COUNCIL 12 MAY 2008

Subject: Eco-town Proposal at Long Marston Lead Officer: Paul Lankester Contact on 01789 260100 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor L Topham

Summary The report outlines the Government’s Eco-town proposals and the particular proposal at Long Marston, referred to as ‘Middle Quinton’. The report presents an analysis of the proposals against the existing policy context and highlights those issues which require further assessment. Specific comments are provided on the Notice of Motion considered by Council on 21 April 2008 to assist the Council’s consideration of the motion.

Recommendation That Council notes the contents of the report and considers the following three options:

(1) To support the Notice of Motion as drafted; (2) To support the Notice of Motion, with amendment(s); (3) To reject the Notice of Motion.

1 Background/Information 1.1 The Council at its meeting on 21 April 2008 considered Notices of Motion proposed by Councillor I Seccombe and seconded by Councillor Brain in respect of the Eco-town proposal at Long Marston. The Council resolved that the Notices of Motion in respect of the Eco Town be deferred for consideration at a Special Meeting of the Council to be held on Monday 12 May 2008 when members will receive professional advice from the Chief Executive on the issues raised. 1.2 This report sets out the following issues for consideration by Council: • An outline of the Government’s Eco-town Proposals (at section 2); • A summary of the particular proposal at Long Marston (at section 3); • An analysis of the proposal against the existing policy context at regional and local level; • The infrastructure and other requirements which need further assessment and testing prior to final decisions being taken by government on the shortlisted scheme; • Specific comments on the motion submitted to Council; and, • An analysis of options for consideration by Council.

2 The Government’s Eco-town Proposals 2.1 In July 2007 the Government published its Eco-towns Prospectus alongside the Housing Green Paper. Eco-towns are intended to be a combined response to three challenges set out in the Green Paper: climate change, the need for more sustainable living and the need to increase housing supply. The prospectus invited schemes to be submitted direct to Government (on a confidential basis) from anyone (both public and private sector) who could deliver a town of 5-20,000 new dwellings that met a list of ‘eco’ criteria. 2.2 As part of this national ‘eco-towns' initiative, a proposal to develop a new settlement of 6,000 dwellings was submitted to the Government last Autumn by the private landowners of a 240 hectare site, largely comprising the former Engineers Resource Depot at Long Marston. (A plan showing the extent of the site, taken from the bid document, is attached as Appendix A). This was one of 57 bids submitted nationally. On 3 April 08, the Government published a short-list of 15 preferred locations for eco- towns that included the Long Marston proposal, referred to in the bid as ‘Middle Quinton’. (The full list is set out in Appendix B). The shortlist is contained within the Government consultation document, titled ‘Eco-towns: Living a greener future’, canvassing views by 30 June 2008 on the initiative, its benefits, scope for innovation, and 15 short-listed locations. 2.3 The consultation document seeks views on: 1) ‘the way in which the eco-towns concept is being developed and the different potential benefits that an eco-town could offer’; 2) ‘how particular features such as green-space or innovative approaches to housing can best be developed in an eco-town’; 3) ‘preliminary views on the 15 locations going forward for further assessment’, 4) more specifically, views are invited on the inclusion of ‘Middle Quinton’ in the programme; and, 5) other “potential benefits or challenges” that (the Council) would wish to see addressed for this location and whether there are particular issues which (the Council) “would like to see proposals for this location address”. 2.4 The key criteria for eco-towns, set out initially in the Eco-towns Prospectus, are reinforced in the consultation document i.e. 1) Eco-towns must be new settlements, separate and distinct from existing towns but well linked to them. They need to be additional to existing plans, with a minimum target of 5,000 homes; 2) The development as a whole should reach zero carbon standards, and each town should be an exemplar in at least one area of environmental sustainability; 3) Eco-town proposals should provide for a good range of facilities within the town - a secondary school, a medium scale retail centre, good quality business space and leisure facilities; 4) Affordable housing should make up between 30 and 50 per cent of the total through a wide range and distribution of tenures in mixed communities, with a particular emphasis on larger family homes; and, 5) A management body which will help develop the town, provide support for people moving to the new community, for businesses and to co-ordinate delivery of services and manage facilities. (NB. Government has since indicated that it will reserve the option of establishing a ‘new town development corporation’ for cases where substantial transport infrastructure investment is needed). 2.5 The essential difference between ‘eco-towns’ and existing towns, it is argued in the document, is that they present the opportunity to be radical in design and create net

benefits to sustainability rather than just mitigate negative impacts. It indicates the minimum benefits that should be provided, in particular, the following: 1) Zero carbon – over a year the net carbon emissions from all energy use within all buildings is zero by 2016; 2) Climate Change – demonstrate that the town will be sustainable under present conditions and resilient against predicted change (e.g. in rainfall, temperature, etc). 3) Water Efficiency - aim for ‘water neutrality’ i.e. water use in the general area post development is no greater than it was prior to the town being built); 4) Flood Risk – no development in high risk areas (flood zone 3) and limit medium risk areas (flood zone 2) to uses compatible with flood storage; 5) Waste Management – lead in minimising and recycling and extract value from waste on-site using state-of-the-art technologies; waste management linked to energy production; zero construction waste to landfill; off-site treatment balanced by recycled construction material; 6) Green Space & Biodiversity – demonstrate provision of high quality green infrastructure and protection of habitats, generally covering 20% of the town area; 7) More Sustainable Travel – between homes, services and jobs within the eco-town, nearby settlements and large urban areas – involving modal shift from car to public transport, walking & cycling to the extent that half the households do not rely on a car; 8) Homes improved in quality and delivery – with 30-50% affordable housing; sites for self-build groups; more flexible and higher standards of sustainable construction; 9) Jobs – harnessing the employment potential of the locality, including that of eco- technologies, with a supply of high quality business space, links to existing employment clusters in the sub-region; overcoming labour constraints by providing family housing; life-long learning opportunities through links with local universities; and, 10) Public Services – piloting and testing innovations in delivery of public services as well as making them more sustainable and responsive to climate change e.g. meeting the target for all new schools to be zero carbon rated; co-location of children & family services with schools; co-location of GP-led services with diagnostic and social care services. 2.6 This consultation is the first of four key stages in the process of establishing eco-towns through the planning process. The stages are as follows: 1) The current 12 week consultation on preliminary views on eco-town benefits and the short-listed locations. 2) Further consultation this summer on a Sustainability Appraisal, which will provide a more detailed assessment of the 15 short-listed locations, and a draft Planning Policy Statement. 3) A decision on the final list of locations with the potential to be an eco-town and the publication of a final ‘Planning Policy Statement on Eco-towns’ in Autumn 2008. 4) Planning applications for individual schemes in these locations will need to be submitted and decided on the merits of the proposal. 2.7 Annex A of the document provides further guidance on how eco-town proposals would fit with the planning process. The following aspects are highlighted for Members attention: • There is a general expectation that planning applications will be determined by the Local Planning Authority (i.e. the Council) and they could be submitted at any time; • Any planning application must be determined in the context of the planning policy framework, including the development plan and any other material considerations.

