and establish the current extent of the housing market area.

92 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

JS explained that whilst MCC was keen to accommodate housing growth, Manchester’s housing target was already fairly ambitious and based on accommodating a level of demand generated elsewhere in the Manchester City Region and it would therefore be difficult for MCC to further reduce migration to High Peak by taking on some of the housing need identified for the Borough. The majority of the housing growth planned in Manchester largely serves a different market from those choosing to re-locate to High Peak, certainly in the short term. Development in south Manchester may relieve some pressure on High Peak but opportunities for development here are limited.

JS suggested that Anne Morgan at AGMA would be a useful contact to input to new High Peak SHMA to investigate these issues further. AGMA is due to assess housing matters across all of the Greater Manchester authorities with initial findings due in early 2014.

ACTION: JS to provide HPBC with contact details for Anne Morgan.

b. Transport c. Leisure and tourism

MJ highlighted the recently approved funding bid made by the Peak District National Park Authority to develop a cycle trail from Buxton railway station into the Peak District National Park. The intention of the project is to encourage greater numbers of visitors to the National Park from the neighbouring conurbations and to encourage cycling and public transport use. MJ explained that it would be helpful if plan making in Manchester could complement this aim by supporting cycling links to / from Manchester Piccadilly. The capacity to carry the anticipated increase in bikes on trains could also be an issue and HPBC would like to see if this can be addressed through the rail re-franchising process.

JS explained that his colleague, David Whyte, would be able consider the matter.

ACTION: JS to raise the above with David Whyte

5. AOB

JS queried the level of interest in Neighbourhood Planning in High Peak and the implications that this had on resources. HS and CG confirmed that two areas had been designated to date with interest from elsewhere. Technical support has been given to these areas by HPBC. It was acknowledged that this level of support would become more difficult should further neighbourhoods seek to progress plans at the same time.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 93 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

13 November Meeting 2013 – on the Greater Manchester position on growth

Present

• David Hodcroft (GM) • Anne Morgan (GM) • Mark James (HP) • Perry Wardle (HP)

Discussion Points

• Greater Manchester position outlined in letter sent 28 March 2013 and the commencement of a project to establish a new and up to date position on future growth within Greater Manchester. The outcome will be an agreed GM position on the scale, type and location of growth over the next 20 years – up to 2032. This will require an agreement with neighbouring areas where there are strategic and cross boundary implications. The first stage of the process requires a Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This is currently being scoped out.

• Developer demand and interest in both Buxton and Glossop.

• Local Plan, pre-submission March 2014. Preferred Options published in February 2013 identified a required housing number of 270pa (compared to RSS – 300).

• New evidence in the form of a SHMA to help confirm housing target for the pre-submission Local Plan. RSS defined the HA as the Peak sub region.

• Individual meetings have taken place between High Peak and individual districts in Greater Manchester i.e. Tameside and Manchester. The Manchester meeting considered a protocol for joint working – primarily on transport.

• NLP have been appointed to develop the SHMA with a workshop planned for December in Buxton.

• Important to understand the geography of the issues. High Peak are part of the Derbyshire and Nottingham LEP. On flood risk, Derbyshire have a place on the NW RFCC.

• Employment land study – writing a brief to bring housing and employment land information together.

94 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

• Agreed to share information on GM land review when available and High Peak on SHMA including invite to December workshop.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 95 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Duty to Co-operate: Meeting 08/03/2013 Meeting between Cheshire East Council, High Peak Borough Council and Peak District National Park Authority.

Buxton Town Hall, Friday 8 th March 2013 9:30am.

Present:

• Brian Taylor, Planning Policy Manager – Peak District National Park Authority • Hilary Senior, Principal Planning Policy Officer – High Peak Borough Council • Gavin Clarke, Principal Regeneration Officer (Planning Policy) – High Peak Borough Council • Adrian Fisher, Strategic Planning and Housing Manager – Cheshire East Council • Stewart House, Principal Planning Officer – Cheshire East Council

Note of Meeting: Each authority present outlined their current planning strategy:

Cheshire East: a pro-growth strategy based on delivering housing, jobs and improved connectivity. A focus on development in the south of the Borough but also some growth in the north requiring a review of Green Belt including 14% growth in Macclesfield and a new settlement at Handforth East. Housing delivery figures increasing throughout the plan period but averaging out to 1,350 per year (RSS figure is 1,150). Recently consulted on ‘Development Strategy’ and ‘Policy Principles’ documents (similar to preferred options). Next stage is to draft a Core Strategy.

High Peak: a lower growth strategy to deliver new housing respectful of the landscape constraints using existing commitments, development of employment areas no longer suited to modern requirements and some greenfield sites. Not currently envisaging a need for Green Belt review. Growth evenly spread throughout the three sub-areas (Glossopdale, Central and Buxton). Housing delivery figures increasing throughout the plan period but averaging out to 270 per year (RSS figure is 300). Currently consulting on draft Local Plan Preferred Options until 10 th April 2013.

National Park: Core Strategy already adopted; limited new housing in exceptional circumstances only, in line with the statutory purpose of the National Park. A reduction in the amount and proportion of aggregates from the National Park over the plan period.

Issues Arising: Officers from the authorities present identified no significant cross boundary issues that are likely to impact on plan preparation. Some minor issues were raised for consideration as plan preparation progresses:

Buffer zone: The National Park Authority considers that defining the extent of the National Park fringe or buffer zone is not the best approach as the extent of a buffer zone needs to vary according to the type and scale of development proposals. An impact-based approach would be preferable and it would be useful to adopt a consistent approach to this around the National Park.

96 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

National Park boundaries: The National Park boundaries will shortly be re-digitised using modern mapping systems to improve accuracy. There will need to be dialogue between authorities to ensure consistency.

Minerals: The National Park Core Strategy seeks a reduction in the amount and proportion of aggregates from the National Park over the plan period. Neighbouring Minerals Planning Authorities who reply on importation of aggregates from the National Park will need to consider this in their plans.

Key interactions: Three key areas of interaction were identified between the Peak Sub Area and Cheshire East. These are (i) the A6 corridor; (ii) the Cat and Fiddle (Buxton – Macclesfield) and (iii) potentially the A54 Bosley crossroads. Given the amounts and locations of development proposals within Cheshire East and High Peak, it is not considered that there are any issues arising for (ii) or (iii). The A6 corridor study will investigate the potential impact of predicted traffic growth on the A6 Corridor between Buxton and Stockport over the next 20 years.

Sub-regional diagram: it may be beneficial to produce a basic sub-regional diagram to show interactions.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 97 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

HIGH PEAK – CHESHIRE EAST DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

NOTE OF MEETING

4 February 2014

Present

Gavin Clarke – High Peak BC Hilary Senior – High Peak BC Mark James – High Peak BC Stuart Penny – Cheshire East BC Adrian Fisher – Cheshire East BC Julian Jackson – Cheshire East BC

Location Town Hall, Macclesfield

Purpose The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the letter of 10 January 2014 from High Peak Council which asked if Cheshire East Council could accommodate any of the housing needs arising in High Peak.

High Peak Housing Need Position The initial Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was done in 2008 and had become out of date so an updated Assessment was done in 2013 as a combined piece of work with Staffordshire Moorlands Council. This was done jointly to achieve economies of scale not because the two authorities share a housing market area.

The provisional results of the SHMA suggested a High Peak housing requirement of between 416 and 455 dwellings per year – a level higher than that implied by the latest (2011 – based) nationally derived household projections of 400 dwellings per annum. This has still to be confirmed by further assessment to take account of their work on the Employment Land Review.

Cheshire East Housing Need Position

98 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Here the starting point for the objectively assessed housing need for the Local Plan work had been the 2011 household projections extrapolated to the end of the Plan period – 2030. So the 2011 headship rate had been used however this reflects a long sustained historic fall in the local household formation rate. The reasoning behind this approach was offered to be shared with High Peak colleagues. From this demographic starting point the 27,000 housing requirement figure for Cheshire East also reflected the growth orientated jobs led strategy of the Plan and its associated effect on migration patterns.

After many years of strictly imposed restraint, the approach of the Cheshire East Local Plan was to allow some development in the north of the Borough by rolling back Green Belt boundaries around the towns. This was being done following a comprehensive assessment of the Green Belt. It was agreed that such an approach to allowing more housing in the north of Cheshire East should ease the pressure to provide housing in High Peak.

High Peak Environmental Constraints A Landscape Impact Assessment had objectively demonstrated extensive areas where housing development would adversely affect the landscape character of the countryside adjacent to the main towns. Much of this land is also within the Green Belt and was appropriately meeting the purposes of this designation (with some minor amendments to the Green Belt boundary being recommended). Furthermore nearly all the land adjoining the main settlements is steeply sloping. There are also important wildlife habitats acting as a significant constraint on development.

As a result of these limitations on development High Peak Officers had calculated the maximum capacity of the Borough to accommodate a level of new housing equivalent to 360 dwellings per annum. The old Regional Spatial Strategy housing requirement figure for High Peak was 300 homes per year which was recognised as being 25% below need.

High Peak Approaches to Neighbouring Authorities All neighbouring authorities had been asked to consider if they could assist High Peak with the provision of land for housing. This was an on-going process but most authorities initial positions showed a general inability to help.

Cheshire East Response to Approach The request (High Peak letter of 10 January 2014) had come late in the process of preparing the Local Plan as this was set for member approval later in February for publication in March and likely submission for examination in May. However it was recognised there is a degree of synergy between Cheshire East and High Peak which was touched upon in the holding response letter of 30 January - the likelihood

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 99 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

that previous housing restraint exercised by Macclesfield Borough Council will have displaced some housing pressures to High Peak and mutual benefit of avoiding unwarranted housing in the Peak District National Park so protecting this very important tourism asset. Furthermore in transport terms, this synergy is evidenced in the A6 corridor work and the associated A6-Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme.

The ability to meet any of High Peak’s housing needs in the short term in Cheshire East was not possible in view of the tightness of the five year supply. However in the second half of the Plan period it would be possible to accommodate a 500 dwelling contribution from sites dispersed across the north of Cheshire East out of the flexibility margin in the overall supply of land being brought forward by the Plan.

Agreed

• That High Peak would o consider the 500 dwelling offer o suggest any changes to the portrayal of the Borough in the Cheshire East Plan (formerly paragraphs 3.92- 3.99)

• That Cheshire East would o share the drafting of the housing requirement policy (PG1) and the supporting text o share the headship rate justification work

100 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Planning Policy meeting between High Peak Borough Council and the Peak District National Park Authority

Date: 6 September 2013 Venue: Aldern House, Bakewell

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Brian Taylor (PDNPA) Hilary Senior (HPBC) Ian Fullilove (PDNPA) Mark James (HPBC)

1. Local Plan / LDF update

BT stated that a reviewed of the saved policies of the previous plan for the National Park was underway. The review would inform the new Development Management Policies DPD scheduled for publication in Spring 2014. The Proposals Map for the National Park was also in the process of being updated. BT confirmed that the production of SPD’s to provide further policy guidance was anticipated in the future.

2. Discussion of potential areas of cooperation

a. Housing development within the National Park

MJ questioned whether housing completions within the parts of High Peak that lie within the National Park could continue to be counted towards the requirements for the High Peak Local Plan. This approach was previously established through the East Midlands Regional Plan. The National Park Authority has previous stated that this approach could be taken forward although it has yet to be formalised.

BT and IF confirmed that the National Park Authority were happy for the above approach to continue alongside wider collaboration regarding housing evidence gathering, monitoring and delivery.

It was agreed that principle and detail of the above should be formalised.

b. Policies to consider the setting of the National Park

BT and IF highlighted the need for Local Planning Authorities adjoining the National Park to adopt and implement policies to protect its setting.

HS identified the proposed policies in the High Peak Local Plan that seek to protect the setting of the National Park. BT and IF agreed that the Preferred Options provided a adequate degree of protection to the Park’s setting.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 101 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

c. Infrastructure planning / CIL

MJ referred to the past work that has been undertaken between the authorities to identify infrastructure requirements and the scope for CIL.

It was agreed that further joint working in the future would be appropriate given the fact that infrastructure and services are often shared between the National Park and constituent authorities.

The scope for potential CIL revenue generated within the High Peak Local Plan area to be spent within on shared Green Infrastructure with the National Park was discussed. MJ confirmed that HPBC had yet to determine whether CIL was to be progressed. In the event that a levy is taken forward, the scope to include shared Green Infrastructure on HPBC’s Regulation 123. “Infrastructure List” would be considered and prioritised alongside other measures required to support growth.

BT stated that CIL was unlikely to be taken forward in the National Park due to the low level of planned development and associated infrastructure need.

d. Evidence base studies (SHMA, landscape impact etc.)

The longstanding arrangements for joint working on evidence gathering to inform planning policy was discussed. It was agreed that such joint working should continue. BT suggested that a joint programme should be agreed to outline the timetable for reviewing and updating the various joint evidence base studies. GC agreed to the principle of a joint programme.

GC and HS explained the scope of the new SHMA and landscape and Green Belt Studies for High Peak. The former is intended to explore the extent of the housing market area and objectively assessed need. The latter would assess the landscape impact of proposed development sites and the scope for further development to be accommodated without significant impact on the landscape or purposes of the Green Belt.

Consultants would be appointed shortly for the SHMA. The Landscape and Green Belt Study had recently commenced.

HPBC would like input from relevant authorities including the National Park Authorities to assist with the preparation of the SHMA and landscape.

e. Management of neighbourhood planning

The current informal working arrangements for the consideration of Neighbourhood Area designations of relevance to both authorities and wider Neighbourhood Planning support were discussed.

It was agreed that it would be beneficial to formally agree standard procedures regarding the above to formalise the current arrangements.

102 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

3. Duty to Cooperate Statement / Memorandum of Understanding

MJ stated that it was the intension of HPBC to summarise the nature of cooperation to date with relevant authorities in a Duty to Cooperate Statement. The statement would support the submission of the Local Plan. Where an ongoing need to cooperate had been identified, HPBC proposed the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that would specify how and when the Council and partners would work together.

An MoU between HPBC and the National Park Authority was proposed by HPBC to cover the issues identified above where continued cooperation was appropriate.

The principle of the MoU was agreed by the National Park Authority.

MJ resolved to circulate a draft of the Duty to Cooperate Statement and MoU for consideration by the National Park Authority.

4. AOB

BT stated that the scope for the National Park Authority to express support below trend housing targets in the Peak Sub-Region in recognition of the constrained nature of the area had been discussed with Derbyshire Dales District Council. This approach had previously been established in the East Midlands Regional Plan that made provisions for below trend housing growth in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales on the basis of environmental constraints.

BT stated that the National Park Authority would support below trend housing growth in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales. Further consideration would be given to the scope to include this support in the MoU to be prepared between HPBC and the National Park Authority.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 103 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - 7th March 2013

Buxton Town Hall

Attendees

Mike Hase (DDDC)

Hannah Godley(DDDC)

Gavin Clarke (HPBC/SMBC)

HIlary Senior (HPBC)

Mark James (HPBC)

GC outlined that the HPLP Preferred Options were out to consultation until 10th April 2013. He advised that the Options Consultation undertaken in Autumn 2012 had focused mainly upon housing numbers and site allocations. As a result of the consultation, despite recommendations that the housing figure for the plan period 2006-2028 should remain as per East Midlands Regional Plan (300 per annum) Members reduced the requirement to 270 per annum because of concerns about capacity of sites and infrastructure to accommodate a higher rate.

The Preferred Options document includes more sites than is required as this addresses the NPPF requirement. The housing distribution split is roughly equal across the three sub areas. The allocations within the plan come to approx 2000 dwellings, and the plan includes an allowance for small sites of less than 10 within the built up area. The plan includes a phasing plan that sees the number of dwellings provided increase towards the latter part of the plan period - but development within HPBC has been less than 150 dwellings completed in the past few years.

On employment the plan has been adjusted to take account of the annual average over the past few years as per ELR and extended to cover the period upto 2028. On retailing the Peak Sub Region Retail Study has been taken forward less commitments that have come forward in the interim - still a bit of work to do on Buxton because of a permission to extend Morrisons.

Open space - 2 new local green space designations, and a Green Wedge in New Mills, as well as a strategic gap policy between Glossop and Hadfield, although now subject to an application for housing.

Buxton infrastructure - plan includes a proposal for an extension of the existing school and outdoor playing fields with alternative residential site on Dukes Drive - DCC may notify the site. Infrastructure policy very similar to that included within Joint Core Strategy Draft Plan - one relating to CIL and another to developer contributions.

104 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

MH outlined the situation with regards to the emerging strategy in the DDLP, and the timetable for the preparation of the Local Plan during 2013. No real issues were raised by HPBC in respect of the approach being taken by DDDC.

GC asked whether DDDC would be making any comments - MH advised that there was some degree of concern about the reduction in the numbers might have implications for DDDC. GC advised that on the basis of early discussions with Stockport & Tameside that both had indicate an unwillingness to accept any any additional housing from HPBC, although both would need to met again under the Duty to Cooperate to discuss further. A meeting with Tameside is due soon, although main issues likely to be transportation and employment issues. Derbyshire County Council have advised support for 300 dwellings per annum based upon East Midlands RSS.

GC advised that they were going to commission additional work on landscape impact, site viability and there was a need to update the SHMA. GC indicated that he would make a copy of the Viability Brief available to MH - and that because it was soon to go on Source Derbyshire that there would not really be much opportunity for joint working on such a study.

SHMA - MH suggested that DDDC could act as the lead authority but would like to keep under £20k to minimise the procurement procedure, and that seek to agree brief by end of March and have work complete by end of May and seek to focus on key issues, updating the 2008 SHMA. HG to review work undertaken in recent studies and seek to identify key points for further discussion on Thursday 14th

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 105 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Ashwood Dale Quarry and Tongue Lane housing site meeting

Date: 19 May 2014 Venue: Town Hall, Buxton

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Justine Proudler (DCC) Mark James (HPBC) Mike Towers (HPBC) Peter Hollinsworth (HPBC) Michelle Spence (DCC) Nigel Barratt (Omya) Carol Barnett (DCC) Steve Lamb (Quarry Plan)

1. Update on application / pre-application advice

JP confirmed that DCC had provided Omya with some initial feedback in relation to the proposal to extend Ashwood Dale Quarry which is at the pre- application stage. Further feedback was pending a response from HPBC, including the Planning Policy and Environmental Heath teams.

2. Update on High Peak Local Plan

MJ provided an update on the position of the Local Plan which has now been published. The closing date for representations is 23 rd June. The Tongue Lane housing allocation has been retained in the Local Plan with its original boundary and capacity (215 dwellings) phased towards the end of the plan period (2026-2031).

Following the consultation period, a Council meeting on 15 th July would consider representations and determine whether to submit the plan to the Planning Inspectorate or make any further changes. Minor changes could be made prior to submission. Major modifications would be subject to further consultation. Subject to the outcome of the meeting, the examination was expected to start in the Autumn.

3. Update on Minerals Plan

MS confirmed that an informal period of consultation on elements of the Minerals Plan was expected to start in June. This would comprise of a series of papers on matters such as safeguarded land and industrial limestone.

4. Discussion regarding Omya’s proposal for the quarry in relation to the housing site

SL talked the group through the series of plans (figures 1.0-1.6) that had been circulated prior to the meeting. The plans indicated an indicative 200m buffer around the existing and proposed quarries in relation to existing housing; land with consent for housing; the proposed housing allocation; potential additional housing land and potential phasing requirements.

Figures 1.5 and 1.6 identified the scope to accommodate development across the full extent the housing allocation which partially lies with the 200m buffer

106 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

of both the existing and proposed quarry extension. However, this would be subject appropriate phasing to ensure that the active working areas were a sufficient distance away to avoid unacceptable dust and vibration impacts. Depending on the rate of extraction, this could prevent land within the 200m buffer being developed within the period of the Local Plan. Omya may also have to amend their blasting practices to mitigate impacts.

PH and MT from the HPBC Environmental Health team stated that a berm with low level planting was likely to be required to further mitigate noise and dust as a 200m buffer was not necessarily a sufficient distance in itself to address impacts. PH suggested that a more detailed assessment would be required to identify impacts and suitable mitigation measures.

SL confirmed that Omya would undertake an EIA in support of the ROMP and application for the proposed quarry extension which was due by April 2015. This would consider impacts on both existing and proposed housing developments. Representations would also be submitted on behalf of Omya to the Local Plan by 23rd June with further consideration of the timescales of the operation of the quarry extension and subsequent scope to develop housing outside of the 200m buffer within the plan period.

ACTION: SL to share findings of assessment when available.

MJ and GC confirmed that HPBC would assess the scope for the housing allocation to accommodate its full quota of housing (215) outside of the 200m buffers by giving further consideration to layouts and densities that might be achieved on the site. This work would include the adjoining land with consent that was due to lapse. The potential additional housing sites identified by Omya would also be considered.

