Report

meeting Council

date 19th June 2008 agenda item number

REPORT OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Consultation Paper on “Eco-towns: Living a greener future”, April 2008

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Council’s response to “Eco-towns: Living a greener future – a consultation paper”, to be sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG).

Introduction and Background

2. The Government has recently produced a consultation on a shortlist of potential Eco-towns, together with the process by which it will be decided whether they are appropriate proposals.

3. The Government intention is for Eco-towns to offer the opportunity to achieve high standards of sustainable living while also maximising the potential for affordable housing.

4. The Government has announced 15 proposals to go through to the next stage of assessment to become eco-towns. The Government indicates that they are designed to meet three pressing challenges – the housing shortage and affordability, climate change and sustainable living.

5. The aim is for up to 10 new settlements to be built, with construction underway by 2010. This consultation seeks views on the key criteria that eco-towns will have to meet in the more detailed assessments that the 15 proposals will face. This will be followed by a new Planning Policy Statement on Eco-Towns in the Autumn.

6. Rushclffe Borough has been identified as an area for an, as yet unspecified, potential location for an Eco-town. One proposal put forward by private landowners at Kingston–on-Soar has been rejected, but uniquely, the Government wishes to investigate further the possibility of an Eco-town in the Borough. Another proposal on the northern boundary of the County, at Rossington, three miles south of Doncaster, is also in the shortlist.

Page 1 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 1 30 09 21 7. The current consultation document seeks the public's views on the vision for eco-towns and the shortlisted proposed locations. The consultation closes on 30 June.

The Eco-town consultation paper

8. The government issued an Eco-towns Prospectus in July 2007 which invited proposals for new small towns. These would become exemplars of sustainable development and living. Thus an Eco-town would: − be separate and distinct from existing towns with a minimum of 5,000 homes − meet zero carbon standards and set standards for environmental sustainability − provide the range of local facilities needed in a small town − be co-ordinated and developed by a management body.

9. Fifty seven sites were submitted as a result of the prospectus, of which 15 locations from those submitted have been shortlisted.

10. The Government consider that the opportunity to design settlements as a whole should allow new ideas to be tested, with standards of design that recognise and reduce the impact of developments on the environment. There is particular emphasis on the techniques and technologies that could be piloted at a whole-town scale. There will need to be different approaches to meet the local circumstance of each eco- town location. However there are some key features, summarised here, that will be expected in all of them.

11. The development as a whole should be zero carbon, which means over a year the net carbon emissions from all the buildings energy use are zero.

12. Water management will be important in terms of both water stressed and flood risk areas. Water efficiency and conservation should be considered.

13. Eco-towns should be exemplars for waste management, through minimising, recycling and extracting value from waste. This includes the construction stage.

14. Green infrastructure should be integral to the new development; it should be interconnected and include native habitats and a range of green spaces, in particular allotments.

15. The development should reduce reliance on the car using sustainable travel, the co-location of services within 10 minutes walk of homes, priority for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and facilities for home working. Public transport needs to be well-connected (in and out of the eco-town).

Page 2 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 2 30 09 21 16. An employment strategy would introduce high quality business space, the potential of green technology, and linkage to employment opportunities, training and skills development.

17. Other characteristics are: • making good use of brownfield and surplus public sector land; • effectively addressing flood risks, air quality, water efficiency, and waste issues; • low and zero carbon energy sources nearby; • between 30% and 50 % affordable housing, focusing on family homes; • a management body to co-ordinate town and community development; • community building and empowerment to create a ‘vibrant and sustainable community’; • innovative education, health and other services that are shaped to the communities needs; • construction to Code for Sustainable Homes standards; • resilient to future climate change effects in the area; • master-planning and high design standards; • promoting healthier lifestyles through “Active Design” principles.

18. Any eco-town proposal will still require a planning application to the local planning authority to gain final approval. However, in some cases the development will not fit within the current regional and local planning policy framework.

19. The Government wants to develop a planning policy framework for eco- towns and to indicate those locations that have the potential to be an eco-town; it intends to consult on a new Planning Policy Statement for the consideration of eco-towns in the Autumn. This will be a material consideration when dealing with eco-town planning applications. There will need to be a full sustainability appraisal for each of the eco-town schemes. The Secretary of State will still have the power to “call in” a planning decision.

