SUPPLEMENTARY B

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

18TH DECEMBER 2008

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

APPLICATION UPON WHICH THE COUNTY PLANNING AUTHORITY IS CONSULTED BY THE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP.NO. & DATE: 2008/1356/07 – Received by LCC on 3rd November 2008

PROPOSAL: New buildings incorporating pits, paddock, media centre, broadcast centre, race control, medical centre, 3 hospitality suites, club house, toilets, temporary grandstands; realignment, widening and diversion of existing track, new pit lane; fuel and tyre area; 1 vehicle access tunnel, widening of one existing pedestrian tunnel, asphalt and gravel run-off areas, hard standing, service roads, barriers, fencing, ancillary trackside development and engineering works.

LOCATION: Land at Race Circuit, . (North West Leicestershire)

APPLICANT: Donington Ventures (Leisure) Ltd

MAIN ISSUES: Policy considerations, economic benefits, landscape impact, traffic generation, and other environmental impacts

RECOMMENDATION: The Cabinet be advised that views be forwarded to the District Council as set out in the main report, namely that there is no objection to the principle of the development, but a number of concerns arising from the proposals and the subsequent uses arising therefrom.

Circulation Under Sensitive Issues Procedures

Mrs L. A. S. Pendleton CC, Mr. N. J. Rushton CC

Officer to Contact

Mr C. J. Noakes (Tel: 0116 305 7053) E-Mail: [email protected] 2 2008/1356/07 – continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background

1. North West Leicestershire District Council has received this application for major new developments at Donington Racetrack, which more recently has been the subject of substantially additional information. The District Council has consulted the County Planning Authority on this proposal, in the context of the established protocol on developer contributions towards service facilities. However, in the context of the strategic role of the Racetrack and the implications of the development, it would be appropriate to make formal representations to the District Council on the strategic planning matters

2. In July 2008, Donington Ventures (Leisure) Ltd (DVLL) signed a 10 year contract to host the British Grand Prix with Management, commencing with the event in Summer 2010. This agreement is dependent on a number of physical improvements to the existing facilities at Donington Park, which are the subject of the current planning application. A separate application (ref no 2008/1386/07) is submitted for two temporary grandstands and a toilet block outside the identified Policy L20 boundary.

3. There have been a number of meetings between the agents, district planning authority, highway authorities, constabularies and other key stakeholders for the wider area covering Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The District Council intends to consider the application at a ‘special’ meeting on 8th January 2009, as a matter of some urgency. It is understood that the development is subject to a tight timescale, if the necessary improvements are to be carried out in time for the 2010 ‘season’.

Planning History

4. Donington Park has been associated with international motor racing dating from Grand Prix events in the 1930’s, but closed during and after the Second World War. Subsequently purchased by Tom Wheatcroft, a 3km circuit was rebuilt along its pre-war lines (but minus the Melbourne Loop) in the late 1970’s, as a result of planning permissions granted (at that time) by Leicestershire County Council (ref. nos. 76/1293/07 and 78/1845/07).

5. As a result the track reclaimed its international ‘status’, particularly for motorcycle racing. More recently, the circuit hosted the 1993 , following agreement by the County Council (the CC) to enable this ‘one-off’ event to take place, in contravention of the legal agreement with the CC (only one Grand Prix per year). A Melbourne Loop was added in 1985 to give an alternative 4km circuit, and brought with it the first British Motorcycle Grand Prix (MotoGP) in 1987.

6. Conditions attached to the substantive planning consents of the 1970’s allow for motor racing, practice and testing to occur over 40 days per year. The venue now hosts various other racing events and track days (e.g. British Touring Car Championships; British Formula 3 Championship). As such, it could be argued that Donington Park has the necessary consent to run a Formula One motor racing event without modifications to existing facilities. DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 3 2008/1356/07 – continued

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008

4 2008/1356/07 – continued

7. Following a re-distribution of planning responsibilities in 1981, the District Council became the proper planning authority for new developments at Donington Park. A significant number of individual proposals have been allowed in and around the circuit over the last 25 years or more. Non-racing events include conferences, exhibitions, trade shows, music festivals, etc.

Location of Site and Existing Development

8. Donington Park Race Circuit is located immediately west of East Midlands Airport, in the predominantly rural area to the south west of Castle Donington village. The Airport and Race Track are close to the County boundary with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, in the vicinity of major transport links of the M1, A42/M42, and A50. The existing site occupies undulating open land in an elevated position above the Trent Valley to the north, whilst the circuit is located in a ‘bowl’ behind a 3m high concrete wall.

9. Vehicular access is provided from two main entrance points, with the main entrance taken from the C8214 on the east site and linking to the east/west spine road. It serves temporary car parking areas, exhibition hall, circuit offices and Donington Museum. The secondary access is taken from the C9203 at the south-west side of the site, linking to a north/south spine road and serving the pit and paddock area. A number of supplementary crossings on the A453 and C9203 provide temporary access/egress for major events.

10. The main pit and paddock area is situated on a ridge line that runs east/west on this southern side, including 2-storey pit buildings, 3-storey race control tower, 2.5 storey grandstand; 2-storey hospitality suites. A further 3-storey suite is situated on another part of the track. Two bridges cross the track from outfield to infield, including the Dunlop (tyre) Bridge on the main straight.

11. There are a number of other buildings and uses outside the boundary wall on the south-east side of the site, including the 2.5 storey high exhibition hall; single storey museum; 2-storey office block and Coppice Lodge (a Grade II Listed Building) at the entrance to the site.