It is emphasised the Planning Policy Statement on Eco-towns will be an important material consideration ; • As regards housing numbers, Annex A emphasises the importance of increasing provision in line with the Housing Green Paper target to deliver 240,000 homes per year by 2016. There is a clear expectation that eco-towns will contribute significantly to meet targets for additional housing; and, • The consultation document “….assure(s) local authorities that include an eco-town in their future housing plans that it will, of course, contribute towards those future housing targets, which in most places are likely to be more stretching.” (Annex A, Para 6). However, the notes to editors accompanying the Minister’s 3 April 2008 press release indicate that Government will only be prepared to let local authorities with an eco-town in their area count “an appropriate proportion towards the local plan target” if their Development Plan housing provisions already go a long way towards helping to deliver the additional housing Government is seeking. (Notes to Editors, 5). 2.8 Officer Comment 2.8.1 Two key implications can be drawn from the above. Firstly where an eco-town is included in the national PPS it will be possible for planning applications to be submitted and approved even where the development plan context (i.e. the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Council’s Local Plan/Development Framework) is not supportive. This apparent move to bypass the development plan and the plan led system has attracted opposition from the Local Government Association (LGA) amongst others. Sir Simon Milton, the Chair of the LGA, has written to the Leaders of all the local authorities affected by Eco-town proposals to confirm that the LGA will be mounting a vigorous campaign to persuade Government to drop its fundamentally misconceived notion that development applications on this scale could ever be considered outside a proper plan context. (Please see Appendix C) 2.8.2 Secondly, in terms of housing numbers it is appears likely any housing provided as part of an eco-town proposal will be additional to the 5600 dwelling requirement (from 2006-2026) for the District as set out in the preferred option of the RSS Phase 2 revision.

3 The ‘Middle Quinton’ Proposal 3.1 The Consultation document includes (in Part 5) short descriptions of the 15 bids going forward for further assessment. The ‘bid’ of particular relevance to the District Council is that for the former Royal Engineers Depot and adjoining land at Long Marston, named ‘Middle Quinton’ by its promoters and landowners - St. Modwen (194 ha) and the Bird Group (46 ha). This short description is included in Appendix D, along with the map of the other short-listed locations. For comparative purposes, the description of the other short-listed ‘bid’ in the West Midlands – ‘Curborough’ at Fradley, north-east of Lichfield on the A38 to Burton-on-Trent is also appended. 3.2 In total the ‘Middle Quinton’ site comprises 240 hectares of which substantial parts are previously developed. The majority of the site is within Stratford-on-Avon District (Warwickshire), but a substantial part of the site is also within Wychavon District (Worcestershire). The site abuts the boundary with Cotswold District (Gloucestershire). The bid documentation submitted by the promoters of the site outlined an eco-town proposal which would deliver: • Over 6000 new homes; • Zero carbon standards and be an exemplar in at least one area of environmental sustainability; • A good range of facilities including, new schools, day to day retail, high quality business space, leisure and recreation facilities; • Affordable housing provision between 30 and 50%; and,

• Creation of a management body to deliver and sustain the new settlement. 3.3 Subsequent publicity has clarified the intentions of the promoters to deliver: • 3000 new jobs; and • Substantial investment in transport links and infrastructure which would secure; completion of a Stratford Ring Road, re-opening of the Long Marston to Honeybourne rail line to passengers, and a transport link to Stratford along the Greenway (maintaining pedestrian and cycle access). 3.4 To put the proposal in context, a town of 6,000 dwellings could be expected to have a population of around 14,000. This would be the second largest settlement in the District after Stratford, which has a population of 26255 and 12800 dwellings. The ‘eco-town’ could be almost double the size of Alcester (population 7564 and 3403 dwellings), the current second largest settlement in the District. 3.5 The limited information in the consultation document on the short-listed bids essentially summarises the Government’s assessment and reasons for selecting them. In relation to ‘Middle Quinton’, the potential benefits, challenges & constraints identified include, in particular: 1) “substantial employment opportunities”, claiming “the site is already a significant employment centre”; 2) “2,000 affordable housing units” in the context of high demand for rented affordable housing a low current rates of supply; 3) “ no major issues regarding the strategic road network, but the scheme would need to develop and support public transport links to surrounding centres and particularly Stratford-upon-Avon”; and, 4) a “SFRA (strategic flood risk assessment) to make sure there is no flood risk on site.” 3.6 Officer Comment 3.6.1 It is recognised that each site will be subject to detailed assessment through the Sustainability Appraisal. However the one page of A4 provides a limited and, to some extent, misleading summary: 1) Employment - The site currently provides jobs for around 500 people, but the consultation paper fails to acknowledge that the employment use of the site is subject to a temporary planning permission rather than being a permanent use. In an area of very low unemployment the need for additional jobs would be almost entirely driven by the new population associated with the new settlement. (2) Affordable Housing – The need for affordable housing is a district-wide problem in a District with a widely dispersed population. Concentration of affordable housing provision in one location may not be the most appropriate solution to address these needs. (3) Transport – ‘No major issues regarding the strategic transport network.’ This would appear to be a reflection of the remoteness of the site from the strategic road network (i.e. via C & B roads to A46 or A44). The main road access to the site is the B4632. This is a serious short-coming in the Highway Agency contribution to assessment of this location. NB. The ‘Curborough’ location is cited as having strategic road access problems (because of congestion) to the A38 dual carriageway trunk road. However unlike ‘Middle Quniton’ it is at least close to the strategic road network. (4) Flood Risk – A level 1 strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) for the District (carried out by Halcrow in connection with Local Development Framework preparation) shows that part of the ‘Middle Quinton’ site is within flood zone 3a (high probability) and flood zone 2 (medium probability) - (See Appendix E). This is clearly an issue which requires further investigation and assessment.