20. The consultation also indicates that housing provision within eco-towns will need to be additional to existing plans, but may help to meet future revised targets within host districts. These revised targets may be those introduced at the next stage (proposed changes) of the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) expected now in June, or await the review of the RSS that the Regional Assembly intends to commence later this year, for completion in 2010.

21. The Consultation Paper gives a range of examples and ideas of the components of sustainable master-planning and building design that eco-towns are expected to include. It also contains advice on the role of an Eco-towns Challenge Panel who will input into the design at the selected locations.

Page 3 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 3 30 09 21 22. Of the 15 potential sites, one is within and one close to its northern boundary. The submitted site in has been rejected, but the Government is proposing to carry out a further review in partnership with Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) to consider whether there is a suitable alternative location with the potential to be viable within the Rushcliffe local authority area (See Appendix B). A site has been shortlisted for a 15,000 home eco-town on a former mine at Rossington, south of Doncaster, about 6km from the County boundary.

Summary of County Council comments

23. The County Council’s comments (see Appendix A) fall into four broad areas: the sustainability principles behind Eco-towns, the processes the Government is introducing, the principle of locating Eco-towns and the shortlisted locations.

Design principles of Eco-towns

24. The County Council can give its support to the wide range of development criteria, sustainable design principles, innovative technologies, and best practice examples that eco-towns should incorporate. Indeed, the County Council is at the forefront of implementing many innovative initiatives, such as locally sourced wood- fuel for schools and public transport accessibility development.

25. However, the principles themselves do not require free standing settlements to demonstrate, or deliver excellent sustainable outcomes. Furthermore, Eco-towns, separate from existing towns and cities may compromise some current good practice and planning. It would be better to identify locations in the existing Three Cities Growth Point for the development of Eco-town principles.

Process for establishing eco-towns

26. The Government’s process for establishing eco-towns has avoided the regional and local dimensions of spatial planning strategy and policy development. There is no regard for the present RSS process, and the process potentially imposes large scale new development on localities with little regard to evidence, the existing spatial vision and policy, need for additional housing, and the concerns of stakeholders and communities. In addition, there are real concerns that the process by- passes local decision-making and views.

Eco-towns in principle – location and strategy

27. There is currently no robust evidence that eco-towns are required to meet growth targets in the East Midlands. The required growth can be accommodated within the regional strategy of urban concentration. Development in unsustainable locations, however well designed, of the scale of many of the proposed Eco towns means that the ability of those

Page 4 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 4 30 09 21 towns to be self-sufficient enough to become carbon-neutral must be questionable.

28. The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy is the right place to determine the need for and location of freestanding new settlements in Nottinghamshire, and, therefore, the East Midlands. This will account for the wider spatial implications, using sound planning processes and considering spatial development options.

The Eco-town proposal in Nottinghamshire

29. The choice of Rushcliffe for focusing a search for an eco-town location is arbitrary. There needs to be a proper appraisal of the whole of the Core Housing Market Area (HMA) plus areas to the North to establish whether a suitable location exists, and how it would deliver the objectives of the overall strategy, or compare to other options for development (e.g. expanded settlements or urban extensions).

Conclusion

30. The County Council can endorse the vast majority of the objectives for eco-towns, aside from their locational criteria. In the light of the recent PPS1 supplement “Delivering Sustainable Development”, the County Council believes that all new development of substance should meet the same criteria and aim to meet the good practice described if the challenges of climate change are to be met.

31. However, the principle of free-standing settlements of this scale being sustainable is questionable. The current shortlist was produced in an arbitrary way and directed to short-term housing needs without local or regional evidence. This is particularly so concerning the proposal relating to Nottingham.

32. Any proposal relating to the Nottinghamshire should be considered (a) in the light of the RSS Review, commencing in September 2008, (b) with proper strategic assessment in the light of anticipated levels of housing growth and alternative options for development. The County Council, in its role as a Section 4(4) authority supporting Regional Plan and LDF preparation, would be willing to support this assessment, in the proper strategic context.