ACTION: HPBC to review densities and layouts on the allocation and adjoining land with consent to determine scope to deliver the Local Plan quota for the site whilst remaining outside of the 200m buffer.

ACTION: HPBC to consider potential allocation of additional housing sites identified by Omya.

NB requested that the design of the site should also take account of the need to secure the quarry with adequate fencing that was not visually obtrusive.

MJ and GC stated that the outcome of any work undertaken on the sites and any representations would be considered by the Council on 15 th July. Subsequent minor modifications may then be made to Policy DS16 which provides specific requirements for the development of the housing allocation. In the event that more significant amendments are necessary such as a revised housing site boundary, further consultation would be necessary.

It was agreed that a further progress meeting would be arranged for late July.

ACTION: MJ to arrange next meeting.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 107 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Note of Ashwood Dale Quarry and Tongue Lane housing site meeting

Date: 17 July 2014 Venue: Town Hall, Buxton

Present: Gavin Clarke (HPBC) Mike Towers (HPBC) Mark James (HPBC) Carol Barnett (DCC) Michelle Spence (DCC) Nigel Barratt (Omya) Steve Lamb (Quarry Plan)

1. Update on Minerals Plan

MS stated that consultation of the Minerals Plan was due to commence in August. A draft version of the plan would follow towards the end of the year. The plan period would extend up to 2030.

2. Update on Omya’s application and EIA (Discussed 1 st . MT left the meeting on conclusion of this item)

SL confirmed that work on the baseline work for the EIA was underway. The EIA Scoping Report would be submitted to Derbyshire County Council for consideration by the end of August. An ecological assessment of the existing quarry and proposed extension has not identified any major issues. The survey results will now be considered in the light of the extension development . A planning application is anticipated to be submitted by the end of 2014.

NB explained that Omya and a HPBC Environmental Health Officer had met with the Fairfield Residents Association earlier that day to discuss the potential quarry extension and residents concerns regarding its potential impacts, particularly vibration. However, it was believed that there was sufficient distance between the quarry extension and existing properties to avoid such impacts and that the maintenance of 200m buffer between new housing would prevent issues in the future. MT confirmed that Environmental Heath were unlikely to raise any objections on this basis provided that the processing plant and machinery was retained in the east of the quarry. SL confirmed that this would be the case.

In terms of the phasing of the quarry extension, NB stated that Omya had considered working the western end first. This was considered as it would ensure that the workings closest to the housing allocation would end sooner, thus shortening the timeframe within which land within the housing site would be within 200m of the active quarry face. This end of the quarry is also known to have the greatest concentration of high quality industrial grade material. Nevertheless, it was anticipated that extraction at the western end would continue for approximately 30 years – beyond the end of the Local Plan and proposed phasing period of the housing allocation (2031).

108 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

MS stated that for DCC a key consideration is seeking the best use of finite resources (NPPF refers) and NB and SL indicated this would be best achieved by the western and northern extensions to be worked concurrently as this would enable the most efficient use of the high quality material as it could be blended with generally lower quality stone from the north. This also significantly minimise the % quarried for aggregate purposes NB confirmed that this would also be Omya’s ideal scenario. However, this would prolong extraction at the western end of the quarry and therefore extend the period within which the land within the housing allocation fell within a 200m buffer to approximately 45 years. SL stated that more detailed consideration of the proposed phasing of the extension would be required to provide greater certainty. These details would be worked up as part of the forthcoming planning application and Mineral Local Plan submissions.

3. Update on High Peak Local Plan and 4. Local Plan representations and examination

GC provided an update on the progress of the Local Plan which Council had approved for submission to the Secretary of State on 15 th July. The examination was anticipated to commence in November.

5. Initial consideration of revised densities at the Tongue Lane housing allocation and additional housing sites identified by Omya

MJ stated that the HPBC team were due to commission an assessment of sites in the Council’s ownership to help inform the Local Plan examination. This would include specific consideration of a range of scenarios in order to determine the possible implications for housing delivery of a 200m buffer around the quarry. This work would consider the scope to increase densities to try to ensure that the anticipated level of development on the site as specified in the Local Plan (215) was maintained. The scenarios would also consider the possibility of linking the proposed housing allocation to adjoining land suggested by Omya for housing use to help offset any loss of housing closer to the quarry. These additional plots of land had now been included in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). A copy of the assessments was circulated. Whilst access improvements are likely to be required and the owners’ aspirations were currently unknown, the SHLAA had not identified any over-riding constraints to development.

It was agreed by SL and NB that details of the proposed phasing should be fed into the HPBC assessment in order to clarify the potential level of housing delivery on the proposed allocation and additional land within the plan period and beyond. This information would be based on 5 year blocks in order to align with planning requirements for housing provision.

ACTION: SL to supply HPBC with phasing details when available.

6. Next steps

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 109 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

ACTION: MJ to arrange a meeting with Omya and the Council’s housing site consultants to discuss the phasing details when available. The outcome of this work would be available for consideration at the Local Plan examination.

110 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy and Peak district National Park Core Strategy Delivery Plans Workshop on 8 June 2009, Held at Aldern House, Bakewell. Notes from Workshop 1 in the Meeting Room.

(Facilitator: Adrian Fisher, Scribe: Hilary Senior)

Present: North West Electricity United Utilities Water Trent Barton GMPTE EMDA

Notes:

North West Electricity There is a capacity problem in Buxton. The regulator says that customers need to be encouraged to ‘shed load’. If this cannot be achieved then the system will require upgrading. ( £12 –15m to improve supply from Buxton to Chapel) In discussions with companies who use more than 1 megawatt (sufficient to power 1000 houses). Zero carbon houses are 30% more expensive to build but the vast majority of the housing stock is older houses that need retrofitting with energy efficiency measures. However the electricity network was not designed to work both ways ie supply power and take it back into the national grid. In some area the buy back capacity is already full.

United Utilities Water Initial comment that Severn Trent supply the majority of the Peak sub region and expressed disappointment that they were not represented. Overall provision for water is good. Londgendale reservoirs and pipelines from Lake District. Plan to join supply from North Wales and Lake District to ensure there is no shortage in a particular area. There may be pressure on water supply caused by the Habitats Directive as by 2014 abstraction licences may be reduced in particular areas where water abstraction may affect habitats. Climate change may mean that the main rainfall periods change and shortages may occur at other times of the year. Existing housing stock uses most water. Evidence shows that installing a water meter cuts consumption by 10%. UU discourage grey and rainwater recycling, except for gardens, as it requires the installation of a separate system and a second pump.

Waste water- there are currently 8 treatments works and non are at capacity or causing concern.

Flooding – In High Peak 2 properties are at risk of internal foul flooding with 15 at risk from external flooding. These are probably underestimates.

Surface water. There can be up to 50 times more water during severe storms cause high volumes of surface run off. There is a need to keep surface water out of the foul sewer

The United Utilities business plan for 2010 to 2015 has been submitted. General details are available on the website. Decision to be made in November. 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 111 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Trent Barton Airport link bus every 30 mins from 3.30am to 1am Buxton to Manchester Trans Peak Nottingham to Manchester 3 hourly Nottingham to Buxton 1 hourly (this was funded with kickstart funding which has now finished) Town service Buxton to Harpur Hill and Fairfield

Locally concerned with the application for Sainsbury as there is already concern over road capacity and the proposal will make matters worse.

In Derbyshire Dales there are services between Bakewell and Derby and Ripley, Ashbourne and Derby. Trent Barton have small depots at Matlock and Ashbourne

There are several small operators.

There has been a general downturn in bus customers.

GMPTE

Following the rejection of the congestion charge GMPTE are undertaking a prioritisation exercise.

Mottram bypass and Glossop spur possibly funded by increased levies to AGMA.

Part funding Gamesley station study.

£50m for rail improvement increase rolling stock on existing lines

16 strategic park and ride sites

Yorkshire and Humber rail utilisation study- Buxton Matlock railway- consultation due before christmas

EMDA

3 directorates Regeneration ( coalfields), business and strategy (RES RSS)

Changing role, involved in RSS sub national review Less in delivery, more in strategy, new leaders board, Regional assembly abolished

DCC sub regional strategic partnerships and sub regional investment plans DDEP Mike and Paul Armstrong ( HP) are involved with this

Investments- Buxton Pavilion Gardens, Market Street business centre, Crescent ( emda), Glossop Market Hall Matlock Central area leisure centre 2

112 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Moving into DCC, current program 50% allocated, can start looking at 2011/12.

Commissioned Arup to do regional infrastructure study. Regional investment funds ( in some regions) fund work and recoup costs through s106 agreements when development takes place

Single regional strategy

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 113 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

(Facilitator: Mike Hase, Scribe: Claire Collison)

Present:

Ann Ainsworth Derbyshire County Council Cultural Services Department Robert Gent Derbyshire County Council Cultural Services Department Louis Hughes Derbyshire County Council – Children & Young Adults Service Carol Barnett Derbyshire County Council – Environmental Services Peter Lewis Derbyshire Constabulary Mark ArmstrongRead – Derbyshire County PCT Keith Turner Derbyshire NHS Mental Trust Louise Williamson Derbyshire NHS Mental Trust Patricia Coleman local government adviser and consultant & Chair of Culture East Midlands. Derbyshire NHS Primary Care Trust; nonexecutive director. Youlgreave Parish Councillor. Member National Trust. FRSA.)

Notes:

Derbyshire County Council Cultural Services Department

An Ainsworth commented that Victoria Hall in Glossop is the main focus in terms of Library refurbishments. It is a £2m project and will include Library refurbishment; youth club; social services offices; and a registrar service. Derbyshire County Council will wholly fund the project. Outstanding issues are for English Heritage to transfer the ownership of the building to DCC.

Derbyshire County Council – Children & Young Adults Service

Fiveyear service plan will concentrate on the development of new and refurbished children centres. Mainly 05 years old. There are nine planned in High Peak and seven planned in the Derbyshire Dales. Some may be new sites, but where possible they will be extended on existing school sites. Seven have been completed so far

Follow up: To request list of all named sites and locations for children centres from DCC

Derbyshire Constabulary

Peter Lewis identified that the main police stations are located in the market towns The fiveyear service plan concentrates on business needs

Identified that in the future some of the PCO’s would require more sustainable locations and the police are interested in strategic thinking

There was a reorganisation last year within the Police; therefore there will be no major changes in the near future. The establishment of Neighbourhood Officers has increased provision at local levels.

114 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

A possible future consideration would be that of colocation with other organisations on sustainability grounds, however there are problems between capital assets and revenue budgets.

Derbyshire County PCT

Mark Amstrong –Read identified two current projects that the PCT are currently delivering with the Peak Sub Region:

Ashbourne LIFT Project – Clifton Road, Ashbourne A Joint Development of the relocation of the hospital. New build of 7000m2, including a hospital, health centre and meeting/ training rooms for community and voluntary organisations to be housed.

Construction started October 2008 and handover is expected September 2010.

Former St Oswalds Hospital building in Ashbourne will be offered to other public services, however there are several location problems. If it is not taken up by another service, Planning permission will be sought to convert the building to flats and build some executive homes. The land will then be sold with the planning permission (if obtained successfully). The capital from the sale of the building will be used to buy expensive equipment for the New Health Centre at Clifton Road, Ashbourne.

Buxton Project £20 £30m project

The current health facilities in Buxton are poor, some are too small and the layout is not practicable.

The service delivery aim is to increase provision in Buxton. Recent public consultation was carried out the get the views of what residents want. The options that are being considered are as follows: 1. Stay as they are 2. x2 hospitals on one large site 3. An outreach colocation facility near to the town centre

The final appraisal of the three options will be completed on 21 st July 2009

The project is being carried out jointly between the PCT and three local GP Surgeries The project will be ongoing for 23 years and will be completed by 2014/15. Sustainability issues have been greatly considered, particularly access and parking issues.

In the North Peak (New Mills, Whaley Bridge and Chapel en le Frith) four new GP surgeries are being considered for out patients, this will be £34m project. The GPs are leading the project themselves

At Darley Dale – land next to the Whitworth Centre has been considered for the co location of Health services, but GPs in the area are not interested as yet.

Patricia Coleman who is a member of the Primary Care Trust Board commented that the health service provision in the Derbyshire Dales is over provided for/ spare capacity in

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 115 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

terms of doctors vs. population numbers, so therefore there will be no further rebuilds in the near future, if anything there will be a focus on refurbishments

Follow up: Contact Jackie Pendleton – Assistant Director Primary Care Commissioning [email protected] Contact Peter West – Head of Estates Department at Derbyshire County PCT for further information on projects Find information on Dentists and Pharmacies

Derbyshire NHS Mental Health Trust

The fiveyear service plan identifies that there is not enough service provision in Ashbourne, Matlock and Buxton in terms of mental health. Recent work has involved mapping the information of every patient by postcode, which has led to the identification of poor serviced and high usage problem areas.

The extent of the lack of facilities in Ashbourne was not recognised and has now become a top priority. A possible option is to reuse the St Oswald Hospital. However there is no business plan yet.

The facilities in Buxton desperately need to be replaced and discussions have taken place between Derbyshire Mental Health and the High Peak Planning team for possible options. Main issues are quality of existing building rather than location.

In Matlock part of the Ritz building is currently rented. The location is central but the size of the building is not big enough to accommodate all services and there are local parking issues. There is a growing demand for extra space and alternatives need to be considered. Look to relocate in 23 years.

Follow up: Copy of Mental Health Strategy and List of possible sites

116 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Workshop 2: Implications of Issues and Options emerging for the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Area

(Facilitator: Mike Hase, Scribe: Claire Collison)

Present: Ann Ainsworth - Derbyshire County Council Cultural Services Department Keith Turner - Derbyshire NHS Mental Trust Mark Evans - Staffordshire County Council Carol Barnett - Derbyshire County Council, Planning Department (waste & minerals) Gary Ellis – Derbyshire County Council, Environmental Services Rebecca Pennyfather – Derbyshire County Council, Transport Department

Notes:

Libraries

• Option A of Development in the Market Towns is favoured approach in the Joint Core Strategy in terms of Library Provision. There is more opportunity in the towns to increase capacity and opening hours of Libraries

• To build library provision in smaller settlements would prove difficult.

• Mobile Libraries would offer opportunities for other agencies to use as co-location – however this option has not been considered by other organisations.

• The existing buildings for libraries are limited in terms of extending services

Landscape Issues

• Gary Ellis suggested that the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy should consider alternative options for example the approach adopted by the Peak District National Park having promoted a landscape led approach to future development in the area. However there is a need to justify this approach.

• There are conflicting issues between two objectives e.g. providing appropriate levels of housing (meeting targets) and landscape quality; it is essential to strike a balance between the two.

• Greatest landscape sensitivity in the south of Ashbourne, small hamlets, villages.

• High Peak can accommodate more development, Matlock and Darley Dale is the gateway to National Park

Transport Issues • There are problems of access in particular settlements • It is important to support smaller communities as well • Community Transport and other forms of regular transport to these areas, an example is in Lincolnshire, where they introduced transport service that linked to the market towns. • Bus subsidies are needed.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 117 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

• It is important to live near existing services as the further out development occurs, the more revenue impacts there will be.

Staffordshire Cross boundary issues – face same issues, same characteristics small rural settlements

Mental Health

The options in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy do not impact upon the plans of Derbyshire Mental Health. The main settlements of interest for Mental Health services include, Matlock, Ashbourne and Buxton

Waste Management Option A – concentrate development in Market Towns is the most favoured approach in terms of minerals and waste. It is appropriate to locate waste near to towns where it is generated. Waste schemes in the Derbyshire Dales are small scale.

118 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

To: Mike Hase and Hilary Senior 8 June 2009 Cc: Brian Taylor From: Andy Cooper

Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy and Peak District National Park Core Strategy Delivery Plans Workshop on 8 June 2009, held at Aldern House. Bakewell. Notes from the Break Out Sessions in the Library

Session 1: Agency Development Plans (Facilitator: Andy Cooper. Scribe: Brian Taylor) Present: Gary Ellis Landscape Architect, Environmental Services Department, Derbyshire County Council Jamie Singleton Integrated Transport Group, Environmental Services Department, Derbyshire County Council Rebecca Pennyfather Integrated Transport Group, Environmental Services Department, Derbyshire County Council Mark Evans Transport Policy section, Development Services, Staffordshire County Council Cllr Peter Kay High Peak Borough Council

Notes

Action: Send an electronic copy of the proforma to Gary Ellis. ( Done)

The script was read and the meaning of and different types of infrastructure clarified.

The Local Transport Plans for both Derbyshire and Staffordshire Highway Authorities finish at the end of March 2011. These show their capital spending plans and core priorities, and are available on their websites. Final guidance on the next 5 year plans (LTP3s) is awaited from the government and is likely to be available in late Summer. The next plans are likely to be finalised by the Highway Authorities towards the end of 2010. They will have to be approved by the region before agreement by the DfT. The availability of funding beyond 2011 is not yet known.

Due to the timing of the Core Strategies , they could drive the reviews of the transport spending programmes. LTP3s will be subject to review after 3 years if appropriate.

LTPs will reflect partners’ needs. They will link in Derbyshire to the Derbyshire Partnership Programme. The new Local Area Agreement will coincide with the start of the new LTP3. The LTP funding is separate from the LAAs. The LAAs will enable integrated preparation of plans. The Derbyshire LAA has a Transport and Accessibility Sub-Group.

Current priorities for the Derbyshire LTP are tackling air quality, road safety, congestion and highway maintenance. The programme is delivered through 2 area teams. The Northern Team covers the joint strategy area.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 119 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Current priorities for the Staffordshire LTP are better access, safer roads and tackling highway maintenance. The focus is on the most densely populated areas.

Both Highway Authorities are keen to improve accessibility in rural areas.

Public bus services are expected to be provided by the public. They are important in transporting people to hospitals. Almost all buses are commercially operated.

In addition, revenue funded projects are supported where possible and long-term planning is not possible. Funding of revenue project is less certain than for capital projects. Staffordshire currently run the Rural Access Partnership, which provides subsidised bus passes and mopeds for people in work. Derbyshire currently support the Wheels to Work Project , run by Derbyshire Rural Community Council, and a Derbyshire Dales/ High Peak Accessibility Strategy should be available within the next 2 months. Its development has included a national park representative.

There is an issue of informing people of what’s on offer.

In Derbyshire, a 3 year capital programme (SEMMS) will finish in 2010/11. It includes improvements to public transport infrastructure and walking and cycling routes in the Buxton, A6, Glossop and Hope Valley Corridors

Cross- Park Opportunities eg Transpeak bus require joint funding across Highway Authority boundaries.

Community Rail Partnerships aim to improve services on the Buxton, Glossop and Hope valley routes.

Public Transport Services are not integrated as 95% are commercially operated.

There is no funding available for the proposed A628 improvement scheme.

The reopening of the Matlock- Buxton railway line may become viable from 2025/06, according to the feasibility study recommended reinvestigating this.

Plans for Sheffield City Region could have a major impact on the area - investigate.

Sustainable Transport Options: not realistic at present to switch to hybrid/electric options.

The Landscape Strategy is a good basis for the Core Strategy as the quality of the environment is important in driving development, and it provides a framework to respond to socio-economic needs.

Await clarification of any changes in approach arising from the changes in political leadership last week in the County Authorities.

Limited chance of big schemes coming forward in constrained financial times.

Need for flexibility in policies and fluidity in terms of Delivery Plans.

120 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Session 2: Implications of Issues and Options emerging for the Peak District National Park for Agencies (Facilitator: Brian Taylor. Scribe: Andy Cooper)

Present: Jamie Singleton Integrated Transport Group, Environmental Services Department, Derbyshire County Council Anna Sharman Single Project Funding for Derbyshire, DDEP Chris Massey Environmental Services Department, Derbyshire County Council Louis Hughes Children and Young Adults Department, Derbyshire County Council Robert Gent Assistant Director of Cultural Services, Derbyshire County Council Rosemary Olle Land Use Planner, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority Geoff Brown EMDA

Following the introduction about the issues and options in the National Park, the following points emerged.

There is a need for a wide range of jobs to meet local needs. The Employment Land Review had indicated that there is a surplus of employment land. Concern was expressed that sites were not being developed. Joint working is required to develop existing sites. The importance of sustainable locations in/around settlements was recognised for providing jobs. DCC offered to undertake accessibility assessments of sites if required. Policies to enable home-working and grow-on premises are required.

The provision of affordable housing in a variety of ways, both in and out of the National Park, is needed to meet local needs, including for young people who are homeless.