4 The Policy Context The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 4.1 Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands was issued by the Secretary of State in June 2004. This subsequently became the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in September 2004 and provides the strategic framework for spatial planning in the area. The RSS covers the period up to 2021 and calls for a fundamental change in direction for housing provision across the region. The RSS seeks to reverse the movement of people and jobs away from the ‘Major Urban Areas’ (MUAs) of Birmingham/Solihull, the Black Country, Coventry and the North Staffordshire Conurbation. It seeks to do this by improving the quality and increasing the quantity of jobs and homes within the MUAs, whilst restricting new housing development in the shire areas beyond the MUAs to that which largely meets local needs. 4.2 In Warwickshire, Rugby is identified as a ‘focus for development’ which could have the potential to accommodate longer term strategic housing development, the nature and timing of which will be determined through a review of RSS. Stratford-upon-Avon along with Leamington Spa/Warwick and Nuneaton are identified as ‘Other Large Settlements’ where development should be focussed to primarily meet locally generated needs. 4.3 The implication of the RSS for Stratford-on-Avon District has been reduced rates of housing provision to reflect the focus on meeting local needs, rather than providing for out-migration from the MUAs. 4.4 The existing RSS is currently going through a three-phase review. The Phase 2 Revision has now reached preferred options stage proposals. The preferred option seeks to maintain the current spatial strategy by providing for 5,600 dwellings to be built in the District over the period 2006-26. A clear strategy is set out for the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire sub-region, which indicates that ‘Development will be planned and controlled to ensure that it: a) maintains the WMRSS ‘step-change’ in the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire area i.e. minimum 50% growth to Coventry and Solihull; b) focuses growth on the North-South Corridor and Rugby; with the necessary supporting infrastructure; but that growth in North Warwickshire and Stratford-on- Avon be limited to local needs; and c) phases housing land releases to encourage regeneration in the MUAs. 4.5 Officer Comment 4.5.1 Neither the existing nor emerging RSS make provision for the development of a new settlement within Stratford-on-Avon District. The development of an eco-town at ‘Middle Quinton’ would clearly be contrary to the spatial strategy set out in the RSS (existing and proposed) both in terms of its scale and location. 4.6 Government Assessment of RSS Phase 2 Proposals Following the Regional Assembly’s submission of its proposals for the Phase 2 RSS Revision on 21 December 2007, Baroness Andrews, wrote to the Chair of the Regional Planning Partnership (7 January 2008). In her letter, the Minister pointed out that the Government was not satisfied that full account had been taken of its policy to improve affordability by increasing housing supply and it was therefore appointing consultants to look at ways of ‘topping-up’ the numbers of houses being proposed by the Assembly. The results of this separate study are not now expected until October 2008 – with the result that the Public Examination of the Draft RSS Phase 2 Revision will be pushed back into Spring 2009.

4.7 The process proposed by Government for dealing with eco-towns could preclude the Public Examination Panel from questioning either their principle or location (See Para. 2.6 above). Moreover, local authorities should not expect an eco-town’s housing numbers to be regarded by Government as contributing to their overall housing targets, unless they are identified as part of the ‘topping-up’ proposals following the Baroness Andrews’ letter (See Para. 4.6 above). Consequently, it is possible that if ‘Middle Quinton’ goes ahead, Stratford-on-Avon District may be faced with not only its current draft RSS housing figure of 5,600, but also the eco-town of figure of 6,000. This would exacerbate the conflict with and adverse impacts on the strategy embodied in the Regional Assembly’s proposals for the CSW Sub-region and undermine the RSS’s ‘step- change’ strategy of focussing most housing growth on the major urban areas. 4.8 It should also be noted that the District faces the prospect of having to accommodate some element of additional housing and employment to meet the needs of Redditch. Warwickshire Structure Plan 4.9 The strategic planning issues raised by the large redundant sites of former hospitals, airfields and military depots were recognised in the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996- 2011 (WASP). Although largely superseded by the RSS, one of the very few WASP policies which remain in force is policy GD.7, which was designed to address the issues raised by these very large ‘previously developed sites’. It specifically precludes development for strategically significant purposes that are planned to be met elsewhere in Warwickshire. Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review (Local Plan) 4.10 The Local Plan was adopted in July 2006, and is saved for a period of three years from adoption, i.e. up to July 2009. The Local Plan contains a site specific Policy CTY18, which covers the former Engineers Resource Deport at Long Marston. The text of this policy and the area it relates to is attached as Appendix F. Policy CTY 18 identifies the site as being appropriate for redevelopment and that it could be considered suitable for a major leisure use. Residential and employment development are only considered appropriate if the scale is consistent for the needs of the local population or ancillary to the eventual use of the site. 4.11 Officer Comment It is self-evident that the Eco-town proposal falls outside the scope of and is contrary to the provisions of Policy CTY.18. Emerging Local Development Framework 4.12 The Council is currently working on the development of the preferred option of the Core Strategy. An Issues and Options document was published for consultation during the summer last year. One of the broad spatial options considered was to focus development in the form of a new settlement or as a major expansion of an existing settlement. Of the six broad options consulted upon, the new settlement option was the least favoured by those responding to the Issues and Options document. 4.13 The LDF Working Group have considered spatial options for development and in the context of the levels of growth anticipated in the emerging RSS it is unlikely the development of a new settlement would form part of the preferred option for the Core Strategy. This position would only change if there was a substantial increase in the housing requirement for the District. Masterplan 4.14 Within the context provided by Policy CTY18 and the emerging Local Development Framework work had commenced on the preparation of a Masterplan for the Long Marston Estate. During the autumn of last year, two public exhibitions were held in