Major Planning Applications in Rushcliffe

33. Rushcliffe Borough Council has consulted the County Council on major planning applications at Sharphill Woods, Edwalton; Colliery; Hollygate Lane, Cotgrave and Tollerton Airfield. These will be the subject of a separate report to Cabinet.

Page 5 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 5 30 09 21 Recommendation

It is recommended that the response of the County Council to the consultation on Eco-towns, as set out in Appendix A, be sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG).

COUNCILLOR DAVID KIRKHAM Leader

Legal Services Comments This decision falls within the delegation to Council [NAB 19.05.08]

Director of Resources’ Financial Comments The contents of this report are duly noted, there are no direct financial implications arising. DJK 18.05.08

Background Papers Available for Inspection None

County Electoral Divisions Affected All.

Page 6 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 6 30 09 21 Appendix A

RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S “ECO-TOWNS: LIVING A GREENER FUTURE” CONSULTATION PAPER

Eco-towns in principle – design

1. The County Council can give considerable support to the wide range of development criteria, sustainable design principles, innovative technologies, and best practice examples that eco-towns should incorporate.

2. However, the only justification for promoting Eco-towns per se appears to be as exemplars for these principles. The principles themselves do not require free standing settlements to demonstrate, or deliver excellent sustainable outcomes. Indeed, the best practice examples in the Consultation Paper are all within existing urban areas. There is a strong argument that all development should attain the exemplar standards that are being promoted through Eco-towns.

3. The County Council is at the forefront of implementing many innovative sustainable development initiatives, such as locally sourced wood-fuel for schools and public transport accessibility development. Consequently it sees a further danger here, that the resources and energy directed to Eco-towns will reduce the effectiveness of sustainable innovation and urban development, on a much larger scale, integral to the East Midlands RSS.

4. Thus the sustainable master-planning and building design principles promoted in the eco-towns consultation paper can and should be incorporated into new development in the region and existing draft RSS policy supports this. It is not necessary, and possibly counter- productive, to use eco-towns as a test bed for implementing these principles.

5. There is a strong case put forward for Eco-towns to push the boundaries what can be achieved in terms of low impact, innovative new development. This being so it seems that 10 locations may be unsupportable in terms of commitment. The County Council’s view is that it would be better to identify locations in the existing Three Cities Growth Point for the development of Eco-town principles.

6. Furthermore, existing developments should not be overlooked in attempts to make new developments zero carbon and sustainable. The questions that this consultation is asking about eco-towns are equally relevant for existing developments. The consultation indicates that developing a new town is favoured, but existing homes emit nearly twice as much carbon as new ones and we need to be finding new techniques and technologies that will address this ongoing problem.

7. Comments in summary

Page 7 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 7 30 09 21 − The County Council can give considerable support to the design principles that eco-towns should incorporate.

− The principles themselves do not require free standing settlements.

− Locations in the existing Three Cities Growth Point should be used for the development of Eco-town principles.

− The principles presented are equally relevant for existing developments.

The process for establishing Eco-towns

8. In effect the Government is issuing a national plan for eco-towns. It is not appropriate for eco-town locations to be imposed nationally following an arbitrary and non-inclusive commercial competition process, and their consequences planned for later.

9. In the Government’s urgency to promote the benefits of eco-towns as contributors to accommodating additional growth its process for establishing eco-towns has sidelined the regional and local dimensions of spatial planning strategy and policy development. The Secretary of State’s approval of the new Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is expected in October 2008 and the launch of the Assembly’s Partial Review of RSS will immediately follow.

10. If the Government confirms one or more eco-town locations in the East Midlands prior to the Partial Review the existing planning and regeneration strategies are likely to be compromise the preparation of that strategy. The Partial Review will in any event need to assess the role of eco-towns as a potential sustainable growth option.

11. The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy is the right place to determine the need for and location of freestanding new settlements in Nottinghamshire, and, therefore, the East Midlands. This will account for the wider spatial implications, using sound planning processes and considering spatial development options.

12. If the proposal for Rushcliffe were to go ahead, the Borough Council needs to test this through its local development framework (LDFs) process, or have an ill-fitting proposal to accommodate, and potentially compromise other areas of the LDF.