Virtual infrastructure is increasingly significant in rural areas to access services eg shopping, libraries etc. It is important to have access to high speed broadband and adequate training. In some areas, local initiatives, like the Derbyshire Well-Connected Project, can tackle needs for improvements. (See DDEP Web site)

Sustainable design was adding substantial additional costs to development. Capital and revenue funding initiatives e.g. Derbyshire Invest to Save Fund, could assist.

Clustering of services is being considered within authorities. Derbyshire County Council has a county –wide strategic partnership investigating property rationalisation (contact Jeremy Gaucher). Release of corporate assets will depend on the market.

The effectiveness of Local Community Planning will depend on the availability of public sector funding but there may be potential if major school developments are proposed.

There is a need for the Core Strategies to provide a flexible framework to allow for changes in, and alternative approaches to delivery.

There is a need to link cross- boundary delivery bodies to implement place- related strategies

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 121 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

MINUTES

Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Date: 2 May 2012 Time: 10.30am Venue: Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell

In attendance:

Steve Southern, Severn Trent Water (SS) Peter Abbott, PDNPA (PA) Harriet Fisher, DCC (HF) Mark James, HPBC (MJ) Mark Barker, Northern Rail (MB) Mike Hase, DDDC (MH) Rob Mackie, Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (RM) Phil Bryan, Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (PB)

Agenda

1. Introduction

MJ gave a brief presentation outlining the context and objectives of the session.

2. Planning proposals and processes for Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and the Peak District National Park Authority.

MJ, MH and PA outlined the latest programme of planning documents across Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and the Peak District National Park (see presentation for details).

3. Capital investment programmes and proposals of relevance

Derbyshire County Council

HF explained that some schemes listed in the latest version of the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan are not included in the infrastructure schedules tabled by HPBC and DDDC. Further discussion would be needed with LPAs to resolve specific matters such as education provision.

ACTION: HF / LPAs – arrange meeting to discuss DCC infrastructure issues further.

Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service

RM confirmed that there were no immediate plans to alter fire station provision in the area, although this may be reviewed at a later date, including the potential make Glossop Station whole time. Current coverage

122 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

includes; Buxton (whole time), Glossop and Matlock (day staffing) and retained stations in smaller towns such as Bakewell.

RM also highlighted the Fire Services’ new four year plan which includes an initiative to introduce sprinkler systems in to new residential developments and existing properties through retro-fitting. Ideally, new systems would be installed in all properties although isolated areas and vulnerable people would be the priority.

Planning policy support is sought for this initiative to require developers to include sprinkler systems in new homes, or at least provide larger water mains to reduce the cost of future retro-fitting (32 main required). The initiative is supported by Derbyshire County Council. The average cost per new property for a whole system is £1500. MH raised the potential issues that this may present in terms of development viability. However, all LPA’s offered to give the matter further consideration following representations from the Fire Service.

In relation to retro-fitting, £200,000 is available from the Fire Service to provide installations, subject to Local Authority match funding.

ACTIONS: RM and LPAs to arrange meetings to discuss the scope to include policies within plans to require / consider installation of sprinkler systems in development.

RM to provide more details, including identification of priority areas.

Severn Trent Water

SS confirmed that STW have no growth related investments planned in the area at present. The next capital programme will cover the period 2015- 2020 and there may be opportunities to include growth investments in this plan if necessary.

SS also highlighted the implications of the Barratt’s Homes v Welsh Water case whereby the cost of providing water / wastewater infrastructure to new development must be met in full by the utility company.

Northern Rail

MB discussed the planned improvements along the Hope Valley line as announced in the 2012 Budget. This project forms part of the wider Northern Hub project which seeks to improve network capacity across northern England to accommodate projected growth. The Hope Valley improvements are fully funded and include: • Passing loops at Chinley and Dore or Grindleford • Double tracking at Dore

At present, a business case has to be made regarding local service improvements arising from the infrastructure improvements. Opportunities

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 123 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

to lobby for local service improvements will arise later in 2012 when the re- franchising process is underway. Northern Rail’s current franchise expires in April 2014.

Other potential infrastructure projects raised by MB included: • Aspirations to provide disabled access at Chinley Station. This would cost £1 million but no funding is available a present. • Gamesley Station – there is a view amongst the rail industry that this project should be pursued alongside potential signalling and track improvements within the Dinting Triangle. • Additional parking at New Mills Newtown and Buxton Stations. Both projects have been discussed on occasions in the past but neither have progressed or are funded at present. MB stated that TfGM can fund projects up to 25 miles beyond the boundary of Greater Manchester. As such, they may have a role to play in these projects. • Half hourly service to Buxton – the rolling stock and infrastructure is in place. Further work is needed to consider the feasibility of the improvements. This project may also relate to the re-franchising of the route.

4. Discussion of options for new development across Derbyshire Dales and High Peak and identification of associated infrastructure requirements

MH, MJ and PA presented detailed of the level and distribution of housing growth across Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and the National Park (see presentation for details).

Infrastructure providers indicated that they would like more time to reflect the details and respond at a later date.

MB commented that New Mills and Glossop provide the best access to good railway links. This is a relevant consideration when determining the most appropriate distribution of future housing and population growth.

MH raised the aspiration for duelling the railway line between Matlock and Ambergate as a means of improving service quality with HF. This issue would need further consideration.

ACTION: MJ to circulate presentation.

ACTION: All - Infrastructure providers to feedback and/or meet with LPAs as appropriate.

5. Availability of funding

MJ confirmed that this matter could be discussed with infrastructure providers as part of their feedback on growth in the area.

124 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 6 Appendix 2 - Minutes of meetings relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

6. Next steps

Future consultation dates and processes were summarised (see presentation for details)

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 125 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Email to neighbouring Local Planning Authorities seeking views on the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak on the Housing Target Options Paper

126 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 127 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Responses from neighbouring Local Planning Authorities seeking regarding the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Housing Target Options Paper

128 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: Local Development [[email protected]] Sent: 15 March 2012 16:49 To: Local Development Framework Subject: RE: High Peak and Derbyshire Dales housing target options

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email of 7 th March 2012 inviting informal views on the housing target options for High Peak and Derbyshire Dales.

Kirklees Council do not have any comments to make at this stage.

Please keep us informed of future consultation stages.

Regards,

Planning Policy Group Investment and Regeneration Service Kirklees Council

Web: www.kirklees.gov.uk/ldf Email: [email protected] Tel: 01484 221627

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received it in error – notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way. Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

From: Local Development Framework [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 March 2012 14:00 To: Local Development Framework Subject: High Peak and Derbyshire Dales housing target options

Dear Sir or Madam

You may recall previous correspondence sent via email on 18 January 2012 regarding a call for initial informal views from neighbouring authorities on housing target options identified for High Peak and Derbyshire Dales. For your convenience, a copy of the options paper and the SA is attached. If you would like to submit any comments at this stage, please do so by Wednesday 21 March.

There will be an opportunity to comment further in response to a formal consultation due later this year.

Regards

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 129 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

If you have not already added your details to the High Peak consultation database, you can do so by clicking on the image above. Registering with us on the web-site is the most effective way of keeping informed about planning policy consultations that help shape your local area.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6969 (20120315) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

130 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 131 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Correspondence with Local Planning Authorities regarding the scope to meet some of High Peak's unmet housing needs

132 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Adrian Fisher Strategic Planning & Housing Manager Cheshire East Council Westfields Middlewich Road Sandbach Cheshire CW11 1HZ

Dear Adrian

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

We recently wrote to your authority inviting you to comment on the High Peak Local Plan – Additional Consultation. The consultation proposes several changes to the Preferred Options Local Plan issued for consultation in February 2013, including a revised housing requirement. I am writing to you separately to invite your authority to formally consider working with High Peak Borough Council towards meeting its housing needs.

The current consultation proposes to increase the housing requirement for High Peak from 270 to 360 dwellings per year. This change is proposed to help the authority work towards meeting its objectively assessed need for housing. However, in spite of our intention to now allocate all deliverable and suitable sites for development, we will still fall short of fully meeting needs. The initial findings of the updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for High Peak suggest that at least 416 additional dwellings per year on average up to the year 2031 are required. The final report is due by the end of January.

As you are aware, due to local topography and the proximity of the Peak District National Park, landscape impact is a particular constraint on development in High Peak. A Landscape Impact Assessment 1 commissioned to inform the Local Plan has concluded that significant areas of the Borough are not suitable for development in landscape terms even considering potential green belt boundary changes. It is therefore considered that 360 dwellings per year represents the maximum capacity of suitable land available for development in High Peak.

You will be aware that officer level discussions have taken already place to coordinate our respective planning strategies in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. These discussions were held at a time when a proposed annual housing target of 270 dwellings per year would have seen an annual shortfall of 146 when compared to housing requirements identified in the updated SHMA. As the Borough Council is now proposing to increase its housing target, the annual shortfall would be

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 133 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

reduced to 56, thus lessening the number of homes that would need to be accommodated elsewhere.

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope for the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

The A6 Corridor Study has predicted significant traffic growth along the A6 from High Peak, through Disley in Cheshire East and into Stockport. Further housing growth in High Peak will exacerbate this issue further, particularly given the high level of out- commuting from High Peak to Cheshire and Greater Manchester. Whilst the Borough Council is committed to addressing this situation by working with partners and supporting sustainable travel through its Local Plan, the inevitable consequence of additional housing in High Peak will be extra stress on transport connections along the A6 and parallel railway lines. On this basis, it would be advantageous for Cheshire East Council to accommodate a share of High Peak’s projected household closer to the employment opportunities offered in Cheshire.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

In the meantime, I look forward to your response to the above and the current Local Plan consultation which closes on 10 th February. The Local Plan will then be published in March for final representations with a view to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate in July.

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

134 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 135 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

136 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Planning Policy Manager Strategy, Growth and Regeneration Barnsley MBC Westgate Plaza One PO Box 604 Barnsley S70 9FE

Dear Sir or Madam,

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

Due to local topography and the proximity of the Peak District National Park, landscape impact is a particular constraint on development in High Peak. A Landscape Impact Assessment 1 commissioned to inform the Local Plan has concluded that significant areas of the Borough are not suitable for development in landscape terms even considering potential green belt boundary changes. It is therefore considered that 360 dwellings per year represents the maximum capacity of suitable land available for development in High Peak.

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

I look forward to your response to the above and the current Local Plan consultation which closes on 10 th February. The Local Plan will then be published in March for

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 137 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

final representations with a view to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate in July.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

138 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Planning Policy Manager Kirklees Council Market Street PO Box B93 Civic Centre 3 Huddersfield HD1 2JR

Dear Sir or Madam,

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

I look forward to your response to the above and the current Local Plan consultation which closes on 10 th February. The Local Plan will then be published in March for

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 139 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

final representations with a view to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate in July.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

140 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 141 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Paul Wilson Corporate Director Derbyshire Dales District Council Town Hall Bank Road Matlock Derbyshire DE4 3NN

Dear Paul

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

142 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

reduced to 56, thus lessening the number of homes that would need to be accommodated elsewhere.

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope for the emerging Derbyshire Dales Local Plan to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

In terms of the scope for wider collaboration, I note the recent request made by your authority for the consideration of joint working on the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy across the former Peak Sub-Region. Whilst the Borough Council has yet to determine whether to progress with a levy, we would welcome the opportunity to explore its potential implementation with you.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 143 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

James Shuttleworth Planning Strategy Manager City Policy Manchester City Council Room 308, Town Hall Manchester M60 2LA

Dear Mr Shuttleworth

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

High Peak Borough Council recently published the High Peak Local Plan – Additional Consultation documents for comment. The consultation proposes several changes to the Preferred Options Local Plan issued for consultation in February 2013, including a revised housing requirement. I am writing to you separately to invite your authority to formally consider working with High Peak Borough Council towards meeting its housing needs.

You will be aware that officer level discussions have taken already place to coordinate our respective planning strategies in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. As part of these discussions, I understand that an initial enquiry regarding the scope for Manchester to accommodate some of the shortfall in housing provision in High Peak was unsuccessful. This enquiry was made at a time when a proposed annual housing target of 270 dwellings per year would have seen an annual shortfall of 146 when compared to housing requirements identified in the updated SHMA. As

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

144 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

the Borough Council is now proposing to increase its housing target, the annual shortfall would be reduced to 56, thus lessening the number of homes that would need to be accommodated elsewhere.

Consequently, this would appear to be an opportune time to invite your authority to formally re-consider the scope for Manchester to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak. This would strengthen the existing in principle agreement that we have to liaise and collaborate on wider planning issues.

Whilst it is recognised that further housing in Manchester may present additional challenges to you, we consider that there are sound planning reasons for Manchester to accommodate some of High Peak’s unmet need, namely:

Migration patterns - internal migration accounts for a significant proportion of projected household growth in High Peak over the plan period. ONS data indicates that Manchester is the highest net exporter of households to High Peak with a net inflow of 70 households during 2010/11 2

Commuting patterns and transport infrastructure - a significant number of High Peak residents commute to Greater Manchester, including Manchester (3526 net flow) for employment (2001 Census). This inevitably places demands on transport infrastructure and services that connect the two areas. In particular, the A57/A628 and A6 corridors frequently suffer from congestion and pressure on public transport services. Whilst the Borough Council is committed to addressing this situation by working with partners and supporting sustainable travel through its Local Plan, the inevitable consequence of additional housing in High Peak will be extra pressure on these transport corridors to the detriment of residents and businesses in High Peak and Greater Manchester.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further with you should you wish. If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

2 http://www.howmanyhomes.org/resources/WHW+2013+East+Midlands+97+2003.xls

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 145 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Brian Taylor Planning Policy Manager Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE

Dear Mr Taylor

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

As you will be aware, landscape impact is a particular constraint on development in High Peak. A Landscape Impact Assessment commissioned to inform the Local Plan has concluded that significant areas of the Borough are not suitable for development in landscape terms even considering potential green belt boundary changes. It is therefore considered that 360 dwellings per year represents the maximum capacity of suitable land available for development in High Peak.

Officer level discussions have taken already place to coordinate our respective planning strategies in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. As part of these discussions, I understand that you have already confirmed that housing completions within the areas of High Peak that fall within the boundary of the National Park can be counted towards the requirements of the High Peak Local Plan. However, a modest increase in the level of housing growth permissible within the National Park would further assist the Borough Council in meeting housing needs across the whole of High Peak.

This would strengthen the existing in principle agreement that we have to liaise and collaborate on wider planning issues such as infrastructure, evidence gathering,

146 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

neighbourhood planning and protecting the setting of the National Park. In relation to the latter issue, we would welcome your support for the Landscape Impact Assessment that can be found on our website 1. As previously discussed, it is envisaged that final agreed matters for collaboration will be identified in a Memorandum of Understanding between both authorities.

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 147 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Planning Policy Manager Oldham Council Civic Centre PO Box 30 West Street Oldham OL1 1UQ

Dear Sir or Madam,

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

I look forward to your response to the above and the current Local Plan consultation which closes on 10 th February. The Local Plan will then be published in March for

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

148 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

final representations with a view to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate in July.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 149 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

150 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Maria Duffy Head of Planning Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH

Dear Ms Duffy

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

Consequently, we are taking this opportunity to invite your authority to formally consider the scope to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

I look forward to your response to the above and the current Local Plan consultation which closes on 10th February. The Local Plan will then be published in March for

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 151 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

final representations with a view to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate in July.

If you have any general or technical queries related to the Local Plan, please contact the Planning Policy team on 0845 129 7777 or [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

152 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 153 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

154 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Richard Wood Planning Policy Manager Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Stopford House, Piccadilly Stockport SK1 3XE

Dear Mr Wood

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

You will be aware that officer level discussions have taken already place to coordinate our respective planning strategies in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. As part of these discussions, I understand that an initial enquiry regarding the scope for Stockport MBC to accommodate some of the shortfall in housing provision in High Peak was unsuccessful. This enquiry was made at a time when a proposed annual housing target of 270 dwellings per year would have seen an annual shortfall of 146 when compared to housing requirements identified in the updated SHMA. As the Borough Council is now proposing to increase its housing

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 155 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

target, the annual shortfall would be reduced to 56, thus lessening the number of homes that would need to be accommodated elsewhere.

Consequently, this would appear to be an opportune time to invite your authority to formally re-consider the scope for Stockport to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak.

Whilst it is recognised that further housing in Stockport may present additional challenges to your Local Plan, we consider that there are sound planning reasons for Stockport to accommodate some of High Peak’s unmet need, namely:

Migration patterns - internal migration accounts for a significant proportion of projected household growth in High Peak over the plan period. ONS data indicates that Stockport is amongst the highest net exporters of households to High Peak with a net inflow of 40 households during 2010/11 2

Commuting patterns and transport infrastructure - a significant number of High Peak residents commute to Greater Manchester, including Stockport (2658 net flow) for employment (2001 Census). This inevitably places demands on transport infrastructure and services that connect the two areas. In particular, the A6 corridor through both High Peak and Stockport is placed under stress. Whilst the Borough Council is committed to addressing this situation by working with partners and supporting sustainable travel through its Local Plan, the inevitable consequence of additional housing in High Peak will be extra stress on transport connections along the A6 and parallel railway lines. This is borne out by the findings of the A6 Corridor Study, commissioned by Stockport MBC that is nearing completion. High Peak Borough Council has been working closely with Stockport MBC, Cheshire East Council, Derbyshire County Council and Transport for Greater Manchester on the study to help determine the impact of development earmarked in relevant Local Plan’s and the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road. An appropriate mitigation strategy is also due to be agreed.

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

2 http://www.howmanyhomes.org/resources/WHW+2013+East+Midlands+97+2003.xls

156 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

My Ref

Your Ref

10 January 2014

Nigel Gilmore Strategic Planning and Transportation Manager Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Wellington Road Ashton-under-Lyne OL6 6DL

Dear Mr Gilmore

High Peak Local Plan – Duty to Cooperate

You will be aware that officer level discussions have taken already place to coordinate our respective planning strategies in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. As part of these discussions, I understand that an initial enquiry regarding the scope for Tameside MBC to accommodate some of the shortfall in housing provision in High Peak was unsuccessful. This enquiry was made at a time when a proposed annual housing target of 270 dwellings per year would have seen an annual shortfall of 146 when compared to housing requirements identified in the updated SHMA. As the Borough Council is now proposing to increase its housing

1 http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/local-development-framework/evidence- base

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 157 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

target, the annual shortfall would be reduced to 56, thus lessening the number of homes that would need to be accommodated elsewhere.

Consequently, this would appear to be an opportune time to invite your authority to formally re-consider the scope for the emerging Tameside Local Plan to accommodate some or all of the unmet housing need for High Peak. This would strengthen the existing in principle agreement that we have to liaise and collaborate on wider planning issues such as transport and the green belt. As previously discussed, it is envisaged that final agreed matters for collaboration will be identified in a Memorandum of Understanding between both authorities.

Whilst it is recognised that further housing in Tameside may present additional challenges to your Local Plan, we consider that there are sound planning reasons for Tameside to accommodate some of High Peak’s unmet need, namely:

Migration patterns - internal migration accounts for a significant proportion of projected household growth in High Peak over the plan period. ONS data indicates that Tameside is amongst the highest net exporters of households to High Peak with a net inflow of 30 households during 2010/11 2

Commuting patterns and transport infrastructure - a significant number of High Peak residents commute to Greater Manchester, including Tameside (1724 net flow) for employment (2001 Census). This inevitably places demands on transport infrastructure and services that connect the two areas. In particular, the A57/A628 frequently suffers from congestion in both High Peak and Tameside. Whilst the Borough Council is committed to addressing this situation by working with partners and supporting sustainable travel through its Local Plan, the inevitable consequence of additional housing in Glossopdale will be extra traffic on the A57/A628 to the detriment of residents and businesses in both Borough’s.

Yours sincerely

Dai Larner Executive Director High Peak Borough Council

2 http://www.howmanyhomes.org/resources/WHW+2013+East+Midlands+97+2003.xls

158 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Response to Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan Submission

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 159 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Correspondence with Derbyshire County Council and the Coal Authority regarding minerals planning

160 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: LDF Sent: 10 June 2014 14:23 To: 'The Coal Authority-Planning' Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan - Submission

Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your recent representations on the High Peak Local Plan. We would like to accommodate the change that you have sought in relation to minerals safeguarding and consultations areas. As your proposed text relates to several policies and sites throughout the plan, would you be happy for the text to be included as a new sub-section to the Introduction? This new section would elaborate on the role of other development plans, including those relating minerals and waste in High Peak.