Long Marston and Quinton seeking views on issues and options. Four broad options were presented for comment: 1) Continuation of existing use; 2) Leisure and employment; 3) Leisure option; and, 4) Linked new settlement (around 3500 dwellings). 4.15 The eco-town proposal did not form part of this consultation exercise, and the linked new settlement was the option least favoured by the people who responded to the consultation. Conclusions 4.16 The following conclusions are drawn from the assessment of the Eco-town proposal against the context of the existing and emerging development plan: 1) The development of a 6,000 dwelling ‘eco-town’ at ‘Middle Quinton’ in the southern- most part of Warwickshire cannot be regarded as compatible with the existing or emerging development plans either at regional or local level. 2) The proposed ‘eco-town’ conflicts with the RSS’s step-change and the focus of growth at the Sub-regional level on the North-south Corridor from Nuneaton through Coventry to Warwick/Leamington and to Rugby; and, 3) There is a danger that the Eco-town could undermine the Regional and Sub-regional strategies by diverting private and public investment away from areas needing regeneration. Other Strategies 4.17 Whilst the above conclusions are presented in respect of the development plan, it is recognised the Council should consider the proposal in the context of other policies and strategies. There are a range of other strategies at regional level that would need to be considered such as the Regional Economic Strategy , the Regional Housing Strategy, and the Regional Energy Strategy . It is clear the Eco-town proposal could make a positive contribution to these strategies. Further assessment is required of the role that the Eco-town could play in both housing and employment terms as set out in section 5. 4.18 In addition to the regional strategies the Council should also consider the extent to which the proposal would support or conflict with the aims of the Community Plan and newly adopted Corporate Strategy. Given the relationship of the site with Stratford- upon-Avon town it is necessary for the Council to assess the extent to which the scheme could contribute towards the delivery of its objectives for the World Class Stratford. 4.19 In the time available to prepare this report a detailed analysis has not been possible. The Council should not however dismiss the potential benefits which the proposal could bring, such as the delivery of much needed affordable housing. These assessments rely to a large extent on the further technical work which needs to be undertaken such as the Transport Assessment, before firm conclusions can be reached. Some of the areas requiring further research are covered in section 5 below. Parish Plans 4.20 Long Marston Parish Plan was adopted in October 2007 by Stratford District Council as a local information source and a material consideration when processing planning applications. Based on consultation with residents, the Plan makes the following specific comments about the site of the proposed Eco-town: o concern about the possibility of a “village outside the village” and how this might work

o concern about increases in traffic that may arise from a new development at the site. Vehicles visiting the site currently frequently pass through the village despite signage directing them to an alternative route. o the provision of additional jobs for local people should be taken into account in any development of the site. The old Army Camp and adjacent industrial site currently provide one of the few sources of local employment. o in order to prevent the village lengthening to unsustainable dimensions the airfield and army camp should be treated as separate, distinct and largely self-contained entities in any development proposals. o an opportunity for parking provision on the site for visitors to the Greenway would be welcomed as there is limited parking space within the village. 4.21 The following general comments on development are also relevant:

• any new development must take into account the availability of local schooling as there is no school in Long Marston and some children have been unable to obtain places at Welford. • any new development must take full account of flood risk issues including surface water issues due to the location on flat land with heavy clay soils. 4.22 Clifford Chambers Parish Appraisal, adopted by the District Council in 2002, records residents’ concerns at disturbance from aircraft and events at the nearby airfield. Welford-on-Avon Parish Plan 2007 and Quinton Parish Appraisal 2002 do not refer to the site. Dorsington and Weston-on-Avon Parishes do not have an adopted Parish Plan or Appraisal. 5 Infrastructure and Other Issues Requiring Further Assessment 5.1 The amount of information currently available about the Eco-town proposal and its precise nature and impacts is relatively limited. It has to be recognised that more information is required about the details of the proposal and a more thorough assessment of its impacts is needed before the government makes a final decision. This is recognised in the consultation paper and the next stage of the process will be a more detailed assessment of the locations through the Sustainability Appraisal. This section of the report highlights those issues which it is essential for the further assessment work to address. Infrastructure 5.2 The key elements of infrastructure needed to support a new town of this scale include transport, schools, health & community facilities and the basic utilities i.e. water, electricity, gas and foul and surface water drainage. The agents for the promoters are suggesting that the developers’ contribution to infrastructure costs would be “…well in excess of £100m”. 5.3 The ‘Middle Quinton’ site is 7 miles from the nearest strategic highway and, whilst a rail link exists, it has not been proven that this could be successfully connected to the strategic rail network. Currently the site suffers from inadequate accessibility to both the strategic transport network and the local towns of Stratford and Evesham. The location of ‘Middle Quinton’ is such that it will not easily become an eco-town as far as transport is concerned, unless the necessary transport and employment infrastructure is in place before people occupy the housing. Consequently there is significant risk unsustainable and environmentally damaging patterns of travel could become established by the residents of the new town. (NB. Government is looking for dramatically reduced reliance on cars for people who live in eco-towns). 5.4 In this context a robust and thorough Transport Assessment will be an essential requirement. This will need to include the following elements:

1) Public Transport : As a matter of principle the level of public transport provision for an eco-town should be expected to be significantly higher than would be expected to serve a conventional settlement of this size – especially given the Government aspiration for half the resident households not to need access to a private car. It is essential. Therefore. that opportunities to access the site by public transport should be maximised. As a minimum the following should be considered and assessed: • Feasibility of rail services both passenger and freight, including the re- instatement of the railway line from Long Marston to Stratford-upon-Avon Station not just the existing link to Honeybourne. Should include opportunities to enhance existing stations and services; • Potential contributions to Stratford Parkway railway station and a more frequent service on the Stratford-Birmingham line; • Feasibility of bus services, particularly the links to Stratford and Evesham; • Improvement of the Greenway to provide a high quality cycle and pedestrian link to Stratford or its replacement if it used for a public transport (rail/guided bus) link; and, • Scope for provision of/ contributions to an additional park and ride in Stratford. 2) Highways: Notwithstanding the emphasis on public transport a thorough assessment is required on the impact of the scheme on the local highway network. The relationship to and impact on Stratford-upon-Avon town is critical in this respect, e.g. the impact of additional traffic on key junctions and river crossings and the need to provide additional highway infrastructure. Given the nature of the local roads serving the site there will inevitably be a need for local road improvements and contributions to traffic management costs. 5.5 The lack of existing transport facilities to build upon will have significant implications for the phasing of transport investment and service support. To give the best chance of promoting sustainable and environmentally benign travel habits it will be important that attractive and effective public transport links to and from the eco-town are in place at the start of its occupation. This will be very expensive in terms of revenue subsidy required, because at least initially the public transport will suffer low patronage levels. Prolonged and high levels of revenue support from the developers and/ or Government for public transport provision will therefore be essential. 5.6 Similarly, assessment is required of the community infrastructure required to support the Eco-town. This will include the provision of schools, health services and other community facilities together with the essential utilities to support the town. It is particularly important that community infrastructure is delivered early and is sustainable in the long-term. Flooding and Water Supply 5.7 The ‘Strategic Flood Risk Assessment’ (level 1) commissioned by the CSW Sub- region’s eight local authorities indicates there is a high probability that parts of the Depot and its surroundings site will flood (see Appendix E). The promoters are aware of the need for a detailed ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ of the site and locality to be carried out, in conjunction with the Environment Agency before any planning applications can be contemplated. This should identify what mitigation works and/or restriction of the extent of development is necessary. In addition, a ‘Water Cycle Study’ is likely to be required to demonstrate how the water supply is to be secured to the development. 5.8 The Council would expect the Eco-town proposal to adopt the latest techniques in terms of sustainable drainage in order to reduce surface water run-off into adjoining watercourses. The scheme should consider the creation of new water-bodies to assist in the attenuation of run off, and reopen watercourses that have been culverted through the site. The design of buildings on the site should incorporate features which capture rainwater and attenuate run-off such as green roofs.