13. The Regional Spatial Strategy currently incorporates a co-ordinated approach to providing the appropriate physical and community infrastructure that is required. Eco-towns will require significant resources for infrastructure from increased development land value or made available from public funds. There is therefore a threat to existing, carefully planned infrastructure investment, both its effectiveness and potential diversion of funding to eco-towns. If eco-

Page 8 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 8 30 09 21 towns are additional to existing planned levels of growth the resources required to deliver required infrastructure should be self-sufficient or additional from a National source. Comments in summary

− The partial review of the Regional Spatial Strategy is the right place to decide upon freestanding new settlements in the East Midlands.

− Rushcliffe Borough Council needs to test any proposal through its local development framework (LDFs) process.

− If eco-towns progress, additional to existing planned levels of growth, the resources for infrastructure should be self- sufficient or additional from a National source.

Eco-towns in principle – location and strategy

14. Free-standing new settlements do not form part of the spatial planning strategy for the East Midlands. Instead, the draft RSS promotes planned growth concentrated within existing urban areas as the most sustainable option.

15. This strategy supports the regeneration of existing urban areas, and facilitates more co-ordinated physical and community infrastructure. This approach was endorsed by the independent Panel that examined the draft RSS in summer 2007.

16. There is currently no robust evidence that eco-towns are required to meet growth targets in the East Midlands. The required growth can be accommodated within the strategy of urban concentration. Similarly there is a serious threat posed by the Eco-town proposals in Rushcliffe and south of Leicester to the existing strategy for the Three Cities Growth point and the Nottingham area in particular.

17. Development in unsustainable locations, however well designed, whether or not need were identified, is likely to be fundamentally unsustainable. The scale and detached location of many of the proposed Eco towns means that the ability of those towns to be self- sufficient enough to become carbon-neutral must be questionable. The investment required, for example, to establish adequate public transport links would be considerable and potentially unviable, in view of the limited scope for utilising existing catchment populations. This is just one example.

18. Comments in summary

− Free-standing new settlements do not form part of the spatial planning strategy for the East Midlands and there is no evidence that they are required to meet growth targets in the East Midlands.

Page 9 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 9 30 09 21 − Development in unsustainable locations, however well designed, whether or not need were identified, is likely to be fundamentally unsustainable.

− Given the scale and detached location of many of the proposed Eco towns, the ability of those towns to become carbon-neutral must be questionable.

The Eco-town proposal in Nottinghamshire

19. The consultation asks three questions in relation to each proposal:

Do you have views on the inclusion of this location in the programme?

20. The choice of Rushcliffe for focusing a search for an eco-town location is arbitrary. The scale of planning at sub-regional level has been established, through the RSS, at Housing Market level. Therefore an area of search that ignores this spatial level is flawed. There is no sound planning case for search within Rushcliffe alone, much of which is currently within the Nottingham and Derby Green Belt, in particular the one location presently mentioned, of RAF Newton. (The press release of the 3rd April stated that “the Government can today announce no new homes would be built on Green Belt land”)

21. Consequently there needs to be a proper appraisal (as is being undertaken around Leeds) of sites around the whole of the Nottingham Core HMA (i.e. Broxtowe, Erewash, and Rushcliffe) plus and areas to the North to establish whether a suitable location exists, and how it would fit the overall strategy.

22. At present considerable thought is being given to locations which will address the provision and distribution of new housing within the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area (HMA), according to the current RSS strategy. This work will inform the RSS proposed changes and the local development frameworks (LDFs) being prepared in partnership across the HMA.

23. Where there is a need to determine the location of growth, a freestanding new settlement should be considered as an option on a broader basis, informed by robust evidence. This is a matter for the impending RSS review which the Assembly is due to commence in October.

Are there other potential benefits or challenges which you would wish to see addressed for this location?

Are there particular issues which you would like to see the proposals for this location address?

24. On the basis that the area of search for this Eco-town is Rushcliffe Borough, there are substantial infrastructure requirements for any

Page 10 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 10 30 09 21 significant level of growth, in particular in transport, where a shift to non-car modes is an important strategic objective. An Eco-town, with its own requirements for infrastructure, is likely to compromise the ability to deliver wider benefits, hence the need for the integrated strategic approach outlined above, with or without an Eco-town.