Regards,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0345 129 7777 ext. 3643 Email: [email protected]

From: Anthony Northcote [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The Coal Authority- Planning Sent: 09 June 2014 15:50 To: LDF Subject: High Peak Local Plan - Submission

Dear Sirs

Please find attached the representations of The Coal Authority on the High Peak Local Plan to meet the

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 161 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

extended consultation deadline

Yours faithfully Anthony Northcote

Anthony B. Northcote HNCert LA(P), Dip TP, PgDip URP, MA, FGS, ICIOB, MInstLM, MCMI, MRTPI Consultant Planning Advisor to The Coal Authority T : (01623) 637 119 E : [email protected] E : [email protected] W : coal.decc.gov.uk

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9967 (20140619) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

162 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Borough Council Local Plan Submission - Informal Additional Consultation

Contact Details Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department The Coal Authority 200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill MANSFIELD Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

Planning Email: [email protected] Planning Enquiries: 01623 637 119

Person Making Comments Anthony B Northcote HNCert LA(P), Dip TP, PgDip URP, MA, ICIOB, MInstLM, MCMI, MRTPI Consultant Planning Advisor to The Coal Authority

Date 18 June 2014

Mr Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Mr James

High Peak Borough Council Local Plan Submission - Informal Additional Consultation

I refer to your email of the 10 June 2014 indicating that High Peak Borough Council would like to accommodate the suggested change The Coal Authority has sought to the submission version of the Local Plan. We would of course welcome this and we set out our proposed wording to allow you to consider this, hopefully without the need to seek to resolve the issue through the public examination process.

We intended the text be included as a distinct set of paragraphs in a suitable location in the Local Plan. We do not consider it is necessary to repeat it in relation to every allocation policy as this would lead to unnecessary duplication.

Consequently I can confirm that in principle The Coal Authority would be happy to see a new sub- section included, for example in the introduction. I trust that this answers your query, I apologise for the delay in responding due to the fact that I’ve not been in the office.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 163 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

We would be very happy to comment informally on any change that you make, including agreeing a succinct statement of common ground if you consider this would be helpful in due course.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact Anthony Northcote who is in the office today, and will then next be in the next week.

Yours sincerely

Anthony B Northcote

Anthony B Northcote HNCert LA(P), Dip TP, PgDip URP, MA, ICIOB, MInstLM, MCMI, MRTPI Consultant Planning Advisor to The Coal Authority

164 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

`QI7 C:`@V5 :01J VJ 7 %C7 7 Q7 ]VJHV51H.VCCV^ HQJQI75"`:J#]Q` J01`QJIVJ _ H7 :IV#5:`@ %G=VH 7 ' 7(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J 1H.VCCV ,#:J1J V`1IIV:#%`V]VJR1J$:J7`% %`VR1#H%##1QJ#:JR:$`VVIVJ QJ.Q11V:RR`V## .1#I: V``Q`(1$.*V:@ ^:JR]`V#%I:GC7 .V`V# Q`1V`G7#.1`V_1V:`V#%$$V# 1J$:RR1J$ .V`QCCQ11J$ V6 ^1J`VR_ Q .VVJRQ` .V:IVJRVR 1JV`:C#:JR:# V+QH:C*C:J#VH 1QJ7 1V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7Q%JH1C:JR1V`G71 7Q%J 7:`V`V#]QJ#1GCV`Q`1:# V:JRI1JV`:C#]C:J]`V]:`: 1QJ1J 1V`G7#.1`V5V6HC%R1J$ .V*V:@11# `1H 4: 1QJ:C*:`@8:# V:JRI1JV`:C#]C:JJ1J$:]]C1H: 1QJ#1J(1$.*V:@^V6HC%R1J$ .V*V:@11# `1H 4: 1QJ:C*:`@_:`VRV VÌ1JVRG71V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7Q%JH1C8 ,##%H.511 .1J .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J:`V: .V1##%VQÌ1JV`:C#1#HQ0V`VRG7 .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C# *C:J^:RQ] VR,]`1C:JR:IVJRVR4Q0VIGV`_8".V1##%VQ`1:# V1#HQJ :1JVR1J .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V :# V*C:J^:RQ] VR:`H. _8".V#:0VR]QC1H1V#1J .Q#V 1Q]C:J#:C#Q`QÌ]:` Q` .VRV0VCQ]IVJ ]C:J`Q` (1$.*V:@8".V71JHC%RV#:0VR]QC1H1V#`VC: 1J$ Q1JV`:C#QJ#%C : 1QJ,`V:#^,;#_:JR]`QHVR%`V# QVJ#%`V .: .VQ%J 7Q%JH1C1#HQJ#%C VRQJJQJRI1JV`:C#RV0VCQ]IVJ 1J .Q#V:`V:#8".V#V]QC1H1V##.Q%CRGV :@VJ1J Q :HHQ%J R%`1J$ .VHQJ#1RV`: 1QJQ`RV0VCQ]IVJ ]`Q]Q#:C#89J:RR1 1QJ5 .V`V:`V]QC1H1V#1J .V:RQ] VR1JV`:C# +QH:C*C:JHQ0V`1J$I1JV`:C##:`V$%:`R1J$:JR]`1Q`V6 `:H 1QJ1.1H.I:7:C#QGV:]]C1H:GCV QJQJRI1JV`:C# :]]C1H: 1QJ#1J(1$.*V:@8 9JR%VHQ%`#V .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J11CC`V01V1 .V1JV`:C:`V$%:`R1J$,`V:#^,#_:JR1JV`:C QJ#%C : 1QJ,`V:#^,#_ Q]`V0VJ .V%JJVHV##:`7# V`1C1#: 1QJQ`#%``:HVI1JV`:C`V#Q%`HV#1J .VQ%J 78".1#1# C1@VC7 Q1JHC%RVI1JV`:C`V#Q%`HV#11 .1J(1$.*V:@8 1 .1J .VRV`1JVR,#:JR,#5RV`1JVRG7 .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J .V]`V#VJHVQ` .VI1JV`:C `V#Q%`HV11CCGVHQJ#1RV`VRG7(1$.*V:@:Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C1JRV0VCQ]IVJ I:J:$VIVJ ]`QHV##V#84: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$ *QC1H7`V_%1`V#,% .Q`1 1V# QVJ#%`V .: I1JV`:C#Q`CQH:C:JRJ: 1QJ:C1I]Q` :JHV:`VJQ JVVRCV##C7# V`1C1#VRG7 JQJRI1JV`:CRV0VCQ]IVJ 89 :C#Q`V_%1`V# .V]`1Q`V6 `:H 1QJQÌ1JV`:C# QGVHQJ#1RV`VR1J .V#V:`V:#1.V`V ]`:H 1H:GCV:JR`V:#1GCV51`1 1#JVHV##:`7`Q`JQJRI1JV`:CRV0VCQ]IVJ Q :@V]C:HV89J .V1V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7:`V: RVH1#1QJ#11CC :@V1J Q:HHQ%J .V]QC1H1V#Q` .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:J8".V`V01#VR,#:JR ,#QJHV:RQ] VRG7 .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J11CCGV1CC%# `: VRQJ .V*QC1H1V#:]:HHQI]:J71J$ .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J8 9J:RR1 1QJ5HQJ#1RV`: 1QJ11CCGV$10VJ Q .V]QC1H7:JR:R01HV#V Q% 1J .V4: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$*QC1H7<`:IV1Q`@:JR .V4: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$*`:H 1HV %1RV8 ".1#1JHC%RV# .VJVVR Q#:`V$%:`RV61# 1J$5]C:JJVR:JR]Q VJ 1:CI1JV`:C# # Q`:$V5.:JRC1J$:JR `:J#]Q` #1 V# QVJ#%`V .: #1 V#`Q` .V#V]%`]Q#V#:`V:0:1C:GCV#.Q%CR .V7GVJVVRVR:JR ]`V0VJ #VJ#1 10VQ`1J:]]`Q]`1: VRV0VCQ]IVJ .: 1Q%CRHQJ`C1H 11 . .V%#VQ`#1 V#1RVJ 1`1VR`Q` .V#V]%`]Q#V#8 ".V:Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C11CCHQJ#%C 11 .1V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7Q%JH1CQJ`VCV0:J :]]C1H: 1QJ#1JQ`RV` QRV VÌ1JV 1.V .V`:]`Q]Q#:C#1 V#.Q%CRGV`V :1JVR`QÌ1JV`:C#]%`]Q#V#8.V`V#%H.#1 V#:`VCQH: VR11 .1J_%:``1V#Q` :$$`V$: V1.:`0V#Q``:1C VÌ1J:C#51V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7Q%JH1C1# .V`V#]QJ#1GCVGQR7`Q`#:`V$%:`R1J$#1 V#8 *CV:#VCV IV@JQ11` .1#1Q`R1J$1#:HHV] :GCV Q7Q%8 'V$:`R# :01J ! " #$%&'()(*'+%% ,+&(+ # %&'()(*''-% . # /0$ # 10 ## H

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 165 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

!" #$% $#&'&&#( ) !* +,- .!/ . ".:J@# :01J QIIVJ #JQ VR`V7Q%JQ GV1J$:1:`VQ`:J7#%H.#1 V#1J .V(1$.*V:@ .: 1Q%CRJVVR QGV1RVJ 1`1VR89 1Q%CR GV`V:CC7%#V`%C1`1VHQ%CR.:0V#1$. Q` .V1Q`@7Q%;0VRQJV1JHQI1J$ Q .1#HQJHC%#1QJ1` .: 1#]Q##1GCV5:# .: 11CC:##1# %#1J1Q`@1J$ Q1:`R#:#QC% 1QJ%JRV` .V1% 7 QQQ]V`: V1VH:JR1#H%##1J:`% %`VIVV 1J$8*V`.:]# 1VH:J Q%H.QJ .1#: .VIVV 1J$QJ .V . %C78 .VV`# 1H.VCCV #&% $#&'&0&& +,- .!/ . ) !* * ) !11 ! " #&% $#&'&22$ %! 3 - .!/ . (11H.VCCV :`@.:#`Q`1:`RVRIV7Q%`VI:1C`V$:`R1J$ .V`V`V`VJHV Q .V1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:J1J .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J:#9 :IH%``VJ C7RV:C1J$11 . .VI1JQ`IQR1`1H: 1QJ#1V:`V]`Q]Q#1J$ Q .V#%GI1##1QJ+QH:C*C:J8 ".VHQIIVJ #7Q%.:0VI:RV`V$:`R1J$ .V1Q`R1J$%#VR:JR .V`V`V`VJHV Q .V4**

166 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Q`J1J$:`@ *CV:#V#VV1J1 1:CHQIIVJ #GVCQ1RRRR]CV:#VHQJ :H IV1`7Q%11#. QR1#H%##`%` .V`Q`9;I.:]]7 Q.:0V:CQQ@ .`Q%$.:`V01#1QJ1` .: 1Q%CR.VC]: :CC8 ".VI:1JHQIIVJ # QGVCQQ@VR: 6 GVHCV:` .: .V1JV`:C#:JR:# V*C:J#:`V=Q1J C7]`V]:`VR11 .1V`G71 7:JR .: .V:`V:HQ0V`VR1# .V$VQ$`:].1H:C:`V:Q`1V`G7#.1`VQ% #1RV .V*V:@11# `1H 4: 1QJ:C*:`@8".V*V:@*:`@,% .Q`1 7RV:C11 . I1JV`:C#]C:JJ1J$11 .1J .V*V:@11# `1H 8 ".V1Q`R1J$#.Q%CRGVHQJ#1# VJ 1J`V`V``1J$ Q .V:RQ] VR1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:JQ` .VVIV`$1J$QJV:# .V V6 `V`V`# Q1V`G7#.1`V:JRVC#V1.V`V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V 1JR1H: V .: .VH%``VJ :RQ] VR1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:J^]:` Q` .VRV0VCQ]IVJ ]C:J_ :C`V:R7HQJ :1J#1JV`:C#QJ#%C : 1QJ,`V:#^,;#_:JR]`QHVR%`V#:`V:C`V:R71J]C:HV QVJ#%`V .V Q%J 7Q%JH1C1#HQJ#%C VRQJJQJRI1JV`:C#RV0VCQ]IVJ 1J .Q#V:`V:#RR .V`V`Q`V .V#V#.Q%CRGV :@VJ 1J Q:HHQ%J 1.VJ:CCQH: 1J$#1 V#89J:RR1 1QJ5 .V`V:`V]QC1H1V#1J .V:RQ] VR1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:JHQ0V`1J$ I1JV`:C##:`V$%:`R1J$:JR]`1Q`V6 `:H 1QJ V6]C:1J .VH.:J$V#1J .V4**<Û4** _`V$:`R1J$,;#:JR .V`V_%1`VIVJ `Q` .VI QGV#.Q1JQJ ]QC1H1V#I:]^C:# G1 1#:C`V:R71J7Q%` V6 _8".V,;#:`VGV1J$`VHQJ#1RV`VR1J .VVIV`$1J$1JV`:C#+QH:C *C:J5 :@1J$:HHQ%J Q` .VC: V# Q0V`JIVJ ]QC1H7^4**<:JR4** _:#1VCC:#Q .V`V6]V` $%1R:JHV .V4**<^]:`:_1JR1H: V#+*,;##.Q%CR#:`V$%:`RI1JV`:C#1J``:# `%H %`V^:JRC1# # .V#V_8".V4** V6]C:1J# .: V61# 1J$5]C:JJVR:JR]Q VJ 1:C# Q`:$V5.:JRC1J$:JR `:J#]Q` #1 V##.Q%CRGV#:`V$%:`RVR Q VJ#%`V .: #1 V#:`V:0:1C:GCV#.Q%CR .V7GVJVVRVR:JR Q]`V0VJ 1J:]]`Q]`1: VRV0VCQ]IVJ .: 1Q%CR HQJ`C1H 11 . .V%#VQ`#1 V#`Q` .V#V]%`]Q#V#8".V4** $QV#QJ QHC:`1`7 .: 1.V`V .V`V:`VHQ%J 1V#:JR 11# `1H #5 .V`V#]QJ#1G1C1 7`Q`#:`V$%:`R1J$`:H1C1 1V#:JR#1 V#`Q` .V# Q`:$V5.:JRC1J$:JR `:J#]Q` Q` I1JV`:C#1JCQH:C]C:J#11CC`V# C:`$VC711 . .V11# `1H ]C:JJ1J$:% .Q`1 7^V6HV] 1.V`V .V7:`VCQH: VR: _%:``1V#5:$$`V$: V1.:`0V#Q``:1C VÌ1J:C#_8".V4** HQJHC%RV#G7#:71J$ .: ]C:JJ1J$:% .Q`1 1V##.Q%CR HQJ#1RV` .V]Q##1G1C1 7Q`HQIG1J1J$#:`V$%:`RVR#1 V#`Q`# Q`:$V5.:JRC1J$:JR `:J#]Q` QÌ1JV`:C#11 . .Q#V`Q`]`QHV##1J$:JRR1# `1G% 1QJQ``VH7HCVR:JR#VHQJR:`7:$$`V$: V#:JR# : V#> .1#11CC`V_%1`VHCQ#V HQQ]V`: 1QJGV 1VVJ]C:JJ1J$:% .Q`1 1V#?8 9J`V#]VH Q` .1#C: V`]Q1J :`@51 #VVI# .1#1#:1 QQ]I: V`:JRI:7.:0V# `: V$1H1I]C1H: 1QJ#`Q`7Q%`]C:J-R RR9``V#]VH 10VQ` .V>1Q`R1J$>7Q%RVH1RVQJ`Q` .V9J `QR%H 1QJH.:] V`1VJVVR Q.:0V:IVV 1J$ QR1#H%##.Q1 1V:`V$Q1J$ Q:RR`V## .1#11 .7Q%`,% .Q`1 78V:`VCQQ@1J$: :]Q##1GCVQ%J 711RV:]]`Q:H.:#QJV1:7 `Q`1:`R8*CV:#VCV IV@JQ11.: 7Q% .1J@8 .VV`# 1H.VCCV %! !% ! ! " &4% $#&'#4#$ - .!/ . 1H.VCCV5 9J`V#]QJ#V Q:`V]`V#VJ : 1QJ``QI .VQ:C,% .Q`1 751V1J VJR Q]`Q]Q#V:I1JQÌQR1`1H: 1QJ Q .V9J `QR%H 1QJ H.:] V` Q .V+QH:C*C:J8".VQ:C,% .Q`1 7.:#`V_%V# VR .: :RR1 1QJ:C V6 GV1JHC%RVR1J .V]C:J QV6]C:1J .V `VC: 1QJ#.1]GV 1VVJ .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J:JR]C:J#:JR]QC1H1V#`VC: 1J$ Q1:# V:JRI1JV`:C#8V1Q%CRC1@V Q 1JHQ`]Q`: V .1# V6 1J:JV1#%GR#VH 1QJ .: ]`Q01RVIQ`VRV :1CQ` .V1.QCV1V0VCQ]IVJ *C:J1J(1$.*V:@ ^1JHC%R1J$4V1$.GQ%`.QQR*C:J#54: 1QJ:C*:`@]QC1H1V#:JRI1JV`:C#:JR1:# V_ ".V#%$$V# VRIQR1`1H: 1QJ]`Q01RVRGVCQ11#C:`$VC7 :@VJR1`VH C7``QI .VQ:C,% .Q`1 7##%$$V# VRIQR1`1H: 1QJ 11 .#QIVI1JQ`:IVJRIVJ # QI:@V1 IQ`VCQH:CC7`VCV0:J 8

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 167 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

:# V:JR1JV`:C# 1V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7Q%JH1C1#`V#]QJ#1GCV`Q`1:# V:JRI1JV`:C#]C:JJ1J$1J(1$.*V:@5V6HC%R1J$ .V*V:@11# `1H 4: 1QJ:C*:`@8,##%H.511 .1J .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C*C:J:`V: .V1##%VQÌ1JV`:C#1#HQ0V`VRG7 .V1V`G7:JR 1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J^:RQ] VR,]`1C:JR:IVJRVR4Q0VIGV`_8".V1##%VQ`1:# V1#HQJ :1JVR1J .V 1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V:# V*C:J^:RQ] VR:`H. _8".V#:0VR]QC1H1V#1J .Q#V 1Q]C:J#:C#Q`QÌ]:` Q` .V RV0VCQ]IVJ ]C:J`Q`(1$.*V:@8 9JR%VHQ%`#V .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J11CC1RVJ 1`71JV`:C:`V$%:`R1J$,`V:#^,#_:JR1JV`:C QJ#%C : 1QJ,`V:#^,#_ Q]`V0VJ .V%JJVHV##:`7# V`1C1#: 1QJQ`#%``:HVI1JV`:C`V#Q%`HV#1J .VQ%J 78".1#1# C1@VC7 Q1JHC%RVI1JV`:C`V#Q%`HV#11 .1J(1$.*V:@8 1 .1J .VRV`1JVR,#:JR,#5RV`1JVRG7 .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J .V]`V#VJHVQ` .VI1JV`:C `V#Q%`HV11CCGVHQJ#1RV`VRG7(1$.*V:@:Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C1JRV0VCQ]IVJ I:J:$VIVJ ]`QHV##V#84: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$ *QC1H7`V_%1`V#,% .Q`1 1V# QVJ#%`V .: I1JV`:C#Q`CQH:C:JRJ: 1QJ:C1I]Q` :JHV:`VJQ JVVRCV##C7# V`1C1#VRG7 JQJRI1JV`:CRV0VCQ]IVJ 89 :C#Q`V_%1`V# .V]`1Q`V6 `:H 1QJQÌ1JV`:C# QGVHQJ#1RV`VR1J .V#V:`V:#1.V`V ]`:H 1H:GCV:JR`V:#1GCV51`1 1#JVHV##:`7`Q`JQJRI1JV`:CRV0VCQ]IVJ Q :@V]C:HV89J .V1V`G7#.1`VQ%J 7:`V: RVH1#1QJ#11CC :@V1J Q:HHQ%J .V]QC1H1V#Q` .V1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#+QH:C*C:J8".V,#:JR,#QJHV:RQ] VR G7 .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:J11CCGV1CC%# `: VRQJ .V*QC1H1V#:]:HHQI]:J71J$ .V(1$.*V:@+QH:C *C:J8 ,#JQ,#:JR,#.:0V7V GVVJRV`1JVR5 .V#1 V:CCQH: 1QJ]`QHV##.:#JQ GVVJ:GCV QV6]C1H1 C7:##V## .V1##%V QÌ1JV`:C# V`1C1#: 1QJ8QJ#V_%VJ C71 11CCGVJVHV##:`7 QHQJ#1RV` .V1##%VQÌ1JV`:C# V`1C1#: 1QJ:JR1J]:` 1H%C:` .V]Q VJ 1:C`Q` .V]`1Q`RV6 `:H 1QJQÌ1JV`:C`V#Q%`HV#:.V:RQ`JV1RV0VCQ]IVJ QJ .V#1 V:CCQH: 1QJ#:JR:J7 Q .V`C:JR1.1H.HQIV#`Q`1:`R: .V]C:JJ1J$:]]C1H: 1QJ# :$V8".1#:##V##IVJ 11CCGV1JC1JV11 . .V`VCV0:J ]QC1H7Q` .V1V`G7:JR1V`G7#.1`V1JV`:C#*C:JQJHV:RQ] VR51J .VIV:J 1IVHQJ#1RV`: 1QJ11CC.:0V`V$:`R Q .V :R01HV#V Q% 1J .V4: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$*QC1H7<`:IV1Q`@:JR .V4: 1QJ:C*C:JJ1J$*`:H 1HV %1RV8 V1Q%CR1VCHQIV:J7HQIIVJ # .: 7Q%I:7.:0VQJ .1##%$$V# VRI1JQÌQR1`1H: 1QJ8 'V$:`R#5 :`@:IV# *C:JJ1J$*QC1H7 (1$.*V:@:Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C %J1H1]:C:%1CR1J$# CQ##Q] 1V`G7#.1`V F ,< "VC7 V6 8

`7Q%.:0VJQ :C`V:R7:RRVR7Q%`RV :1C Q .V1$.V:@HQJ%C : 1QJR: :G:V57Q%H:JRQQG7HC1H@1J$QJ .V 1I:$V:GQ0V8!V$1 V`1J$11 .%QJ .V1VGR1 V1 .VIQ V``VH 10V1:7Q`@VV]1J$1J`Q`IVR:GQ% ]C:JJ1J$ ]QC1H7HQJ%C : 1QJ .: .VC].:]V7Q%`CQH:C:`V:8

168 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: James, Mark Sent: 04 July 2014 14:03 To: 'The Coal Authority-Planning' Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Dear Anthony,

Following our last correspondence, I have been liaising with Derbyshire County Council regarding the form of words that could be inserted into the Local Plan to cover the issues you have highlighted and other related matters identified by them.