Contamination 5.9 The current and former uses of the site subject to this proposal are such there is a likelihood of land contamination. For the proposed eco-town site it is necessary to ensure that any potential risks associated with contamination are properly identified and remediated. To this extent the details of a scheme to survey and assess any contamination of the site must be submitted for approval. A report of the survey results and the proposed method of dealing with any contamination found must then be submitted for approval before any development commences. Finally, a validation certificate, confirming satisfactory completion of all works specified in the approved report, must be submitted before any buildings are occupied. 5.10 The Council is aware that Defence Estates undertook a Land Quality Assessment of the site prior to its disposal. This assessment identified sources of contamination and the risk they pose. In response to the assessment Defence Estates undertook to complete the remediation of an area known as the ‘burning grounds’ prior to the sale of the site. Housing and Employment Assessment 5.11 Further work is required to determine what role the scheme would play in terms of the Housing Market, i.e. what impact would it have on affordability, and what needs would it be meeting. The proposals for employment on the site are particularly vague and a more detailed understanding is required on the nature of the jobs to be provided and the role the site would play in the sub-regional economy. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) 5.12 A whole range of additional issues should be addressed by the SA, these include issues such as landscape and visual impact, and impacts on the historic environment, ecology and biodiversity. As a minimum the SA should address all the themes set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Framework which the Council has prepared for its LDF (see Appendix G). Capacity of the Site 5.13 To date the promoters have not demonstrated that the 240 ha. site of the ‘Middle Quinton’ proposal is big enough to provide sufficient land for a sustainable balance of employment, education, parks, shopping and other community services as well as 6,000 dwellings. In addition, space for development is likely to be affected by flood prevention & mitigation areas and the provision of on-site renewable energy features may tend to keep housing densities down. A detailed ‘land budget’ is required to demonstrate the capacity of the site. Financial viability / deliverability 5.14 This must be a key test for the proposal, and it is understood that the Government will be commissioning independent consultants to test the financial viability of each proposal. The ‘Middle Quinton’ proposal will need to demonstrate that it can support all the items of infrastructure and contributions which are likely to be sought through a section 106 agreement, whilst providing homes which are affordable and meet the exacting ‘eco’ credentials set out in the prospectus. This also needs to be sustainable in the long term with adequate provision for ongoing revenue support for the community facilities and infrastructure. 6 Officer Comments on the Notice of Motion 6.1 The full text of the Notice of Motion considered by Council on 21 April is reproduced in the Council agenda. The following comments are made in response to each of the numbered paragraphs in the Notice: 1. Consultation with local communities – the current consultation is Government led and it is open for all local communities to respond to the consultation. The Council is happy to receive any submissions made, which could inform its own response.

No specific community consultation is planned by the Council, but we will be leading on the preparation of a Communications Plan on behalf of partner authorities. 2. Joint Member Group – This has been established and a provisional date of 16 May has been identified for the first meeting. 3. Consultation with partners – The joint officer group of the six authorities has been established to support the Member Group. This group is already pursuing partnership working to address the infrastructure and service delivery requirements associated with the Eco-town proposal. 4. Housing waiting list – The total number of households on the list as at March 2008 are 2550. Of these 76 have maximum (150) points and are defined as people in housing crisis. There are a further 9 households with an immediate housing need (101-149 points) and 72 households having an urgent need (61-100 points). It should be noted however that housing need is not limited to those on maximum points. The Joint Housing Assessment for South Warwickshire provides robust evidence of high levels of unmet housing need. This is corroborated by a similar assessment undertaken for the South Housing Market Area. 5. Housing allocation figures – The comment is noted but it is likely that the Eco-town would be additional to the existing housing requirement for the district and any reduction in housing numbers elsewhere is at best uncertain. 6. Housing reduction in Worcestershire – This aspect of the motion is unclear and as such appears to be erroneous. There is no suggestion that any allocation of housing proposed for Worcestershire could be reduced as a result of this proposal. 7. Mix of housing – This aspect is supported as it will be essential for the Eco-town to create a mixed and balanced community. 8. Business development assessment – Agree that it is important for further assessment to be undertaken of both the scale and nature of the jobs to be provided and the role the site would play within the sub-regional economy. 9. Transport Infrastructure – It is agreed that more details of the proposals are required and that a rigorous transport assessment be undertaken. 10. Disastrous impact on Stratford – It is not considered that this statement can be validated, given the information available at this time, particularly in relation to the Regional Spatial Strategy housing allocation and detailed transport and community infrastructure proposals. 6.2 This report has highlighted there is substantial assessment work to be undertaken and that more details of the proposals are required. In this context members are advised to carefully consider the legal advice given below before deciding whether to adopt the wording in the final paragraph of the Notice of Motion. 6.3 Further work is required in order to present a response to the current consultation, but it should be borne in mind that this consultation is in itself ‘preliminary’ and more detailed assessment will follow. It is intended that the response to the consultation will be considered at a further meeting of Executive and Council prior to the June deadline. 7 Implications of the proposal 7.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 7.1.1 The consultation paper invites preliminary views on the Middle Quinton proposal and this report provides members with sufficient information upon which a rational decision can be made by the Council as to whether it supports or opposes the designation of this site based on the information currently available. It is in the nature of the proposal and the manner in which the government are consulting upon it that further information will be available to the Council following the publication of the sustainability appraisal and