25. On the face of it, a responsible sustainability-driven analysis would reject an eco-town approach in favour of an equivalent scale of investment being injected into high quality, ideally rail-based, public transport links in and around Nottingham, to sustainable urban extensions and existing population and employment centres.

26. Similarly, the need for regeneration, social, economic and environmental, is a benefit that an Eco-town may be able to deliver, if it is properly aligned with wider objectives. These benefits should be ascertained through a sustainability appraisal based upon those objectives, where the contribution of an Eco-town could be assessed against other options.

27. Finally, of the three benefits put forward in the consultation paper each have two (supply of affordable housing & regeneration on a brownfield location) would not need, or be best delivered by, an eco-town. The third (relieving pressures across a lot of smaller settlements) may not be an appropriate response to those pressures.

28. Comments in summary

− There needs to be a proper appraisal around the whole of the Nottingham Core HMA and areas to the North to investigate potential suitable locations.

− There should be, instead of an eco-town approach, an equivalent scale of investment injected into high quality, public transport links in and around Nottingham, to sustainable urban extensions and existing population and employment centres.

− The benefits that an Eco-town may be able to deliver should be properly aligned with wider objectives in the sub-region.

Conclusion

29. The County Council can endorse the vast majority of the objectives for eco-towns, aside from their locational criteria. In the light of the recent PPS1 supplement, the County Council believes that all new development of substance should meet the same criteria and aim to meet the good practice described if the challenges of climate change are to be met.

30. However, the principle of free-standing settlements of this scale being sustainable is questionable. The current shortlist was produced in an arbitrary way and directed to short-term housing needs without local or

Page 11 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 11 30 09 21 regional evidence. This is particularly so concerning the proposal relating to Nottingham. This should be considered (a) in the light of the RSS Review, commencing in September 2008, (b) with proper strategic assessment in the light of anticipated levels of housing growth and alternative options for development.

31. The County Council, in its role as a Section 4(4) authority supporting Regional Plan and LDF preparation, would be willing to take forward the principle of Eco-towns, and support assessments of their value, in the proper strategic context, as well as applied to inherently more sustainable forms of development.

Page 12 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 12 30 09 21 Appendix B

The Rushcliffe bid going forward for further assessment as described in the Eco-towns consultation

Description

An eco-town proposal was submitted for Kingston-on-Soar, to the south of Nottingham. In response to representations from Rushcliffe Borough Council, this site is not to be pursued. However, the Government is proposing to carry out a further review in partnership with RBC to consider whether there is a suitable alternative location with the potential to be viable within the Rushcliffe local authority area.

Summary of issues

An eco-town scheme in the Rushcliffe area could have a number of potential benefits.

• in an area of high housing pressure it would significantly improve total supply and affordable housing (Rushcliffe has very high housing affordability pressures and recent affordable housing supply is around 60 annually with 1,535 households on the waiting list.

• If adopted an eco-town scheme could provide a substantial boost to supply and concentrate the extra development needed rather than spreading additional pressures across a lot of smaller settlements.

• if on a brownfield location it could have significant regeneration and land restoration benefits and it would be big enough to attract investment in jobs, services and better community facilities. Environmental technologies would be a lead feature of the economic investment potential.

However a scheme would need to pass a number of viability tests in terms of securing the necessary infrastructure on road and rail upgrades, taking account of pressures on trunk routes in and around Nottingham, and the scheme would need to provide developer contributions to these and it would need to meet the demanding eco-towns criteria on sustainability and safeguard and increase environment assets

Subject to a formal dialogue with Rushcliffe Borough Council a further announcement will be made in due course. If a suitable site can be identified it will be included in the draft Sustainability Appraisal for consultation.

Page 13 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 13 30 09 21 Appendix C Map of Potential Eco-towns from Government consultation

Page 14 of 14 C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\82E5F6A6-130A-421A-8253-49D53A4BB201\1c958a85- 34ca-49eb-b058-ba2e22ee2f9e.doc 14 30 09 21