The following text has been agreed by Derbyshire County Council to be inserted into a new section of the High Peak Local Plan relating to the Development Plan:

"Derbyshire County Council and Derby City County are responsible for waste and minerals plan preparation in Derbyshire, excluding the Peak District National Park. Waste and minerals planning applications in High Peak (excluding the Peak District National Park) are determined by Derbyshire County Council.

As such, within the High Peak Local Plan area the issue of minerals is covered by the Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Plan (adopted April 2000 and amended November 2002). The issue of waste is contained in the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Plan (adopted March 2005). The 'saved policies' in those two plans also form part of the development plan for High Peak. They include saved policies relating to Minerals Consultation Areas (MCA’s) and procedures to ensure that the County Council is consulted on non-minerals development in those areas. These policies should be taken into account during the consideration of development proposals. In addition, there are policies in the adopted Minerals Local Plan covering minerals safeguarding and prior extraction which may also be applicable to non-minerals applications in High Peak.

In due course the new Derbyshire and Derby Minerals local Plan will review the Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) to prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of surface mineral resources in the Plan area. This is likely to include mineral resources within High Peak.

Within the defined MSAs and MCAs, defined by the Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan the presence of the mineral resource will be considered by High Peak Borough Council in development management processes. National Planning Policy requires Authorities to ensure that minerals of local and national importance are not needlessly sterilised by non-mineral development. It also requires the prior extraction of minerals to be considered in these areas where practicable and feasible, if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take place. In the Derbyshire County Council area decisions will take into account the policies of the Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan. The revised MSAs and MCAs once adopted by the Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan will be illustrated on the Policies Map accompanying the High Peak Local Plan.

In addition, consideration will be given to the policy and advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guide. This includes the need to safeguard existing, planned and potential minerals storage, handling and transport sites to ensure that sites for these purposes are available should they be needed and prevent sensitive or inappropriate development that would conflict with the use of sites identified for these purposes. The Borough Council is working with Derbyshire County Council to develop a joint approach to identify and safeguard such sites."

Do you have any views on this?

Regards,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 169 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

SK13 8AF

Tel: 0345 129 7777 ext. 3643 Email: [email protected]

From: Anthony Northcote [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The Coal Authority- Planning Sent: 18 June 2014 09:48 To: James, Mark Subject: High Peak Local Plan Importance: High

Mark

Please find attached a letter which our consultation system will have just emailed to [email protected] responding to your email of the 10 th June and your phone call of yesterday.

This should hopefully answer your query, if you need anything further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards Anthony Northcote

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

170 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9966 (20140619) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 10110 (20140717) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 171 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

172 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Correspondence with Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS England and former Primary Care Trusts

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 173 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: Ryan Chris (Tameside and Glossop PCT) [[email protected]] Sent: 29 January 2010 08:29 To: Mark James Cc: Tomlinson Ian (Tameside and Glossop PCT) Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy Attachments: NHS Tameside & Glossop DP Feedback.doc

Hi Mark,

Apologies for the delay in responding. Please find attached a copy of the response for the PCT.

The figure of circa 1400 dwellings for the Glossopdale area is slightly different to those in my notes on the day, no problem with this, but could you confirm that this will not increase? Also the areas for potential development were suggested as Glossop (500 dwellings), Gamesley (250 dwellings) and a small amount of affordable housing in Tintwistle is there any change to this? I am in the process of drafting an Estate Strategy document and I would like to refer to the number of 1400 dwelling s either already built or planned, I will not refer to any specific areas other than Glossopdale, are you okay with this?

Regards Chris

From: Mark James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 January 2010 13:50 To: Ryan Chris (Tameside and Glossop PCT) Subject: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy

Dear Chris

Thank you for attending our Infrastructure Delivery Plan workshop in Bakewell on 10th November. The workshop was held to begin to establish a mutual understanding between the local planning authority and key infrastructure and service providers. You may recall from the workshop that High Peak Borough Council are currently working in partnership with Derbyshire Dales District Council to provide a plan that will specify the most appropriate level and location of new development in the area up to 2026.

6000 new homes are planned for High Peak during this period. Around 1400 of these home could be built in Glossopdale. It is essential that we ensure that these homes are located in areas where appropriate infrastructure and services are in place or where the necessary improvements are planned. I would be grateful if you could respond to the following questions.

• Are there constraints preventing or limiting the scale and distribution of the development outlined? • If there are, can they be overcome? • If so, how and by whom? • What is in your capital programmes and plans that is relevant to the emerging Core Strategies? • Have you secured the funding needed to fully implement these plans and programmes? • Are there opportunities for improvements and efficiencies in service provision and infrastructure delivery that should be taken into account?

With regards to your future plans, you have previously indicated that a review is underway that will seek to bring more healthcare services into local communities and away from Tameside General Hospital. Could you please let me have details of this review? I would be particularly interested in any parts of the review that could have implications on the capacity of Glossopdale to accommodate future housing growth.

If you require any further information, or would like to discuss matters in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Mark James Senior Planning Officer Planning Policy & Design High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4789 (20100120) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

If this has come to you in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The Council may be required to disclose this email or any response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

174 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

______'This e-mail has been sent via the Internet. Internet communications are not secure against interception or modification. High Peak Borough Council therefore cannot guarantee that this e-mail has not been modified in transit, and this e-mail on its own should not be viewed as contractually binding.

This e-mail and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and destroy your copies of the e-mail and any attached files.' ______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ______

********************************************************************************************************************

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSI recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere For more information and to find out how you can switch, visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail

********************************************************************************************************************

______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ______

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4817 (20100129) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5976 (20110322) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 175 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

176 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) [[email protected]] Sent: 11 May 2012 09:17 To: Mark James Cc: Callan Mary (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Subject: FW: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Hi Mark,

Our response is as per the email chain below and I have added some comments in red to your original email.

Regards Chris

From: Callan Mary (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Sent: 10 May 2012 15:40 To: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Hi Chris So Glossopdale from 719 to 1658 homes, 97% in Glossop & Hadfield- so estimated 2/3 per household say 3300-5000 people, if I’m reading the slides right

Glossop (centre)- as you say there’s the PCC, and also Manor House is planning an extension. Howard Street is reasonable re existing levels of accommodation Hadfield- Hadfield Med Centre on Brosscroft had fair sized extension 2010, as well as Lambgates new build The other two practices in Glossopdale- Simmondley also had fair sized extension in 2010, but Cottage Lane in Gamesley hasn’t had any extension in recent years So physical capacity reasonably ok to absorb some additional demand- depending on spread/location

However, the clinical capacity is another issue. I’m not aware if GPs are aware re housing plans, plus they would need to know actual locations/numbers per locations/likely time scale in order to start considering re plans to meet future growth in terms of staffing

RE capital investments, likely costs, potential funding- just as soon as we know what they’re doing with the NHS we may be able to guess whether there’ll be any funding to support development of GP premises!!!! At the moment, it’s no, with DH thinking re changing funding regime for GP premises but no further details. Across GM I’m not sure that Glossopdale is high priority when look at health needs etc, but the GM/future NCB processes and priorities are a mystery at this stage

And finally- the plans are up to the year 2028 so clearly issues will be revisited during the next 16 years.

Cheers Mary

From: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Sent: 10 May 2012 12:15 To: Callan Mary (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 177 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Subject: FW: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Hi Mary,

The attached is self-explanatory, as you will see High Peak are looking to increase the provision of housing around the Glossopdale area from what was originally planned a year or two ago. I would welcome any response from you regarding the 4 questions that have been asked?

In terms of the PCT’s ability to meet increased demand there should be no problem with Glossop PCC coping with this and I am assuming that the new Lambgates Surgery has increased capacity factored in?

Do you know if any of the other GP surgeries in the Glossopdale area are planning to increase their premises in size or are even aware of these proposed increase in housing numbers?

Regards Chris

From: Mark James [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 10 May 2012 11:43 To: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Hi Chris

As discussed, whilst you were unable to attend the above workshop on 2 May, we would welcome a response from you on the queries outlined below by 1st June if possible please. A meeting could also be arranged if required.

I have attached a copy of the presentation given at our workshop which outlines the latest planning policy timetables for the area. The presentation also includes details about the likely level and distribution of housing growth. You will see that we are currently considering new options for the level housing growth in the Glossop area.

Also attached are two spreadsheets that identify known planned or required infrastructure in the area that is either fully funded, or with a funding gap.

We would particularly welcome your feedback on the following:

1. Is the information we currently have in relation to planned or required infrastructure projects correct (see attached spreadsheets). Seems okay

2. Are there any other capital investments currently planned in the area that are likely to have implications for the level of growth that can be accommodated? With regards to GP requirements, Mary has outlined those above. In respect of the PCT we do not have any plans for further capital investment.

3. Is the level and distribution of growth proposed in each local planning authority area likely to require additional infrastructure or present any problems? Unlikely at this stage as there is spare capacity in Gl ossop PCC

4. If additional infrastructure is required, what are the likely costs and are you aware of any potential funding sources that could be utilised? I am unable to add anything for the GP infrastructure, as you may be aware the landscape within the NHS is changing and probably will not settle down until late 2013

178 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Should you require any further information, please contact me.

Regards

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

From: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 24 April 2012 14:03 To: Mark James Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reminder, would it be possible to discuss this via email as per your suggestion?

Regards Chris

From: Mark James [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 24 April 2012 13:50 To: Ryan Chris (TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP PCT) Subject: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Dear Chris

You may have recently received an invitation to a workshop to discuss future infrastructure requirements in High Peak in relation to planning and housing proposals. The workshop will be held on 2 May in Bakewell. The Council is currently reviewing its housing targets and proposed distribution of homes in the light of recent changes to the

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 179 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

planning system. As such, the level of housing proposed in the Glossop area up to the year 2028 may alter from that previous considered by you.

If you would like to attend the workshop, please let me know as soon as possible. The start time for the workshop will be set later this week once numbers have been confirmed. Alternatively, we would be happy to meet with you separately or share information via email.

Regards

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

************************************************************************************** ******************************

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere

************************************************************************************** ******************************

180 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7104 (20120502) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

************************************************************************************** ******************************

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere

************************************************************************************** ******************************

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7129 (20120511) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 181 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Somerville Jayne (NHS TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP CCG) [[email protected]] Sent: 22 July 2013 10:55 To: Mark James Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Mark

I have passed your email to Louise Roberts, Head of Business Planning and Performance, who will raise this at our Locality Meeting.

Kind regards.

JAYNE SOMERVILLE Personal Assistant to:- Steve Allinson, Chief Operating Officer Dr Alan J. Dow, Chair

From: Mark James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 July 2013 09:43 To: Somerville Jayne (NHS TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP CCG) Subject: High Peak Local Plan

Dear Ms Somerville,

High Peak Borough Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan that will determine the location and number of new homes to be developed across High Peak up to the year 2028. As part of this process, we have been in discussion with various infrastructure providers to identify any infrastructure or service requirements that would be necessary to support housing and population growth.

In the past, the two PCT's with responsibilities for High Peak (Derbyshire and Tameside & Glossop) have provided us with some feedback in terms of GP surgery capacity in particular.1 However, our proposals have evolved since then

182 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

and with the recent changes to the NHS, we are now looking to pick up these discussions with the relevant body. I understand from colleagues that you might be able to assist us on behalf of the NHS Tameside and Glossop

The draft Local Plan proposes an additional 3250 new homes for High Peak between the years 2012 to 2028. 1040 of these homes are proposed to be located in the Glossop area.

The plan also identifies specific sites where we are planning for the majority of the development to occur. Further details, including site plans are available on our website:

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pages/High%20Peak%20Local%20Plan%20Preferred%2 0Options.pdf http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pages/High%20Peak%20Local%20Plan%20Preferred%2 0Options%20-%20Maps.pdf

We would be keen to understand from you what the implications of the housing will be on health care provision and what improvements will be necessary to support it. As well as ensuring that we are planning for the right number of homes in the right places, this information will also help us to identify where we should be requiring housing developers to pay a financial contribution towards improvements to health care facilities.

Please accept my apologies for the length of this email. Perhaps it would be helpful to meet at some point to discuss this further?

Regards

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

************************************************************************************** ******************************

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the 2

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 183 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere

************************************************************************************** ******************************

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8622 (20130729) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

184 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Roberts Louise (NHS TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP CCG) [[email protected]] Sent: 02 September 2013 10:00 To: Mark James Subject: Planning - Glossop

Hi Mark,

Following on from our conversation last week I have a couple of things that I’d like to feedback from our Glossop Locality meetings:

Whilst we appreciate the need for additional housing we would like to express our concern about the local transport infrastructure currently in place to support a greater population and the . With this in mind would this support the case for or impact on the:

1. the Longdendale bypass or consideration to the impact on traffic flow in and out of Glossop ( given how heavy the traffic already is) 2. Direct bus route to Tameside General Hospital 3. Gamesley railway station

Regards,

Louise Roberts

Performance Improvement Manager

************************************************************************************** ******************************

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 185 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere

************************************************************************************** ******************************

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8764 (20130904) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

186 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Syson-Nibbs Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT [Linda.Syson- [email protected]] Sent: 11 August 2010 16:12 To: Francis, Claire; Mark James; Lesley Stevens; hase, mike Cc: Mosley Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Hirst Julie (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments Attachments: Comments on Joint Strategy.doc; High Peak and Derbyshire Dales Section 106 Calculations 10k dwellings.xls

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Mike and Colleagues

Thank you for sharing the above Core Strategy with us. Please find attached our calculations and commentary of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy showing the potential impact of proposed housing developments on primary care facilities. Thanks to Linda Mosley and David Beardow for undertaking this work .

We apologise that we failed to meet the agreed deadline but we have had a number of th ese exercises to complete within a short period of time along with other major projects.

For your information the Premises Audit was commissioned by our finance department in 2008/9. The aim of the exercise was to look at the efficient use of space and judgements were based on visual inspections rather than our more objective calculations described above. They have been included as while a practice may be assessed as 'overcrowded' in terms of our calculations, a practice who are maximising the use of available space may be able to better cope with additional patients and as a result not feel 'overcrowded'

Please note that the documents are marked as Confidential - this is because the information is quite sensitive (although the practices could quite easily work it out for themselves) and we would want some control over where and how it is used.

NHS Derbyshire County is currently agreeing a number of criteria to be used to identify GP practices where a need for development of their premises is a priority, in accordance with our Strategy for the Commissioning of Primary Care. These will include capacity, the physical condition of the premises, deprivation, and their engagement with a range of NHS Derbyshire initiatives. However the weight given to these criteria has not yet been agreed so at this stage we cannot confirm which areas within your strategy have the greatest need for investment in primary care facilities.

Of course you will also I'm sure be aware that this work has been undertaken in the context of our current commissioning structure. The publication of the NHS white paper 'Liberating the NHS' will have a major impact on how services are commissioned in the future. PCTs are to be abolished and the commissioning of primary care is likely to be taken over by a newly created National Commissioning Board. The commissioning of up to 90% of other NHS services is likely to be taken over by newly configured consortia of practices . We are not fully sure of how this will play out but will keep you informed.

Do let us know if you need any further information or clarification.

With many thanks indeed Linda

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 187 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Linda Syson-Nibbs Public Health Nurse Consultant Derbyshire County PCT Newholme Hospital Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AD Tel: 01629 817931

-----Original Message----- From: Mosley Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Sent: 30 July 2010 16:23 To: Francis, Claire; Lesley Stevens (E-mail); Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Syson-Nibbs Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Hirst Julie (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Cc: hase, mike; Mark James (E-mail) Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments

Hello All

Apologies for the delay but we have had a number of these exercises to undertake at the same time and they are very time consuming.

Good news is that we have completed our calculations and I just need to add some commentary. Will send out early next week.

kind regards

Linda Mosley Commissioning Manager Primary Care Projects

-----Original Message----- From: Francis, Claire [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2010 09:23 To: Lesley Stevens (E-mail); Mosley Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Syson-Nibbs Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Hirst Julie (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Cc: hase, mike; Mark James (E-mail) Subject: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments

Dear All,

Following the meeting held at Derbyshire Dales District Council on 5th July 2010 to discuss the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy, Draft Plan and the impact of Derbyshire PCT future projects and plans, it was agreed that the PCT would provide a consultation response to the Council by the end of July at the latest. Please can you indicate to me when you will be submitting your comments?

Derbyshire Dales and High Peak are currently reviewing future housing growth for the Plan area and as part of this assessment are carrying out

188 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

an appraisal of the infrastructure requirements and constraints in each of the sub areas. Therefore it is now essential that we are made aware of the PCT's programme to feed into this piece of work.

Please can you indicate when you will be submitting written comments or whether any issues have arisen that have changed your position to do so?

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mike Hase to discuss further.

Kind Regards

Claire Francis Planning Policy Officer Derbyshire Dales District Council Town Hall Matlock DE4 3NN

Tel: 01629 761243 Fax: 01629 761163 Email: [email protected]

www.derbyshiredales.gov.uk

Derbyshire Dales District Council is rated 'Excellent' and 'Performing Well' by the Audit Commission.

The views expressed in this e-mail are personal and may not necessarily reflect those of Derbyshire Dales District Council, unless explicitly stated otherwise. This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended for the sole use of the addressee. The unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete and destroy any copies as soon as possible. All traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation Whilst Derbyshire Dales District Council tries to ensure that emails and attachments are virus free, this cannot be guaranteed and the Council cannot accept responsibility for situations where this is not the case. The recipient is advised to ensure that they are actually virus free in accordance with good computing practice. Information communicated to the council may be disclosed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Do you really need to print out this e-mail? Be Green - keep it on the screen

DISCLAIMER - This email and any file transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of Derbyshire County PCT, unless otherwise explicitly stated. The information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 189 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this email cannot be guaranteed.

Derbyshire County PCT is an NHS Organisation.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5358 (20100811) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivi rus, version of virus signature database 5359 (20100811) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5448 (20100913) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

190 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT [[email protected]] Sent: 24 August 2011 13:22 To: Mark James Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Mark

None of the High Peak and Dales practices areas have yet been prioritised for future investment at present.

The information for the three practices below do include branches

Thanks David

-----Original Message----- From: Mark James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2011 13:58 To: Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Cc: Mosley Linda (RY8) Derbyshire Community Health Services; Hirst Julie (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments

Dear David

You may recall that last year you kindly provided me with details of the potential impact of proposed housing developments in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales on GP surgery capacity. At the time Linda Syson-Nibbs suggested that NHS Derbyshire County were in the process of agreeing criteria to be used to prioritise improvements to surgeries. Could you please confirm if this exercise has been completed? If so, I would be grateful if you could also pleas e specify which areas within High Peak and Derbyshire Dales have been prioritised for investment.

Also, could you also please clarify the information that you sent through to us previously. In the attached spreadsheet you referred to: - Sett Valley Medical Centre, New Mills - Arden House Surgery, Hayfield - Thornbrook Surgery, Chapel-en-le-Frith

Did your assessment of these three practises include their respective branches in Hayfield, New Mills and Chinley?