the policy statement, and the Council must be prepared to consider its position in the light of this. 7.1.2 The motion before Council invites, amongst other things, the Council to "oppose the proposal and confirm its support to local communities fighting to stop the site being placed on the final list”. As stated above, there is no reason in law why the council should not pass such a resolution if it so minded. However, members who may subsequently be called upon to determine a planning application in relation to the site must consider the risk of predetermination. An advice note was circulated at the last Council setting out what members can and cannot do in this regard and having considered this advice the members who may be in this position can take one of three courses of action: (1) If the member has genuinely made up their mind, they may participate in the debate and vote but should not seek to take any part in any subsequent planning meeting. (2) If the member is minded towards a particular outcome based on the information available, but has not made up their mind, then they have the option, but not an obligation, to abstain. (3) If the member is minded towards a particular outcome based on the information available, but has not made up their mind then, subject to what is said in the following paragraph, they may debate the matter and take part in the vote. 7.1.3 In relation to option (3) the motion invites a definitive rejection of the proposals. By supporting this proposal without further qualification, members who may be involved in the planning decision may have given the appearance of predetermination. Accordingly, it is advisable for those members who fall within category 3 to set on the record that their participation and vote is based on the information currently available, but that they will reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of all available information at the planning committee. As previously advised, members who take this option must still avoid comments that are so forcefully in support or opposition to the proposal that regardless of the above statement, the reasonable member of the public would think that they had made up their mind once and for all. 7.2 Financial 7.2.1 Regardless of the position adopted by the Council towards the proposal, the authority needs to be fully involved and indeed leading the assessment work which will take place between now and October. It is anticipated that by the time this report is considered by Council, a request will have been submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government, to secure revenue funding to support the project management, coordination and technical assessment work required. This funding would be on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. 7.2.2 As noted in the report a key test of the proposal will be its financial viability and the ability to deliver the key elements of infrastructure. 7.3 Environmental 7.3.1 Environmental impacts will be considered fully in the Sustainability Appraisal, alongside the economic and social impacts of the proposal. 7.4 Corporate Strategy 7.4.1 As set out in the report, a full assessment is required in the light of the further work to be undertaken such as the SA and the Transport Assessment. 7.5 Equality Impact Assessment 7.5.1 These are difficult to assess at this stage, but it is anticipated that any Eco-town will

meet a wide range of needs across the whole community, and be designed to ensure equality of access to services and facilities. 8 Risk Assessment 8.1 There are many risks associated with this proposal, and the further assessment work which has been identified will help to clarify these and consider how they can be minimised or mitigated. Key issues for Members to consider include: 1. Should the proposal proceed, there is a risk of prejudice to the strategies of both the existing and emerging development plans at regional and local levels. 2. Should the proposal not proceed, there is the risk of the site not delivering some of the potential advantages associated with the proposal, such as affordable housing, and the elements of transport and other infrastructure, which could have wider community and District benefits. 3. The Council needs to be mindful of the predetermination issues set out in the legal section of this report. Whilst it is expected the Council will be the decision maker as the local planning authority, there is a risk that this power could be taken away. 9 Other Information 9.1 Members are advised that the Council has received a proposal for the development of the Long Marston Aerodrome, a site approximately half a kilometre from the eco-town site. This proposal includes the provision of 2,500 houses. While not directly relevant to the debate on the Notice of Motion, this information is provided to ensure members are aware of all major proposals in the area. 10 Conclusion/Options 10.1 This report aims to provide a context within which the Council can fully consider the Notice of Motion submitted at the meeting on 21 April. Inevitably, given the time constraints, it is ‘work in progress’. The report has highlighted many areas in which further information is required and more detailed assessment work needs to be undertaken. It is in this context that Members should carefully consider the following options: Option 1 – To support the Notice of Motion as drafted. Option 2 – To support the Notice of Motion, but with amendment(s) Option 3 – To reject the Notice of Motion.

Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Background papers: Eco-towns Prospectus – Department for Communities and Local Government (July 2007) Middle Quinton – A New Eco-town Community – St Modwen and the Bird Group (October 2007) Eco-towns – Living a Greener Future - Department for Communities and Local Government (April 2008)

APPENDIX A

Extract from the ‘Middle Quinton’ Bid Document showing the extent and location of the site

APPENDIX B

Full short-list of Eco-town preferred locations published by Department of Communities and Local Government on 3 April 2008

1. Bordon, Hampshire 2. Coltishall, Norfolk 3. Curborough, Staffordshire (i.e. Fradley) 4. Elsenham, Essex 5. Ford, West Sussex 6. Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire 7. Imerys, Cornwall 8. Leeds city region, West Yorkshire 9. Manby, Lincolnshire 10. Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire 11. Middle Quinton, Warwickshire (i.e the former MOD base and adjoining land at Long Marston) 12. Pennbury, Leicestershire 13. Rossington, South Yorkshire 14. Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire 15. Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire

APPENDIX C

Dear Leader

ECO-TOWNS

I write to let you know our reactions to the contents of today’s Government announcement on eco-towns.

I believe it is imperative to build the additional homes that this country needs and that the eco-town concept could lead the way in getting this to happen with lower carbon emissions and other environmental benefits. It is good that the Government has apparently abandoned some of the more far-fetched schemes which developers had been promoting, and I know that some of the schemes in play are being supported by their local councils. However, my concern is that the CLG document contains some extremely ill-conceived proposals about how such schemes might be delivered through the planning system. Our strong representations over recent days have resulted in some aspects of those proposals being dropped, but the Government has unfortunately not as yet accepted that it cannot bypass normal planning processes.

Today’s announcement leaves the option open that eco town proposals that are not currently envisaged in or compatible with local or regional plans may nevertheless go forward as planning applications. A new national planning policy statement on eco towns is to be produced allowing eco towns to be approved despite the absence of a local or regional plan context for them. However, the criteria the Government may adopt to decide whether or not to bypass local democratically accountable decision-making in this way is not clearly stated. This is in breach of the Central Local Concordat signed by myself and Hazel Blears in December 2007, and clear undertakings a CLG made to a meeting of the Rural Commission on 11 March.

I do not think that the infrastructure and wider economic and social considerations for new settlements of up to 20,000 homes can be dealt with in this way, above all if they are to be exemplars of sustainability. The government’s intended approach carries a strong risk that eco towns will not be the sustainable communities we all wish to see.

If you are supporting a scheme in your area, I wish you well with it, and we would like to publicise it as an example of councils driving environmentally sustainable new development. If you are opposed to a scheme in your area, rest assured that LGA will be mounting a vigorous campaign to persuade government to drop its fundamentally misconceived notion that development applications on this scale could ever be considered outside a proper plan context. We would be interested to hear from you if you wish to join us in campaigning against such proposals. The officer contact for this is Sandra Brown, Policy Consultant (020 7664 3231) [email protected] . Matt Nicholls in our media team (020 7664 3053) [email protected] would be glad to talk about our national media activity and co- ordinating it with any local activity you may be undertaking.