Kind regards

Mark James Senior Planning Officer Planning Policy Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 191 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

-----Original Message----- From: Syson-Nibbs Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT [mailto:Linda.Syson- [email protected]] Sent: 11 August 2010 16:12 To: Francis, Claire; Mark James; Lesley Stevens; hase, mike Cc: Mosley Linda (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT; Hirst Julie (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Core Strategy - Draft Plan Consultation Comments

Dear Mike and Colleagues

We apologise that we failed to meet the agreed deadline but we have had a number of these exercises to complete within a short period of time along with other major projects.

Do let us know if you need any further information or clarification.

With many thanks indeed Linda

192 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Linda Syson-Nibbs Public Health Nurse Consultant Derbyshire County PCT Newholme Hospital Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AD Tel: 01629 817931

Hello All

Apologies for the delay but we have had a number of these exercises to undertake at the same time and they are very time consuming.

Good news is that we have completed our calculations and I just need to add some commentary. Will send out early next week.

kind regards

Linda Mosley Commissioning Manager Primary Care Projects

Dear All,

Derbyshire Dales and High Peak are currently reviewing future housing growth for the Plan area and as part of this assessment are carrying out an appraisal of the infrastructure

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 193 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

requirements and constraints in each of the sub areas. Therefore it is now essential that we are made aware of the PCT's programme to feed into this piece of work.

Please can you indicate when you will be submitting written comments or whether any issues have arisen that have changed your position to do so?

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mike Hase to discuss further.

Kind Regards

Claire Francis Planning Policy Officer Derbyshire Dales District Council Town Hall Matlock DE4 3NN

Tel: 01629 761243 Fax: 01629 761163 Email: [email protected]

www.derbyshiredales.gov.uk

Derbyshire Dales District Council is rated 'Excellent' and 'Performing Well' by the Audit Commission.

Do you really need to print out this e-mail? Be Green - keep it on the screen

Derbyshire County PCT is an NHS Organisation.

______

194 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ______

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5358 (20100811) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5359 (20100811) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5448 (20100913) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 195 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Derbyshire County PCT is an NHS Organisation.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6407 (20110824) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

196 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Local Development Framework Sent: 10 May 2012 11:00 To: 'Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT' Cc: 'hase, mike'; 'Abbott Peter' Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop Attachments: Derbyshire Dales High Peak and Peak District Infrastructure Workshop 30april2012 (2).ppt; Feb 2012 Infrastructure Schedule - funding secured - 4 May.xls; Feb 2012 Infrastructure Schedule - funding required with DDDC- 4 May.xls

David

Whilst you were unable to attend the above workshop, we would welcome a response from the PCT on the queries outlined below by 1st June if possible please. A meeting could also be arranged if required.

I have attached a copy of the presentation given at our workshop which outlines the latest planning policy timetables for Derbyshire Dales District Council, High Peak Borough Council and the Peak District National Park Authority. The presentation also includes details about the likely level and distribution of housing growth across each local planning authority area. Also attached are two spreadsheets that identify known planned or required infrastructure in the area that is either fully funded, or with a funding gap.

We would particularly welcome your feedback on the following:

1. Is the information we currently have in relation to planned or required infrastructure projects correct (see attached spreadsheets) 2. Are there any other capital investments currently planned in the area that are likely to have implications for the level of growth that can be accommodated? 3. Is the level and distribution of growth proposed in each local planning authority area likely to require additional infrastructure or present any problems? 4. If additional infrastructure is required, what are the likely costs and are you aware of any potential funding sources that could be utilised?

Should you require any further information regarding the specific proposals for each area, please contact either Mark James (Planning Policy) at High Peak Borough Council on 0845 129 7777 ext 3643, Mike Hase (Planning Policy Manager) at Derbyshire Dales District Council on 01629 761251 or Peter Abbott (Policy Planning) at the Peak District National Park Authority on 01629 816303.

Regards

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 197 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: Beardow David (5N6) Derbyshire County PCT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 April 2012 11:48 To: Local Development Framework Subject: RE: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Yes I would be interested in attending this meeting

Regards David

From: Local Development Framework [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 April 2012 10:31 To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and Peak District National Park Infrastructure Planning Stakeholder Workshop

Dear Sir / Madam

As you may be aware, Derbyshire Dales District Council, High Peak Borough Council and the Peak District National Park Authority have a track re cord of working in partnership in relation to planning and infrastructure. Indeed, you may have attended previous meetings held in 2009 regarding planning and infrastructure issues in the area. This feedback helped to shape the draft Derbyshire Dales and H igh Peak Joint Core Strategy (2010) and accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The feedback also informed the Peak District National Park Core Strategy which was adopted in 2011.

In the light of recent changes to planning legislation and guidance, De rbyshire Dales District Council and High Peak Borough Council are now reviewing their proposals for the long term development of their respective districts in terms of the level and distribution of future growth. As part of this process, we would like to p rovide key infrastructure and services providers with the opportunity to shape our proposals and share their knowledge in relation to the current capacity of their service, planned capital investments and improvements and the infrastructure likely to be required to support the Council’s planning strategies.

All three of the authorities are also currently considering the scope to adopt a Community Infrastructure Levy as a means of collecting funds from developments to help pay for the collective infrastruc ture needs associated with the growth of the area. In order to support a levy, each authority is required to demonstrate that there is a “funding gap” for identified infrastructure needs.

198 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

As such I would like to invite you to attend a workshop to discuss these issues. The meeting will be held on Wednesday 2 nd May at the headquarters of the Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell. Further details regarding the time start for the event will be issued nearer the time along with further details for consideration.

The objectives of the workshop are:

• To refresh and enhance stakeholders understanding of the strategic planning proposals and processes for Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and the Peak District National Park Authority. • To update and confirm our current understanding of your capital investment programmes and proposals of relevance. • To discuss the options for new development across Derbyshire Dales and High Peak and to identify any likely associated infrastructure requirements • To explore the availability of funding for any likely infrastructure requirements identified

If you would like to attend the workshop, please reply to this email by Friday 20 th April . If you do not consider that you are the most appropriate contact to attend the meeting, please forward this invitation onto the most relevant person.

It is highly desirable that that your organisation is represented to ensure that new development is appropriately located with sufficient infrastructure to support extended and new communities.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact either Mark James (Planning Policy) at High Peak Borough Council on 0845 129 7777 ext 3643, Mike Hase (Planning Policy Manager) at Derbyshire Dales District Council on 01629 761251 or Brian Taylor (Policy Planning Manager) at the Peak District National Park Authority) on 01629 816303.

I will look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Faithfully,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 199 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Derbyshire County PCT is an NHS Organisation.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7025 (20120404) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7167 (20120525) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

200 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

!"#$ %&'!( ' %&')#* %# +%( , +%( ) %& -.

1:H.:VC5 .:J@QJHV:$:1J`Q` :@1J$ .V 1IV QIVV 7V V`R:78R1H%VR50V: :H.VR:HQ]7Q` .V:J:C71Q` %`$V`1V]`V01Q%C7]`Q01RVR Q%QIV 1IV:$Q8 .V:J:C71HQJ1RV`VRH%``VJ H:]:H1 7: .V 1IV^_:JR : VI] VR QV 1I: V .V1I]:H Q`]C:JJVR.Q%1J$$`Q1 .1J V`IQ`]: 1VJ C1 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 201 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

`7Q%.:0VJQ :C`V:R7:RRVR7Q%`RV :1C Q .V1$.V:@HQJ%C : 1QJR: :G:V57Q%H:JRQQG7HC1H@1J$QJ .V1I:$V:GQ0V8V$1 V`1J$11 .%QJ .V1VGR1 V1 .VIQ V``VH 10V1:7Q`@VV]1J$1J`Q`IVR:GQ% ]C:JJ1J$]QC1H7HQJ%C : 1QJ .: .VC].:]V7Q%`CQH:C:`V:8 ! "#$%&"'& ( )# * + ) + ( ), - . /0 1$ * 2 3 ( * - /41 2* * 2 5 $ 6$ 27 6 6* 6%# (4%89%%:%9%" * 2 $) * ;$ 1 . , 2..$$*

( )# ( )# * < )*=$)! "#$%&>%" * + ) +

1:H.:VC5 .1J@ .: 1V1V`VR%V QIVV 1J:%JV8'.:CC1VIVV QJ .:%C7: 8:I-I.:]]7 Q `:0VC Q7Q%`Q``1HV 1`7Q%.:0V:`QQI:0:1C:GCV- V$:`R -:`@::IV C:JJ1J$ QC1H7 1$. V:@+Q`Q%$.3Q%JH1C

202 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

-%J1H1]:C+%1CR1J$ CQQ] (V`G7.1`V '; 9 VC7 V6 8

`7Q%.:0VJQ :C`V:R7:RRVR7Q%`RV :1C Q .V1$.V:@HQJ%C : 1QJR: :G:V57Q%H:JRQQG7HC1H@1J$QJ .V1I:$V:GQ0V8V$1 V`1J$11 .%QJ .V1VGR1 V1 .VIQ V``VH 10V1:7Q`@VV]1J$1J`Q`IVR:GQ% ]C:JJ1J$]QC1H7HQJ%C : 1QJ .: .VC].:]V7Q%`CQH:C:`V:8 ! "#$%&'>& ( )# * + ) + ( ), 0 $* 2 2 2 1 21? #$ 1 . 0 ==1 12 1 ) 1$ . * 2 3 ( * - /41 2* * 2 5 $ 6$ 27 6 6* 6%# (4%89%%:%9%" * 2 $) * ;$ 1 . , 2..$$*

( )# ( )# * < )*=$)! "#$%&'" @* =2 5A0--0(0-(B * + ) +

(V:`(:01R5

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 203 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

-:J7 .:J@8 :H.:VCR1Q%CR1 GV]Q1GCV Q:``:J$V QIVV R%`1J$C: V:%C7LV:`C7%$% QR1H% .V1$. V:@,QH:C C:J :JR:QH1: VR1J``: `%H %`VJVVR11 .`V$:`R Q]`1I:`7.V:C .H:`V-IH%``VJ C7``VVQJ 5 55:%C755 5 5 :JR %$% 8 V$:`R -:`@::IV C:JJ1J$ QC1H7 1$. V:@+Q`Q%$.3Q%JH1C -%J1H1]:C+%1CR1J$ CQQ] (V`G7.1`V '; 9 VC7 V6 8

`7Q%.:0VJQ :C`V:R7:RRVR7Q%`RV :1C Q .V1$.V:@HQJ%C : 1QJR: :G:V57Q%H:JRQQG7HC1H@1J$QJ .V1I:$V:GQ0V8V$1 V`1J$11 .%QJ .V1VGR1 V1 .VIQ V``VH 10V1:7Q`@VV]1J$1J`Q`IVR:GQ% ]C:JJ1J$]QC1H7HQJ%C : 1QJ .: .VC].:]V7Q%`CQH:C:`V:8 @* =2 C>>41 2* - =2@* 2= $)! "#$%&& ( )# * + ) + (V:`-:`@ :H.:VC^HQ]1VR_1 .V`V: V:I `VI1V-:J:$V`:JR .V]V`QJ7Q%11CCJVVR QC1:1V11 .`V$:`R1J$ .V 1J``: `%H %`V]C:J8'.V1J %`J11CC1Q`@11 . .V`VCV0:J 3C1J1H:C3QII11QJ1J$`Q%] Q1RVJ 1`7 .V `1I:`7 V:C .3:`VJVVRQ` .V:`V::``VH VRG7]Q]%C: 1QJ$`Q1 .8 V$:`R #/%)0%&+ " % ++,(++ & "+1#* %)(++%& % & ) 2%( -( + ()3 +-%(+-(++%& %- 45 '

204 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

)-%&+ 6 -+ -& )- - ( )# ( )# * < )*=$)! "#$%&>: @* =2 C>>41 2* - * + ) + (V:`(:01R5 1$. V:@+Q`Q%$.3Q%JH1C1H%``VJ C7]`V]:`1J$:JV1,QH:C C:J .: 11CCRV VÌ1JV .VCQH: 1QJ:JRJ%IGV`Q` JV1.QIV QGVRV0VCQ]VR:H`Q1$. V:@%] Q .V7V:` 8]:` Q` .1]`QHV51V.:0VGVVJ1J R1H%1QJ11 .0:`1Q%1J``: `%H %`V]`Q01RV` Q1RVJ 1`7:J71J``: `%H %`VQ`V`01HV`V_%1`VIVJ .: 1Q%CRGV JVHV:`7 Q%]]Q` .Q%1J$:JR]Q]%C: 1QJ$`Q1 .8 3:J7Q%]CV:VHQJ`1Ì1.V .V`7Q%:`V .VHQ``VH HQJ :H `Q`% QC1:1V11 .`V$:`R1J$ .V.V:C .H:`V 1J``: `%H %`V1I]C1H: 1QJQ`Q%`]C:J-%JRV` :JR .: (V`G7.1`V3Q%J 73Q%JH1CJQ1`V_%V .: ,QH:C C:JJ1J$% .Q`1 1VC1:1V11 .7Q% QR1H% .V]Q VJ 1:CJVVR`Q`RV0VCQ]V`HQJ `1G% 1QJ Q1:`R:RR1 1QJ:C H:]:H1 7: ]`1I:`7H:`V`:H1C1 1VJVVRVR::`V%C Q`.Q%1J$RV0VCQ]IVJ 8`]Q1GCV51V1Q%CRC1@V1I1C:` `VVRG:H@QJ .V`:J$VQ`1 V1RVJ 1`1VR`Q`.Q%1J$RV0VCQ]IVJ 1J .VR`:` 1$. V:@,QH:C C:J8 .111CCVJ%`V .: .V,QH:C C:JH:J]`Q]V`C7`V`CVH 1J``: `%H %`V1I]`Q0VIVJ JVVRVR Q%]]Q` .Q%1J$$`Q1 .:JRVH%`V JVHV:`7`%JR1J$``QIRV0VCQ]V`8 H:JVJR .`Q%$.`%` .V`RV :1CQ` .V,QH:C C:JQÌVV 7Q%11 . QR1H%I: V``%` .V`8`7Q%:`VJQ .V HQ``VH HQJ :H `Q` .1I: V`5]CV:V:HHV] I7:]QCQ$1V8 +V `V$:`R -:`@::IV C:JJ1J$ QC1H7 1$. V:@+Q`Q%$.3Q%JH1C -%J1H1]:C+%1CR1J$ CQQ] (V`G7.1`V '; 9 VC7 V6 8

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 205 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Sample of correspondence with Derbyshire County Council in relation to education infrastructure

206 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Bolton,James (Children and Younger Adults) [[email protected]] Sent: 22 August 2011 08:38 To: Mark James Cc: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) Subject: RE: Schools capacity Attachments: HighPeakAndDerbyshireDales.xls

Categories: Purple Category

Morning Mark, as requested please find the attached school data.

If you need any more information, please let me know.

Regards James

From: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) Sent: 19 August 2011 10:47 To: Bolton,James (Children and Younger Adults) Subject: FW: Schools capacity

Hi, James –

Could you forward the High Peak and Derbyshire Dales pupil projections for 2012-2016 to Mark James please? Many thanks -

Dee Hill Snr. Asst. Education Officer (Forward Planning) Development Direct Line 01629 536248 Extension 36248

From: Mark James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2011 10:18 To: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) Subject: Schools capacity

Hi Dee

Do you by any chance have any updated data for individual schools capacity for High Peak and Derbyshire Dales? I'd be grateful if you could pass it on if you do. I think that we information we currently have is from 2009 covering the period 2004 to 2014. The schools information in Harriet Fisher's Derbyshire Infrastructure Study seems to date from January 2011. I'm in the process of refreshing our assessment of infrastructure to inform our Core Strategy.

Regards

Mark James 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 207 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Senior Planning Officer Planning Policy Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

208 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Think before you print! Save energy and paper. Do you really need to print this email?

Derbyshire County Council works to improve the lives of local people by delivering high quality services. You can find out more about us by visiting 'www.derbyshire.gov.uk'. If you want to work for us go to our job pages on 'www.derbyshire.gov.uk/jobs'. You can register for e-mail alerts, download job packs and apply on-line.

Please Note This email is confidential, may be legally privileged and may contain personal views that are not the views of Derbyshire County Council. It is intended solely for the addressee. If this email was sent to you in error please notify us by replying to the email. Once you have done this please delete the email and do not disclose, copy, distribute, or rely on it. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the contents of this email may be disclosed.

Derbyshire County Council reserves the right to monitor both sent and received emails.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6407 (20110824) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 209 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) [[email protected]] Sent: 02 September 2011 09:38 To: Mark James Subject: RE: Schools funding

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Purple Category

Hi, Mark –

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is the funding we get from government to run the schools and is delegated to Head Teachers and Governors to utilise for staffing, resources etc.

Capital funding comes to the Local Authority on a bi-annual cycle and used to be called Modernisation and Basic Need. Our last allocation was for 2010 – 2012 and is for financial years so ‘runs out’ in March 2012.

Modernisation is for all condition and planned maintenance projects across the 400 schools of the LA. Basic Need is to address pressure for places. 2010 – 2012 DCC committed £1.5 million for Basic Need to five schools, none of them in High Peak area or Derbyshire Dales.

The government’s James Review and subsequent consultation on capital investment in schools’ buildings may change the allocation of funding but we do not know as yet. The end of the consultation is 11 October with decisions and allocations by December 2011 (we hope).

So, there is no capital investment in the programme currently to address pressure on places in Derbyshire Dales or High Peak, and DCC does not hold any revenue or capital budget to apply to this; we are dependent on government funding for this. Recent advice from Partnership for Schools (working for the Department for Education) is that where pressure for places is generated by new development the government anticipates that the developer contribution will address the need created.

Hope that helps -

Dee Hill Snr. Asst. Education Officer (Forward Planning) Development Direct Line 01629 536248 Extension 36248

From: Mark James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 August 2011 11:19 To: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) Subject: Schools funding

Hello Dee 1

210 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Thank you for the latest school capacity data. I would now like some information on funding sources if possible please.

Can you tell me if you have any existing revenue and capital funding sources for schools or if you have any current plans to invest in any schools in High Peak or Derbyshire Dales that would improve capacity. The Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan prepared by Harriet Fisher refers to the Dedicated Schools Grant but I'm unsure what period this covers or its main purpose. Is it a general grant to cover the cost of running each school?

Ultimately, I'm trying to determine if the level and distribution of housing growth identified in our draft Core Strategy will require additional funding to improve capacity. At the moment I'm not sure if there is any existing funding available that might cover these costs.

Regards

Mark James Senior Planning Officer Planning Policy Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0845 129 7777 ext. 3643

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

Think before you print! Save energy and paper. Do you really need to print this email?

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 211 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Derbyshire County Council reserves the right to monitor both sent and received emails.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6449 (20110909) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

212 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

! " #$ $%&'$ ( ) *+ , *- . & / 0 ,

,1 2

(

3 4 5 1 14 4 6

+ 5 7 5 5 5 1 6 4 5 1 5 5 81 1 279 $$: 4 1 4 61 ; 4 4 4 1 4 5

" 1 81 8 4 1 8 4 5 1 4 4 8 1 1

, (

( / / < !.= / 9 M $ ?#% '!%'' 7 8 M !%''

! "#$ $ $ % & '() '* + , + -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

1:``1V V V` GGQ .: `Q`1:`RVR7Q%``VHVJ VI:1CV6H.:J$V`V$:`R1J$:JR H.QQC ]`Q01 1QJ1J:JR8 .V% V Q` Q: 1 11 . .V]`Q01 1QJQ`JV1 H.QQC 1Q%CR VVI QGV: VJ 1GCV:]]`Q:H.G7VJ %`1J$ .V11 V ]Q 1GCV]QQCQ``%JR1J$8Q%CR7Q%]CV: VHC:`1`71`1Q%CRV6]VH Q]:7QQ` .VHQ Q`]`Q01R1J$: JV1Q``V]C:HVIVJ H.QQCQ`1Q%CRQ .V`H:]1 :C`%JR GVI:RV:0:1C:GCV- J .VH: VQ`%%6 QJQII%J1 7&H.QQC5 .1J@ .: 1 .: :C Q]`V01Q% C7GVVJ %$$V VR .: .V]Q VJ 1:CH:]1 :C `VHV1] ``QI .V :CVQ` .VV61 1J$ H.QQC 1 VHQ%CR.VC] QHQJ `1G% V Q1:`R HQ 8 J: V IVJ %JRV` :@VJ G7 %$$V VR .: .V`V1: C1 CV ]:HVQJ .VV61 1J$ 1 V QV6]:JR:JR Q:`V]C:HVIVJ H.QQCVC V1.V`V 1Q%CRGV .VQJC7 QC% 1QJGV7QJR:HV` :1JCV0VCQ`.Q% 1J$$`Q1 .8 )V$:`R *:`@+:IV &VJ1Q`C:JJ1J$,``1HV`RC:JJ1J$QC1H7 1$.V:@%Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C *%J1H1]:C%%1CR1J$ .CQ Q]

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 213 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

V`G7 .1`V &/ 2 VC7 V6 8

4 5 ( M 5

! "#$ $ $ % & ! + , 2 34 () -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

+ 7R 1 5 11 5 ( 4 4

, (

( / / < !.= / 9 M $ ?#% '!%'' 7 8 M !%''

() ) ( + 2 253 ! "#$ $ $ % & -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

214 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

A 5 5 5 279 ///2 ,B2 5 , 5 7 4 4 4 1 5 C 4 5 1 1 1 5 5 279 4 $? 7 1 D

! "#$ $ $ % & ! + , 2 266 () ! . "7 + $$+8$ (+ & -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

7 4 5 $? 279 1 , 1 279 5 4 3 11 ,+

7 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 14 5 279 111 B 5 5 1 11 5 4 1 $? 111

; 5 4 279 14 5 1 5 5 5 5 + 5 5 1 E2 1 4 4 4 1 $?