Yours sincerely

Sir Simon Milton Chairman of the Local Government Association APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

West Midlands – MIDDLE QUINTON Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

Description The eco-town proposal comprises a 240ha brownfield site 6 miles to the SW of Stratford upon Avon between Long Marston and Lower Quinton. It is a former MoD Engineers depot with extensive warehousing, a rail system and a rail (freight use) connection to the main Worcester-Oxford-London line.

Proposed benefits A scheme of at least 6,000 zero carbon homes on previously developed land, with substantial employment opportunities, affordable housing and community infrastructure, including up to four schools, health care and retail facilities and high quality public transport links to surrounding towns and villages, all supported by leading edge environmental technology. [ Housing Affordability Pressure – Very High.

The scheme would deliver 2,000 affordable housing units in comparison with current delivery of 170 annually and 3,000 households on waiting list. Stratford experiences very high levels of demand for rented accommodation in relation to its role as an international destination – an issue recognised in the Stratford World Class vision initiative.

Initial summary of challenges and constraints Environment The scheme will need to be developed with design sensitivity to its setting close to Cotswolds AONB and suitable mitigation measures. Would look for an SFRA to make sure there is no flood risk on site. Capacity of existing sewage network unlikely to be able to cope. The scheme will need to include a contaminated land survey and to carry out remediation sustainably.

Transport No major issues regarding the strategic transport network but the scheme would need to develop and support a substantial improvement to public transport links to surrounding centres and particularly Stratford upon Avon.

Employment The site is already a significant employment centre with scope APPENDIX D

for expansion around proposed eco-town technologies including recycling and sustainable construction. Conservation and historic constraints Historic settlements, listed buildings and landscape issues would need to be safeguarded and enhanced as the scheme is developed.

West Midlands – CURBOROUGH Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire County Council

Description The eco-town proposal is for a 314ha site, 7 km NE of Lichfield, part of former Fradley airfield and is 15km from Burton and 35km from Birmingham. Two existing residential communities lie to north and east – Fradley Village and South Fradley. A brownfield site with hardstanding and old airfield buildings. The potential for major new development in this broad location was previously identified in the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 although the relevant policy was not saved.

Proposed benefits A new community comprising 5,000 dwellings, secondary and primary schools, commercial, retail and community facilities; a new A38 junction, two new road links to Lichfield, a park and ride, and pedestrian/cycle provision; Eco-energy Park, and sports facilities.

Housing Affordability Pressure – Very High. An eco-town scheme would supply around 2,000 affordable houses over 10 years in comparison with recent annual supply in Lichfield of 100 and a housing waiting list of 3,000 households.

Initial summary of challenges and constraints Environment There are high existing environmental pressures in the area which transport infrastructure for the scheme would need to take into account. Some flooding issues (two watercourses run through the site). Issue with water quality. Lichfield waste water treatment infrastructure would need upgrading.

Transport The scheme will need to develop proposals for sustainable and high quality public transport links to the eco-town, particularly taking account of existing APPENDIX D

congestion. The A38, in particular, would require a strategy to cope with additional traffic generated from the development.

Employment 7,000 jobs will be achieved from development at Fradley Park employment area (one of the largest employment areas in West Midlands), with potential for further growth which could reduce travel to work problems. Conservation and historic constraints Airfield and listed buildings. Historic canal features bordering the site will need to be safeguarded. APPENDIX E

Flood Risk Map Extract – Long Marston Depot area

Source: Stratford-on-Avon District Council – Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Level 1 (Jan 2008) by Halcrow Group Limited.

APPENDIX F

Text of Local Plan Policy CTY18 7.48 Engineer Resources Depot, Long Marston Policy CTY.18 The redevelopment of the former Engineer Resources Depot at Long Marston, as shown on the Proposals Map, is considered appropriate provided that: (a) the proposed development deals with the site on a comprehensive basis; (b) the proposed development does not provide for needs accommodated elsewhere in the Plan; and (c) the proposed development does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan. The site is, subject to the assessment of the other matters set out in this policy, considered suitable for a major leisure village. In addition or alternatively, other specific forms of development may be considered, taking into account the criteria outlined above and other relevant issues. For the avoidance of doubt, residential or employment development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site. For all forms of development proposed in respect of the site the following factors must be addressed in assessing the impact of a particular proposal: (a) the need for comprehensive structural landscaping around and within the site, to be implemented as an integral component of any development, and arrangements for its long-term maintenance; (b) the provision of an effective public transport service linking the site with Stratford-upon- Avon, including (where possible) the utilisation of the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line; (c) the findings of a Transport Assessment which will be required to be submitted as part of any comprehensive development proposal; (d) the impact of buildings, activities and associated features on views across the site, particularly from public vantage points around the periphery of the site and from Meon Hill; (e) the extent to which existing properties and land uses would be affected and the need to mitigate satisfactorily any adverse impacts; (f) the relationship of any tourist or leisure related attraction to the function of Stratford-upon- Avon and the nature of any impact it would have on the existing tourism facilities in the town and in the neighbouring area; (g) the potential effect on natural features within and adjacent to the site and the opportunity to enhance such features; (h) the retention and enhancement of the extensive open landscape areas and woodland plantations within the site as an integral part of any development scheme; and (i) the removal of all existing buildings and structures on the site to be phased with the redevelopment (if any), apart from those which are capable of beneficial use within the proposed form of development. Development proposals will need to be supported by a Masterplan for the approval of the District Planning Authority in consultation with the owners of the site, local communities, neighbouring local authorities and other interested parties. [see Inset Map 5.3] APPENDIX F