, (

( / / < !.= / 9 M $ ?#% '!%'' 7 8 M !%''

() ) ( + 2 22 ! "#$ $ $ % & -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

3 3 2 E 2 5 9 , 5 7 5 6 F #$$ 9, 6 +4 A 5 %GGH 4 F E 1 H

3 4 1C 1 4 /22 5 5 1 = 4 # 1 1 5 4 279 $? 5 7 5 1 4 5 14 5 1 279 $? 5 1 279

! "#$ $ $ % & ! + , 2 6 ()

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 215 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

! . "7 + $$+8$ (+ & -#. , % $$+ $/ $ )

/ ,

+ 7 4 7 4 2 5 2 , 3 +4 ; M 5 +4 B 5 9 3 B I 2 J + , 5 3 35 B1 , 2 J + ,

3 1 1 1 1C 4 11 35 1C 4 1 * 1C 5 4 1C 3 5 4 C 1

" 5 5 1 5 / / , 6 5 1 5 5 8 1 8 1 1 1 8 6 1 1 4 5 1

/1 8 4 1 5 1 B8 + 4 5 111 81 4 8 5 1 E8 8 6 1 1 6 4 5 1

3 2 2 4 5 279 4 5 1 ; C 11 5 4 5 2 2 5 81 R 279 2 4 4 1 5 1 1 3 279 . #! 9 14 5 4 1 1 + 5 F 4 1 118 !? 5 4 %$$ 11 118 !#$

; 1 E8 8 6 1 1 4 1 5 5 81 5 4 $? ; 1 5 5 5 81 4 $? ,1 1 4 $ 5 81

7 1 1

L .

, (

( / / < !.= / 9 M $ ?#% '!%'' 7 8 M !%''

+ , &, + 1 $' " #$ M&#G / 0 ,

7 4 4 1 7 5 5 7 1 5 / 0 , ( #$$ 118 ' 4 9 , & M 7 4 +4 2 B 35 2 4 1 4 1 5 4 D

216 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

= 5 7 6 45 3 5 1 8 ; 8 D ; 5 4 51 4 0 #$$% 5 1 0 , 5 4 1 E 6 4 1 3 5 /22 1 45& ; - / 1 - ) . ,4 1 / 11 B 5 4 8 1D 7 4 1 5 44 1 5 5 0 ,

; 1 4 1 5 1 279 5 $? 45 45 74 5 5 $? 1 1 F 4 5 ; 5 5 / 5 # 1 5 D

; 5 C 5 ///2 ,B2 4 4 6 1 1 < " + 1 ! 5 14 4 1 M 4

2 , + , , , / 0 , + + B 5 . B 5 / <' + &$ ?#% G ?#$$ 4&$ ?#% G ?! $ 5551

; 4 , / 0 , - 1 5 1 4 , M R 1 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 3 4 1 E 1 5 + R 7 4 74 1 4 N / , 4 74 + FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 ( 9 4 1 1&EE555 E OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

! !" # ! $# ! % & # %

'( & " " ) & & & * ' +,--./ " +0111

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 217 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

! " #!$# $%&#' ( " ) * * + + ) , - . / ) 011 2 & 3

4+ -

( (

, 3 - + + 1 5 6 1 6 6 / 07 6 11 1 ++ 5 6 ++ + 1 6 6 1 1 ++ 6 1 6 56 8 ( 9+

/ 9 1 +: + + ; + 7+ 7 : 1 6

6 + + + - # 1 6 ; ; 1 1 ++ + 7+ ; 6 ,-- 6 + + 1 + ; $ : + 1 ++ + 3 56R 6 + 1 7+ 1 + 5 + 1 + + + + 6 M + + 1 + ; ;6 6 + 1 6 + ; $ 1 7+ # 1 6 ; 6 6 ++7 !' !? ; + + 6 6 , , 56 +1 1 6 , , 1 + ++

; 7 1 + + 7+ ++ : 1 3 6 6 7+ $ # + + + + + 1 7+ 7+ 1 6 + 1 6 + 6 / ( 6 1 +1 1 6 / 1 + ++

@ ( 6 + + 1 ; + 11 7+ 0 6 1 +1 1 + ++

; + / ; 6 / + 6 $ 6 AB 9 / + 1 ,-- + 7+ + AB 9 6 C ,-- 6 6 ; 6 6 11 + 6 AB 9 ,-- + 6 ++7 !#! D +++ AB 9 / ,-- 6 ) 1 6 + + 1 6 ,-- 1 + 6 D ,1 1 1 1 6 6 + ++ 1 1 6 1

218 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

+ 7 6 1 / ,1 1 6 7+ 6 1

0 7 + 6 6 11 1 + / +1 1 6 , , 1 + ++

9+ 1 ++ +: + + ; + 1 7+ : 1 + 1 1 + + ; + + - 6 6 + 6 3 + E6 ( 4 9+ + + 7+ 1 D : 1 9+ 1 +1 1 6 4 1 ++

- + ++ 6 ++ 1 E / ; + 7+ 7 6 + + 6 + + 1 7+ ; + + 7+ 6 + D : 1 96 - + 1 : 1 +1 9+ 1 ++

+ + ; 7 1 7+ ; + 1 + + 1 6 + 6 : + 1 1 + 1 6 + / 6 6 1 1 6 7+ ; 6 D ++7 !#! 31 ++ 1 + ++ + +: 1 + + 07 +1 1 6 4 1 ++

3 + 1 1 6 + 7 + 1 + 1 7+ + + + + ,-- 1 6 +

3 011 6 + + C+ 1 - + + 3 + 1 1 + 6 3 6 1 1 5 + 1 + 1 +

;

4+ 4 F 4 (

F , - - F , 2 ( , , % 2. F !$'#G H GHH$

!" #$ % & ' ( ! ( )$$*& + :``1V ]QCQ$1V `Q` .VRVC:71JHQI1J$G:H@ Q7Q%81Q%CRGV$`: V`%C1`7Q%HQ%CR]CV: V]`Q01RV% 11 . QIV0V`7 G`1V`1J1 1:C`VVRG:H@QJ .V .`VV :GCV 1J VH 1QJQ` .V: :H.VR8.V :GCV .Q1 .V]Q VJ 1:C.Q% 1J$

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 219 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

`V_%1`VIVJ `Q`V:H.Q` .V %GR:`V: ^!CQ Q]R:CV5#VJ `:C`V:5:JR$%6 QJ_5 .VI:1JI:`@V Q1J 11 .1J .VI:JR .VQ .V` I:CCV`01CC:$V 8J`Q` %J: VC75 .V`V:`V Q] 1QJ `Q`V:H. V CVIVJ : 1V:`V: @1J$Q%` IVIGV` QRVH1RV%]QJQJVQ` .`VV.Q% 1J$ :`$V `Q`1$.)V:@^*++5*++RQ5*++UQ_:JR .VJQJVQ` .`VV Q] 1QJ `Q` .VR1 `1G% 1QJQ` .Q V.QIV 8 .V: :H.VR]:]V`11CCGVR1 H% VR: :1Q`@ .Q]11 .Q%`#Q%JH1CCQ` QJVRJV R:7V0VJ1J$:JR1V.Q]V .: .V711CCGV:GCV Q1RVJ 1`7:]`V`V`VJHVQ% Q` .VQ] 1QJ QJ .VJ1$. 8V:`V .V`V`Q`VC1@VC7 QHQIVG:H@ Q 7Q%11 .`1`IRV :1C 1J .VJV:``% %`V5.Q1V0V`57Q%`1J1 1:C01V1 QJ .V`:J$VQ`Q] 1QJ QGVR1 H% VR1Q%CRGV :% V`%C1J]% 1J Q .VR1 H% 1QJ QJVRJV R:78 1Q%CR:C QGV$`: V`%C1`7Q%HQ%CR]CV: VHQJ`1`I1.V .V` .V: V IVJ .: ]`V01Q% C7HQJ 1RV`VR .V HQ]V Q V6 VJR$%6 QJ#QII%J1 7+H.QQCQJ 1 VCQQ@VR: .VC:JR1IIVR1: VC7 Q .V Q% .Q` .V H.QQC 1 V1.1H.1 ]:` 1:CC7% VR: .V H.QQC]C:71J$`1VCR 8.1 C:JRHQ%CR]Q VJ 1:CC7Q``V` .VQ]]Q` %J1 7 Q]`Q01RV: I:CC V6 VJ 1QJ Q .V H.QQC]`VI1 V :JR:0Q1R .VJVVR`Q`:1.QCVJV1`V]C:HVIVJ VC V1.V`V1J .V Q1J8 )CV: VJQ V .: .V: :H.VR]:]V`1 1J VJRVR`Q`1J V`J:CR1 H% 1QJ QJC7 Q]CV: VRQJQ .:`V1 11RVC78 *V$:`R 1:`@2:IV )C:JJ1J$)QC1H7 1$.)V:@$Q`Q%$.#Q%JH1C 1%J1H1]:C$%1CR1J$ !CQ Q] 3V`G7 .1`V +4 7 VC7 V6 8

, 3 7 6 (R 6 5 6 6 1 1 $ I

220 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

( + 1 + 4 6 &

2 2J$!K 2 L$!K

, &

/ J %HK 07 #'K - / #'K 9+ 0 M MHK 07 1 1 9+ - M MHK 07 1 1 9+ - /

;

4+ 4 F 4 (

F , - - F , 2 ( , , % 2. F !$'#G H GHH$

! * , * 3 " !/ #0 * *1 2* '. !" #$ % & ' .% !$ $*& + " ,8 ; 6 + 1 , , 4 " - 6 6 + 1 1 , , + 1 + J + 6 / 6 + AB 9 / 1 ++ + + 6 6 ( N 56 J 6 6 ( 1 6 1 + 11 1 6 + / 6 1 ( J 6 6 1 + 56 6 6 1 + 6 56 1 + D 1 7 1 + 56 1 6 + 56 6 1 7 / 9 6 6 7+ 6 5 + 1 + ++ 1 + ++ 1 1 + 6 11 6 6 6 1 1 II @ + 6 6 + + O / + + + J 3

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 221 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

; 1 D 6 + 6 + 6 6 6 1 1 + 1 $ 3 + + 1 ++ O # 5 + / 1 AB 9 / / 7 D 11 1 + J 6 16 1 % 5 6 D 1 1 $H!!8$'!! ++ 6 J 1 G!! ++ !#! 6 1 O H 5 + + / 9 J 5 O , B 7 OO ' 3 + / 9 1 + 56 O ' / 1 , 1 B 7 O 31 D 1 1 + 2

( 4 4 (

; E !$'#G M'$#H$ 7 E !$'#G M'$$'

! "#$%&'(#)%%*'(%(+) , --- ---. . ,/ 0/ 1 2 / - 3 . . 1 1 4 3 . - 2 4. 1 .-4 1. . . .1 1 .. 2 . 4. ,1 . 51 . . 1 4 1 . . .. . . 11 6 .,.* , . - / , . / 1 4 , .. 1 - 2 ./ . / 1 . -,. , 51 . . . . 7 .151 %"""

. 89 0

222 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Hill,Dee (Children and Younger Adults) [[email protected]] Sent: 29 August 2012 13:13 To: Mark James Cc: Fisher,Harriet (Environmental Services) Subject: High Peak BC Housing Development Attachments: High Peak Housing Sites - Analysis of Pupil Places Demand.xlsx

Categories: Purple Category

Hi, Mark –

I attach a spreadsheet in which the proposed sites for future housing development have been collated into groups according to the normal area primary school, an analysis of housing numbers and pupil generation is followed by a final commentary on each grouping. I hope this is helpful in understanding where development can proceed, where it might require S106 contributions, and where difficulties will arise in terms of infrastructure.

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Dee Hill Senior Assistant Education Officer (Development) CAYA Direct Line 01629 536248 Tel 01629 580000 ext 36248

Think before you print! Save energy and paper. Do you really need to print this email?

Derbyshire County Council reserves the right to monitor both sent and received emails.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7515 (20120925) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 223 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

http://www.eset.com

224 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 225 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Ian Stephenson, Strategic Director Environmental Services Department Shand House, Dale Road South Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3RY

Email:[email protected] Telephone: 01629 539 551 Our Ref: DM/Planning Obligations Your Ref: High Peak IDP Date 23 April 2013 Dear Mark James

High Peak Borough Council, Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Thank you for requesting comments from Derbyshire County Council (DCC) on the High Peak Borough Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The IDP is vital to demonstrate what infrastructure is required to deliver the growth set out in the High Peak Borough Local Plan Preferred Option to 2028. Please note that Derbyshire County Council formally commented on the High Peak Borough Council Preferred Option document on the 24th April 2013.

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan (DIP) I am writing to provide advice with regards to strategic infrastructure and service delivery. The DIP and Developer Contributions Protocol (DCP) is available to view here:

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/planning_policy/infrastructure_plann ing/default.asp

Derbyshire County Council welcomes your Council’s use of the DIP as a key source of information to inform the High Peak IDP. This provides valuable linkages for infrastructure delivery between DCC, High Peak Borough Council and their partners.

DCC welcomes the inclusion in the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule of a series of infrastructure projects, which covers strategic infrastructure delivery of education, libraries, highways, public transport, cycling and walking, household waste recycling, adult care, health care and telecommunications.

It is also encouraging to note that the High Peak Borough Local Plan Preferred Option contains policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision and Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy. These potential sources of funding need to be

226 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

carefully considered so that strategic infrastructure can be delivered in a timely manner to support growth.

In highway terms, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is helpful because it correctly identifies a potential Glossop Spur and Fairfield link road together with interventions that could emerge from the A6 corridor Transportation Study. However the IDP is lacking without any contribution mechanism to collect contributions arising from cumulative development (though it is acknowledged that CIL could potentially be adopted in the future). In some situations, south of Buxton for example, additional housing will lead to additional demand for travel. There is already a significant demand for travel both in and around the town and to wider destinations particularly the A6 corridor and Manchester conurbations. A combination of sites could cumulatively potentially generate significant volumes of traffic, which would inevitably have a significant impact over the wider highway network and therefore will require mitigation on a more strategic basis.

Annex A provides further information concerning the potential expansion of the schools set out in the IDP delivery plan.

DCC would also like to bring to your attention that the DIP is to be refreshed and following public consultation, the updated version will be submitted to DCC’s Cabinet and published this summer, if approved. As the High Peak Borough IDP is a live document, it is requested that the updated DIP is taken into account in any future update.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this response.

Yours sincerely,

Douglas Moulton Developer Contributions Environmental Services

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 227 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Annex A

Education

Increase capacity at St George Primary School, New Mills

This is a Voluntary Aided School which has recently undertaken a project to rationalise its accommodation. The site could accommodate some expansion but there would need to be careful negotiations with the Derby Diocese and Governors before this could be agreed. In Aided schools there is a different responsibility for capital development and a financial obligation on the Governing Body so this is not as clear cut as adding classrooms to an existing school.

Increase capacity at Thornsett Primary School, New Mills

The site of this school does not allow for increased capacity; to undertake this would mean the replacement of the whole school on a new site. It is unlikely that a S106 agreement would secure the required land and funding to undertake such a development.

Expansion of secondary school education, Buxton

The expansion of the secondary school in Buxton will produce some very specific and difficult challenges. There are very limited options for doing so on the existing site of the school. It may be possible to build on existing play areas and replace this with detached playing provision on the notified site across from the main school. However, this split site arrangement for school provision is not necessarily an optimum solution.

Extension of Fairfield Nursery and Infant School

This building and site has some potential for expansion of provision.

Increased capacity of Buxton Infants School

Neither the building nor the site has the potential for expansion as these are already at a level below the guidance from DfE in BB99. This increase in places could be difficult to achieve, depending on the scale of the proposed development.

228 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Extension of Harpur Hill Primary School, Harpur Hill

There is some potential for expansion of the school depending on development of an alternative access for the bus and drop off currently under discussion.

Increased capacity at St Luke’s Primary School, Glossop

This is a popular and successful primary school but there is a degree of flexibility for expansion depending on the scale of the proposed development.

Increased capacity at Dinting Primary School, Glossop

Dinting C of E (VA) school is an Aided school and, as noted above, the responsibilities for capital expansion of the school are different to those in maintained schools. There would need to be careful negotiation with the Derby Diocese and Governors before any such development could be agreed.

Increased capacity at Duke of Norfolk Primary School, Glossop

The Authority has created a single site school recently, and the Diocese is addressing the disposal of the Church Street site. The Royle Street site is appropriate for the 1.5fe school currently operating there, but there is minimal opportunity for expansion of provision here.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 229 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

230 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan – Submission Officer Comments

Education

In very broad terms, the majority of primary and secondary schools in High Peak could accommodate the additional pupils generated by the proposed development.

There are some schools, however, where expansion would be required to accommodate the additional pupils that are projected to arise from the level of development proposed in the Local Plan. These expansions could only be delivered with financial contributions from developers.

Buxton Community School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The school is located on a constrained site but there are options for expanding the school onto the existing playing fields, subject to funding and the provision of playing field facilities elsewhere. The County Council is currently considering whether alternative playing fields could be provided on a site owned by the County Council located across the road from the school. Further information will be provided to the Borough Council when the architect’s feasibility study and detailed curriculum analysis is complete.

Buxton Infant School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The County Council has considered possible options as follows.

A) Reconfiguration of the use of existing school buildings

Part of the existing school building is currently used for a private pre-school nursery. The County Council considers that moving the nursery from the school building would not provide the extra space needed to accommodate the number of additional primary school pupils. Moving the nursery from the school would not be beneficial from an educational perspective. This is therefore not the preferred solution.

B) Expand the school building on the existing school site

The school is located on a very constrained site with no potential to expand on site.

C) Other schools in the area to accommodate the additional pupils instead

The plan for Harper Hill Primary School will expand it to two-form entry (420 places) which provides a flexibility of 50 places when the school is at its lowest point in pupil projections. However, Harper Hill Primary School continues to fill from in-year admissions as people move into Buxton. The inclusion of additional allocated Local Plan sites within the normal area of Harper Hill Primary School to take pressure away from Buxton Infant School is therefore not that the preferred solution.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 231 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

D) Move the existing school to a different site and if possible expand it

The County Council has also considered scope to move Buxton Infant School to the Junior School Site. However, the school would have to remain as a two-form entry (420 places) school at that site which would not provide any additional places. This is therefore not the preferred solution.

E) Deliver a new school

Because the above options A-D are either not feasible or would not provide the additional capacity required, the County Council is of the view that the preferred option is delivery of a new half-form entry primary school as part of the Dukes Drive development, subject to provision of land and construction of the school (or a financial contribution to cover the cost of constructing the school) by the developer.

Buxworth Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss this expansion.

Chapel-en-le-Frith Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss this expansion.

Chapel-en-le-Frith High School – This school is a PFI school and any expansion would require an amendment to the existing PFI contract. Expansion to the school therefore gives rise to additional legal and management costs. The latest projections of pupil numbers indicate pupil numbers rising to above capacity over the next five years. There may be some very limited opportunity for expansion, subject to developer contributions, within the existing site area. This would likely receive objection from Sport England.

Chinley Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended.

Dove Holes CE Voluntary Controlled Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended.

Dinting CE Voluntary Aided Primary School – The school’s net capacity is 119 pupils, not 149 pupils as previously advised. Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. It may be possible to expand the school to accommodate additional pupils arising from growth within its normal area. Expansion would be subject to developer contributions covering both land acquisition (the adjacent field for example) and the cost of any expansion.

Duke of Norfolk CE Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Discussion with the

232 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Head Teacher has resulted in agreement that the school could and would support expansion to a two-form entry (420 places) school, subject to developer contributions. A full architect’s feasibility study would be commissioned when required, but the principle of expansion is agreed with the school.

Fairfield Infants and Nursery School – Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended.

Furness Vale Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The school is located on a constrained site; the site area of the school is 1,427m 2 including the building footprint. Potentially, the school could expand onto the playground but this would receive objections from Sport England and is not generally a preferred solution. The notified site was reduced to 1500m 2 when the community made their QE2 bid for designating the playing field. Therefore any replacement school would be a similar size to the existing school which would not provide additional capacity. In order to replace and expand the school with a playing field, an alternative site would need to be found.

Gamesley Community Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. An existing Section 106 Agreement is in place providing funding to extend this school. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss this expansion.

Glossopdale Community School – The County Council is currently looking to deliver a project to consolidate the school onto a single site to improve the quality of education provision. The replacement school building would provide sufficient capacity for current pupils and additional pupils anticipated from committed development known at this point in time (i.e. sites that are currently under construction or with planning permission). The design of the replacement school would allow for further expansion on the school site to accommodate additional pupils arising from future development, subject to financial contributions from developers.

Hadfield Infant School – Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The County Council has committed funding to extend this school to cope with additional demand from within the existing population. Subject to funding from developers this school could be expanded further.

Harpur Hill Primary School – Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The County Council has undertaken a feasibility study, including discussions with the school, to identify how the school could be expanded to a two-form entry (420 places) school. Delivery of this expansion would be dependent on financial contributions from developers.

Newton Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The school site is 2,971m 2 which is at the limits of the guidelines for the number of pupils at the school, particularly in

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 233 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

the context of rising pupil numbers. There is some potential to expand the school on the existing site but that expansion potential is limited and would be subject to developer contributions.

Peak Dale Primary School – Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss potential for expansion.

St. George’s Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The County Council understands that the space within the school could be reconfigured to provide additional capacity within existing school buildings, but this is a Voluntary Aided School and as such any capital work is the responsibility of the Governors in liaison with Derby Diocese.

St. James’ CE (Controlled) Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. An extension of the existing school could be possible subject to a feasibility study and funding.

St Lukes’ CE Controlled Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. The school is a system-built school (not CLASP) constructed in the 1980s. The design of the school and access makes expansion difficult but there is potential to provide additional capacity through additional standalone buildings. Any expansion would be subject to funding via developer contributions.

Taxal and Fernilee Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss this expansion.

Whaley Bridge Primary School - Additional capacity would be required to accommodate proposed growth in the normal area of this school. Subject to funding from developers this school could be extended. The County Council has met with the school’s Head Teacher to discuss this expansion.

Harriet Fisher 4 August 2014

234 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Sample of correspondence with Natural England

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 235 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

236 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 237 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

! "#

Q:$J:CC V$VJV`: 1QJV`01HV 1$.V:@Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C VC8 !6 8 VG%1 V1118.1$.]V:@8$Q08%@ WvpxQrh bhvy)WQrh 5rv p pd #6t! # %)!' Hhtv rThyyI@ 7hthyyEhh0E8 h S@)CS66qqrqCvturhxGphyQyh :CC75 .: ;%V6HVCCVJ 8+:J7 .:J@%`Q`7Q%`HQQ]V`: 1QJ:JR%11` %`J:`Q%JR8 .1JR`V$:`R%5 1H@7V:`%QJ `QI7 +:$%1`V5:CC7^1!_` I:1C Q7:CC78+:$%1`VJ: %`:CVJ$C:JR8Q`$8%@ a VJ 7 8%$%% 7 Q7 1H@7V:`%QJ %G=VH 7 !7 88RRVJR%I Q1$.]V:@9QH:CC:J %&"' ("" ) * + '$ $ " # "'+, ) #! "#" - ' )$ " " ) . / 0' 0' 1! 2 3 4" ' 5!" " 6))" 78 9:;; ; 78: ! " !!"! #R !! " " " !

238 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

()) "* +< "9 ) ($$ 2 92 2 2 2 $9" )".

% #! ! &!'""!& !#( WvpxQrh b hvy)WQrh 5rv p p d #6t! # ) & Hhtv rThyyI@ 8yh xrBhv07hthyyEhh S@)CS66qqrqCvturhxGphyQyh :CC75 .:J@7Q%0V`7I%H.`Q`7Q%`%11` `V%]QJ%V Q .V 8:RRVJR%I`V]Q` `Q` .V1$.V:@9QH:CC:J8: 1%I%H. :]]`VH1: VR8 1 .`V`V`VJHV Q7Q%`: :H.VR`V%]QJ%VCV V`:JR .VVI:1C``QIQ:$J:CCGVCQ15]CV:%VHQ%CR7Q%HQJ`1Ì .: 1: %`:C!J$C:JR1%.:]]711 . .V%V]`Q]Q%VR1Q`R1J$H.:J$V% QQC1H7!; Q` .V1$.V:@9QH:CC:J:JR .: 5 HQJ%V_%VJ C751: %`:C!J$C:JR1%.:]]711 . .VHQJHC%%1QJ%Q` .V 8- +:J7 .:J@%5 1H@7V:`%QJ 7hthyyEhhb hvy)Ehh7hthyy5uvturhxtx d 6t! # ) ( WvpxQrh 0@hEr Hhtv rThyyI@08yh xrBhv CS66qqrqCvturhxGphyQyh 1H@75 :JQ V .: :CC7.:%I:RV:`%` .V`%%V`%C%%$$V% VRH.:J$V QQC1H7!; Q` .V1$.V:@9QH:CC:J8.VQ%JH1C 11CC1JHC%RV1J .VC1% QÌ1JQÌQR1`1H: 1QJ% .V`QCCQ11J$7 :$V 78IVJR%VHQJR]:`:$`:].:%`QCCQ1%7 .1%11CCGV:H.1V0VRG77 !J%%`1J$RV0VCQ]IVJ %:0Q1R]Q VJ 1:C:R0V`%VV``VH %:JR QJC7]VÌ1 1J$RV0VCQ]IVJ % .: :`VRVVIVR ^1JR101R%:CC7Q`H%I%C: 10VC7_ Q`V%%C 1J7 8IVJR .1`R]:`:$`:].:%`QCCQ1%7 1` .V :J7`VI:1J1J$ ]Q VJ 1:C:R0V`%VV``VH %:`VI1 1$: VR Q:J:HHV] :GCVCV0VC9 +:J7 .:J@% Q Q:$J:CC V$VJV`: 1QJV`01HV 1$.V:@Q`Q%$.Q%JH1C !

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 239 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Sample of correspondence with English Heritage

James, Mark

From: Bagnall, Joanna Sent: 24 July 2014 12:11 To: James, Mark Subject: FW: High Peak Local Plan Policy EQ6 Built and Historic Environment

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

Jo Bagnall Regeneration Service High Peak Borough Council

Tel. 0345 129 7777 Ext. 3704

Website www.highpeak.gov.uk

From: SEARSON, Claire [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 August 2013 11:47 To: Joanna Bagnall Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan Policy EQ6 Built and Historic Environment

Dear Jo,

Thank you for meeting with us on Monday. We found the meeting really helpful. As promised, I attach examples of policies, as discussed in our meeting. none of these are 'perfect' but I hope give an idea of the level of detail which should go into a DM Policy.

As stated, I'm more than happy to review any drafts as they are worked up - I've done this for a number of other Council's in Derbyshire and its helpful to all (I hope!).

Kind Regards,

Claire

Claire Searson | Historic Environment Planning Adviser | Direct Line: 01777 860072 (Mon, Weds-Fri) 01604 735447 (Tues Only) Mobile phone: 07917 596058

English Heritage | East Midlands | 44 Derngate | Northampton | NN1 1UH

www.english-heritage.org.uk

From: Joanna Bagnall [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 09 July 2013 12:47 To: SEARSON, Claire Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan Policy EQ6 Built and Historic Environment

Claire, 1

240 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Thanks for your call this morning. Monday 12th August is best for us - I have booked the meeting Room at Buxton Town Hall between 10.00 and 12.00.

From High Peak there will be myself, Hilary Senior and Richard Tuffrey. Directions to the Town Hall are at:

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/document/high-peak-council-offices-location-map

See you then.

Kind regards Jo

Jo Bagnall Regeneration Service High Peak Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Buxton Derbyshire SK17 6EL

Tel. 0845 129 7777 ext. 3704

From: SEARSON, Claire [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 08 July 2013 11:21 To: Joanna Bagnall Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan Policy EQ6 Built and Historic Environment

Dear Jo,

Many thanks for your email. I'm out and about today, however just to confirm we are very pleased you wish to meet. I'm happy to travel - possibly Buxton would be preferable in terms of location, although I can be flexible if required. Will get back to you with some potential dates when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

In haste.

Claire

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 241 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Claire Searson | Historic Environment Planning Adviser | Direct Line: 01777 860072 (Mon, Weds-Fri) 01604 735447 (Tues Only) Mobile phone: 07917 596058

English Heritage | East Midlands | 44 Derngate | Northampton | NN1 1UH

www.english-heritage.org.uk

From: Joanna Bagnall [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 08 July 2013 10:21 To: SEARSON, Claire Subject: High Peak Local Plan Policy EQ6 Built and Historic Environment

Claire,

Thank you for your recent detailed comments on the emerging High Peak Local Plan. In your specific comments in relation to Policy EQ6 of the February 2013 Preferred Options Local Plan, you suggest that it would be helpful to meet us to discuss the issues raised in your representations and work together towards a resolution. You suggest that this would also meet the ‘duty to cooperate’ which is placed on councils and public bodies in relation to your specific remit for the Historic Environment.

We would be very happy to meet with you, can you suggest some possible dates in the next four weeks? Are you able to come to Buxton or Glossop?

Kind regards

Jo Bagnall Regeneration Service High Peak Borough Council Town Hall Market Place Buxton Derbyshire SK17 6EL

Tel. 0845 129 7777 ext. 3704

242 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.

Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 243 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Sample of correspondence with the Environment Agency

244 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 245 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

246 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

James, Mark

From: Bagnall, Joanna Sent: 24 July 2014 12:13 To: James, Mark Subject: FW: Revised Policy EQ9 Pollution Control 09 07 13 (2) Attachments: Revised Policy EQ9 Pollution Control 09 07 13 (2).doc

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Green Category

Jo Bagnall Regeneration Service High Peak Borough Council

Tel. 0345 129 7777 Ext. 3704

Website www.highpeak.gov.uk

From: Mayson, Angela [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 October 2013 16:32 To: Joanna Bagnall Cc: Doughty, Naomi; Telfer, Helen; Argyros, Rachel Subject: Revised Policy EQ9 Pollution Control 09 07 13 (2)

Hello Jo,

Attached is a draft of some wording that may be included in your policies in relation to WFD and water quality. Apologies that we haven’t had a straight forward way of responding to this – we are currently developing our River Basin Management Plan objectives and actions so our timing doesn’t perfectly line up. Please be aware that I am not a planner so the wording may need altering and it may be too specific.

The North West team are looking at the specific issues relating to the water bodies in their region and will contact you with these once they become available. Please be aware that our timing for finishing the objectives/actions for the next River Basin management Plan is the end of this year. More specific information will be available then.

I will give you a call tomorrow (Tuesday) to discuss this further.

Kind regards Angela

Many thanks Angela Mayson Senior Environment Officer Diffuse Pollution Mob: 07786701329

Healthy River Code . 1

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 247 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Visit our website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk Find us on Twitter @EnvAgencyMids Follow us on Facebook

Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else.

We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes.

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

Do you really need to print out this Email? Be green - keep it on the screen.

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk

248 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 249 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Correspondence with Highways Agency regarding modifications to the Local Plan and Local Plan Transport Study

250 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Our ref: Graham Broome Your ref: Asset Manager Floor 9 The Cube Local Development Framework 199 Wharfside Street Regeneration Birmingham B1 1RN High Peak Borough Council Town Hall Direct Line: 0121 678 8419 BUXTON 6 February 2014 Derbyshire SK17 6EL

Dear Sirs

HIGH PEAK LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION – ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION

I refer to your consultation letter received by e-mail on 27 December 2013 about the above.

The Highways Agency welcomes the opportunity to comment on the High Peak Local Plan Additional Consultation document. It is the role of the Agency to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and to be a delivery partner to national economic growth as set out in the Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. In this respect, the Agency’s specific interest relates to the SRN in this area, comprising the A628. The A628 trunk road provides a key cross Pennine route and a link between Glossopdale in the North East of the district and the Manchester conurbation. The link suffers from congestion and delays, particularly at the A628/A57 junction and studies are currently being undertaken in order to investigate options for an improvement scheme to be implemented. However, this would not allow for unconstrained growth and the Agency is keen to ensure that the operation of the link is not significantly impacted upon by development coming forward in the High Peak District.

The Agency notes that the Council is seeking to further increase its housing supply over the plan period. This is in light of further evidence coming forward from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which indicated that the requirement for 5,290 dwellings to be constructed over the plan period 2011-2031 was significantly too low to meet the objectively assessed need. In order for the Plan to be considered as sound, the Inspector would have to be satisfied that the housing targets meet this need. Therefore, the Agency notes that the Council proposes to deliver 360 dwellings each year over the Plan period, which is 90 more per year than previously planned and would lead to the development of 7,090 dwellings in total, with the locations of 4,923 dwellings to be found.

The Agency notes that a number of additional sites are proposed in the Glossopdale area that were not included in the previous draft of the Local Plan. There are also some sites which have had their boundaries amended since the previous draft. The Agency has no specific comments to make with regard to these sites. However, in the Glossopdale High Peak Local Plan consultation document (November 2012), to which the Agency provided a response, it is noted that as part of Option 3 which would provide 4,457 additional homes up to 2028, between 1,203 – 1,560 of these would be located in Glossopdale.

High Peak Local Plan response_2014-02-06.doc Page 1 of 2

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 251 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

Given the fact that a similar number of additional dwellings are being proposed in the updated version of the Local Plan (4,923) the Agency assumes that a similar number of dwellings would be located in Glossopdale as set out in Option 3. Should this be the case, the Agency considers that, due to the scale of development in Glossopdale and its relative proximity to the A628, the authority should undertake a transport assessment in order for the development traffic impacts to be considered within the Local Plan evidence base. The Agency would also encourage the promotion of sustainable development policies in the Local Plan and collaboration amongst local planning authorities along the A628 corridor in order to minimise the risk of cumulative traffic impacts upon the future operation of the A628.

The Agency considers that proposed development in the Buxton and the Central Area of the High Peak is sufficiently remote from the A628 to not cause significant impacts upon the SRN’s performance and has no comments with regards to the sites put forward in the Local Plan Preferred Options Additional Consultation document in these areas.

The Agency welcomes the opportunity to engage with High Peak Borough Council as the Local Plan approaches its pre-submission stage and would be happy to meet with the Council to discuss this response.

Yours faithfully

Graham Broome NDD ( Midlands) Email: [email protected]

High Peak Local Plan response_2014-02-06.doc Page 2 of 2

252 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: Watson - Quirk, Sarah [Sarah.Watson [email protected]] Sent: 02 July 2014 07:16 To: James, Mark Cc: Khokhar, Kamaljit; Broome, Graham; 'Blissett,Geoff (Economy, Transport & Environment)'; Clarke, Gavin Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Mark

This looks acceptable to me.

Regards

Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. From: James, Mark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 July 2014 14:18 To: Watson - Quirk, Sarah Cc: Khokhar, Kamaljit; Broome, Graham; 'Blissett,Geoff (Economy, Transport & Environment)'; Clarke, Gavin Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Sarah,

Thanks. I have attached some tracked changes to the Local Plan that hopefully reflects your views on how the issue should be dealt with. The Local Plan Transport Study itself will also be revised.

Are you able to confirm whether the suggested changes are sufficient?

Regards,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0345 129 7777 ext. 3643 Email: [email protected]

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 253 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

From: Watson - Quirk, Sarah [ mailto:Sarah.Watson [email protected] ] Sent: 01 July 2014 11:02 To: James, Mark Cc: Khokhar, Kamaljit; Broome, Graham Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Mark

This seems reasonable to me.

Regards

Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport. From: James, Mark [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 26 June 2014 14:44 To: Watson - Quirk, Sarah Cc: Khokhar, Kamaljit; Broome, Graham Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Sarah,

Thanks for coming back to me. The level of growth in High Peak has been fed into the Feasibility Study work, although the initial data used was out of date and underestimated housing growth. I have subsequently raised this with Patrick Moran at the Highways Agency.

Please can you confirm that I have understood your email correctly?

Are you suggesting that the Local Plan Transport Study and Local Plan itself be amended to recommend that:

254 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

• Development in the Glossopdale area be phased to coincide with the delivery of any relevant transport improvements identified in the emerging Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study? This would be managed under Policy H2. • Developers in the Glossopdale area should required to undertake their own assessment of the impact on the A57/A628

Regards,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0345 129 7777 ext. 3643

From: Watson - Quirk, Sarah [ mailto:Sarah.Watson [email protected] ] Sent: 26 June 2014 13:46 To: James, Mark Cc: Khokhar, Kamaljit; Broome, Graham Subject: RE: High Peak Local Plan

Mark

Apologies, Graham did send this through to me, and asked to respond but I have been out of the office for a while and I am just catching up.

I looked at this section of the document for Graham as this route falls within Area 12 and so is part of the network that I look at in terms of planning and future schemes.

I seem to remember that when reading the document and looking at the section that related to traffic impact of development proposals, it struck me that the impact on the A628 wasn’t really touched on and as this is a route that we know suffers from issues. If the information on development aspirations has been fed in to the Feasibility Study work that is being carried out currently (apologies but I have only seen elements of this work to date) then this will be taken in to account in the work being done. While I can accept that carrying out piecemeal junction assessments in an area that is the subject of a Feasibility study is not necessarily the best way forward, the document that and section that I looked at didn ’t touch on options for considering the impact.

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 255 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

As we don’t know what the outcome of the DfT Feasibility study will be we cannot assume that all issues along the route can be addressed in the short or medium terms and there may therefore still be a requirement for developers to look at the impact that their proposed development will have on the route, and I’m not sure from memory that this was set out in the document, although I appreciate it may be in other documents that I have not seen.

I have noted what is said below about Local Plan Policy H2 and this would certainly be a suitable approach to take once the outcomes of the Feasibility Study are known and an approach that keeps the Feasibility Study in mind and comes back to the phasing of this development and management of the impact once the outcomes are known is one the Agency could support. I think the concerns I had were down to there being no real approach to considering or managing this impact in the document I looked at, but I would certainly be happy with such an approach in relation to the A628.

Regards

Dear Graham,

As discussed during our recent telephone conversation, we have raised your representations to the High Peak Local Plan with Derbyshire County Council. Of particular interest was your request for the Local Plan Transport Study to assess the impact of development in High Peak on the Strategic Road Network, particularly the A57/A628 junction. This study has been developed jointly with Derbyshire County Council and will form the basis this authority’s Local Plan evidence base which will be presented to a future Examination in Public (EIP) of the High Peak Local Plan. Traffic impacts on the SRN from development in Glossopdale are discussed in paragraphs 5.8.27 & 28 of the study which concludes that impact of traffic on SRN that would arise from Glossopdale on the SRN across Mottram Moor would be less that 5% of existing movements.

Whilst both authorities acknowledge the concerns relating to the A628, the County Council in its capacity of the local highway authority has questioned the merits of undertaking an assessment of the A628/A57 junction at the Gun Inn as suggested by the HA as it is only one of a number of junctions across this part of the SRN. As such, it is not clear what calculation of the junction’s operational capacity would achieve, particularly as much of the congestion at the junction arises from traffic from adjacent junctions queuing through it. Furthermore, the County Council has queried whether the outcome of the ongoing Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study should inform the development of a comprehensive solution to the issues facing the SRN rather than a piecemeal capacity assessment of individual junction.

As your representation acknowledges, Local Plan Policy H2 will enable impact of development trip to be monitored. This provides a mechanism to take appropriate action in relation to the phasing of development following the completion of the Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study. This may in turn help to provide a longer term solution to the Highway Agency’s concerns regarding impact of traffic over the SRN.

We are keen to work with you to reach a satisfactory outcome for all parties. As such, we would welcome your thoughts on the above and we would be particularly keen to understand the position of your colleagues who take the lead on the A628.

As the Council is due to determine whether to submit the Local Plan at a meeting to be held on 15th July, we would like

256 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

Regards,

Mark James Planning Policy High Peak Borough Council Municipal Buildings Glossop Derbyshire SK13 8AF

Tel: 0345 129 7777 ext. 3643 Email: [email protected]

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 10004 (20140626) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 10004 (20140626) ______

High Peak Local Plan - August 2014 257 Duty to Cooperate Statement - August 2014 7 Appendix 3- Correspondence relating to Duty to Cooperate matters

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

______Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 10037 (20140703) ______

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

258 High Peak Local Plan - August 2014