Explanation 7.48.1 The final closure of the Depot by the Ministry of Defence in 1999 has raised the issue of what alternative uses would be appropriate on this extensive tract of land. The site extends to some 190 hectares, containing woodland and fields as well as significant areas of development. It is situated about eight kilometres south-west of Stratford-upon-Avon on the B4632. The prominent feature of Meon Hill lies to the south, marking the fringe of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 7.48.2 The District Council liaised closely with the Ministry of Defence Estates and the County Council over the future use of the site. A wide range of land use proposals have been considered, including various substantial single uses such as a film studio, national sports facility or holiday complex. To date, no leisure or tourist use has been attracted to the site. 7.48.3 The overriding factor in considering the appropriateness and merits of any scheme is the manner in which the Warwickshire Structure Plan (WASP) provides a strategic position on the matter. It is clear in Policy GD.7 of the WASP that the scale of residential or employment development on large ‘brownfield’ sites in rural locations should not be promoted as an alternative to locating development in existing urban areas. It is on that basis that the District Planning Authority maintains that the scale of residential and employment development should be consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site. 7.48.4 Having regard to the strategic planning context an appropriate form of use of the site could lie within the tourism and leisure sectors. However, because of the uncertainty over the nature of any development which might be promoted, the view is taken at this stage that the site should not be allocated but that an ‘enabling’ policy should be incorporated into the Local Plan. 7.48.5 The resulting policy sets out the wide range of factors to be taken into account in considering the merits and impact of a proposal. Of particular significance is the relationship of the site to Stratford-upon-Avon and the importance of establishing effective transport links between the two, including the scope to utilise the line of the former Stratford to Cheltenham railway. The redevelopment of the site presents a significant challenge with regard to issues such as traffic management, layout and design, relationship with nearby settlements and services, provision of public transport to the site, management of the ecological assets of the site and the structural landscaping that will be required to protect the amenity of the local area. A comprehensive assessment of all the above factors will be an essential requirement of any development proposal. This assessment will be essential to identify adequate mitigation measures to enable the objectives of the Local Plan to be met. 7.48.6 In accordance with the guidance set out in PPG13: Transport (2001), a Transport Assessment should be submitted in support of development proposed by this policy. The Transport Assessment should include the accessibility of the site by all modes of transport, the likely modal split of journeys to and from the site, the measures proposed to mitigate transport impacts and the measures proposed to improve access by public transport, walking and cycling. The likely traffic movements generated on the B4632 to the north and south of the site and on the minor road network in the area will be a key consideration in the assessment of any proposal. 7.48.7 A Masterplan will be required to reconcile all the issues raised by the prospective redevelopment of the site. An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be submitted with any planning application depending on the scale of the development promoted and its potential impact on features of acknowledged importance. 7.48.8 The ecological value of this site has been recognised by Warwickshire Museum through its designation as an Ecosite, parts of which are considered to be of substantive value in terms of PPG9: Nature Conservation (1994). The impact of development on ecological features and protected or notable species needs to be fully assessed. Opportunities to enhance such features should also be identified. 7.48.9 A Green Transport Plan will also be required, in accordance with Policy IMP.7, to manage the travel needs of those employed at and visiting the site.

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

The Sustainability Appraisal Framework for Stratford-on-Avon District THEME OBJECTIVES DEVELOPING THRIVING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Participation Provide opportunities for communities to participate in thriving and contribute to the decisions that affect their sustainable neighbourhoods and quality of life communitie s Crime Reduce crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour Health Improve health and reduce health inequalities by encouraging and enabling healthy lifestyles as well as protecting health and providing health services Poverty Tackle poverty and disadvantage, taking into account the particular difficulties of those facing multiple disadvantage Access Promote and improve access to services and opportunity, including education and lifelong learning, leisure, employment, health; and ensure that access is equitable, regardless of location, income, lifestyle or background Culture & Improve opportunities to participate in the cultural and recreation recreational activities that the District can offer Housing Provide decent and affordable housing for all, of the right quantity, type, tenure and affordability for local needs, in clean, safe and pleasant local environments Population Balance the needs of local people and visitors, and establish the District as both a self-sufficient District for residents and a high quality place for visitors. ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT Historic To enhance, preserve and protect sites, features and Environment and areas of archaeological, historic and cultural heritage importance, to protect, enhance and manage the rich Cultural Heritage diversity of cultural and built environment and archaeological assets, preserve, protect and enhance conservation areas, listed buildings, archaeological remains, historic parks and gardens and their settings and other features and areas of historic and cultural value, identify, assess and incorporate the physical, social, economic and environmental value of the historic environment in the regeneration of the district and to improve and broaden access to, and understanding of, local heritage, historic sites, areas and buildings. Landscape Protect, enhance and manage the character and appearance of the landscape and townscape, maintaining and strengthening local distinctiveness and

APPENDIX G

THEME OBJECTIVES sense of place, and to achieve high quality and sustainable design for buildings, spaces and the public realm sensitive to the locality. Environmental Value, enhance and protect the District’s environmental Assets assets, including the natural and built environment and environmental heritage

Biodiversity Value, restore, enhance and protect biodiversity Land use Encourage development that optimises the use of previously developed land and buildings and creates high quality built environments incorporating high quality green space, design and encouraging biodiversity Urban Encourage urban development that improves the quality of the urban environment as a whole in order to stem Development the unsustainable decentralisation of people, jobs and other activities away from urban areas Stewardship Encourage local stewardship of local environments Pollution Minimise air, water and soil pollution level Climate change Minimise the District’s contribution to the causes of climate change while implementing a managed response to its unavoidable impacts ENSURE PRUDENT AND EFFICIENT USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES Energy Reduce overall energy use through increasing energy efficiency, and increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources Conservation Conserve use of natural resources such as water and minerals Standards Promote and ensure high standards of sustainable resource-efficient design, construction and maintenance of buildings Planning Ensure the location of development makes efficient use of existing physical infrastructure and helps reduce need to travel, especially by private car, allocate land for development in sustainable locations, and enhance the character of the District. Transport Encourage modal shift away from private car use and reduce the production of pollutants and congestion from transport while creating good accessibility for all people in the District Waste Encourage and enable waste minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery to divert resources away from the waste stream

APPENDIX G

THEME OBJECTIVES Local Sourcing Encourage local sourcing of goods and materials, and rural economic growth. DEVELOPING A FLOURISHING, DIVERSE AND STABLE ECONOMY Growth Achieve sustainable economic growth and prosperity for the benefit of all the District’s inhabitants Employment Create high quality employment opportunities suited to the changing needs of the local workforce, whilst recognising the value and contribution of unpaid work Investment Promote investment in future prosperity Skills Encourage ongoing investment and engagement in learning and skills development Innovation Encourage a culture of enterprise and innovation Technology Promote and support the development of new technologies, especially those with high value and low impact Responsibility Encourage corporate social and environmental responsibility, with local organisations and agencies leading by example Tourism Enhance the visitor experience and ensure Stratford in particular and the District as a whole establishes itself as a World Class place for tourists