Description of Proposal

12. The (substantive) planning application seeks consent for improvements to the existing circuit, including an extension and realignment of the track and new buildings and infrastructure, primarily within the infield area. An overview of the different elements of the proposed development, together with external sizes, is summarised below: (i) track modifications – to include widening to 12-15m instead of the existing 10m width; resurfacing and realignment of 3km of track (0.95km as a new infield loop) and new pit lane; (ii) 3-storey pit building at the start/finish line of 360m in length, divided into 7 blocks, with pedestrian bridge to race control and administrative area, and paddock club on the first and second floors (lounges, etc); (iii) a single-storey media centre – a two-storey complex up to 9.8m high at the east end of the pit building (also adaptable as conference, small exhibition centre);

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 5 2008/1356/07 – continued

(iv) a two-storey medical centre – up to 5m high and to the east of the pits and in the paddock area; (v) 3- and 4-storey club house building - up to a maximum of 27m high, to provide corporate hospitality facilities with a dedicated 100 space car park. This facility would replace an existing consent (already commenced) for a smaller club house; (vi) 3 separate hospitality suites around the circuit, reaching about 14m in height and comprising one 4-storey 20-unit block; one 4-storey 120 unit block (including pub and public toilets attached at the eastern end; and one 4-storey 56 unit block (including shops, restaurant and bars attached); (vii) ancillary development including a new pedestrian tunnel under the track; some 41,000m 2 of gravel and run-off areas; 122,000m 2 of hardstandings; barriers; walls; fencing; minor huts; service roads; and 4 x single-storey toilet blocks.

13. All existing mature trees and woodlands would be retained and enhanced, in accordance with the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape and Woodland Strategy.

14. Four scaffold grandstands would be erected on a temporary basis when required for major events, with a total GFA of 14,659 m 2. Two additional temporary grandstands providing a total floor area of 12,916 m 2 would be located outside the Policy L20 boundary, to the immediate west and south of the track, together with a new toilet block (all the subject of separate planning application 2008/1386/07). This separate application should be treated as part of the overall scheme and any response on the substantive application should be attributed to it as well.

15. Plans and diagrams of the overall proposed development will be displayed at the Board meeting.

Supporting Statements

16. The submitted application is supported by various supplementary reports as follows: • Planning Statement (includes inter alia reference to relevant policies; public safety zones (airport); landscape and visual impact; and flood risk); • Design and Access Statement; • Transport Statement; • Noise and Vibration Statement; • Air Quality Statement; • Ecological Statement; • Ground Conditions Statement; • Phase One Geo-Environmental Assessment Report.

17. The assessment of these various issues are now addressed by the recently deposited Environmental Impact Assessment, which draws on the base survey information already gathered at the submission stage.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 6 2008/1356/07 – continued

Environmental Assessment

18. The applicant sought a ‘screening opinion’ from the District Council in September 2008, to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required in accordance with the relevant Regulations. The agents concluded that an EIA would not be required, based on identified technical investigations into the environmental impact of the development (see above). Notwithstanding the submission of the above supporting documents, the District Council concluded that an EIA is required for this proposal, and informed the applicant accordingly.

19. Without prejudice, the Environmental Statement was submitted to the DC on 5 th December 2008, covering those matters identified in the DC’s ‘scoping opinion of 28 th November. Currently, it is the subject of formal consultation. The Statement deals with matters set out below, together with a summary of the conclusions on the environmental impacts in each case, whether positive/negative; short or long term; cumulative; and any mitigation measures to address these impacts:

(i) Alternatives/Design : the design and layout of the proposed development seeks to maximise the commercial viability of the site, capable of attracting a wide variety of events; create a new state-of-the-art facility, whilst preserving the specific characteristics of the parkland setting; as well as being functional for day-to-day operations. The alternative of ‘no development’ would miss the opportunity for economic benefits and commercial viability. It is claimed that the design of the scheme and buildings is driven largely by regulations for motor racing sport; (ii) Construction works: Demolition and construction activities would take place over an estimated 69 week period, mostly taken up by the superstructure of new buildings and track. During this period there are potential impacts for air quality; ecology; energy usage; noise; pedestrian accessibility; construction traffic; waste; water environment; vibration; and views. Certain mitigation measure would be put in place to ensure that these impacts are negligible (e.g. site waste management plan, traffic management); (iii) Transport : the earlier transport statement included an assessment of the development on the surrounding transport infrastructure, thought to be negligible during the construction stage. It has been concluded that there would be no significant increase in day-to-day traffic generation at Donington Park as a result of the development. The impacts arising from major events would be dealt with through the existing Event Management Plan process, which covers parking and access arrangements and is agreed in advance of such events. An Event Management Plan has not been submitted as part of the planning process. The overall impact is claimed to be negligible . As for c umulative traffic impacts: the only development considered to have a cumulative impact with the Racetrack proposals is the potential EMA runway extension, which is thought to have no direct traffic consequences for the proposals. (iv) Aviation: as the Racetrack lies under the public safety zone for approach and take-off from EMA, there is close liaison between the two bodies. It is considered that no significant changes would arise for aviation safety as a result of the proposed development, therefore having negligible impact; (v) Air Quality: It is anticipated that construction activities could result in atmospheric pollutant emissions associated with road traffic (exhausts), DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 7 2008/1356/07 – continued

on-site equipment; and earth moving/demolition operations, etc. These should have very small impacts, except that construction dust will be very large magnitude (but at least 100m away from any sensitive receptors and can be suppressed by mitigation measures. During operational use, the development is thought to have negligible impact as a result on traffic generation, or other activities; (vi) Noise and Vibration: During construction works, noise levels would be greater than existing ambient noise in the locality, but still less than advisable limits. Similarly, construction traffic would form a negligible fraction of overall road traffic. When in operation, the track realignment is thought to provide minor benefits for the nearest population centres (e.g. Castle Donington) due to reduced speeds. Unsilenced vehicles can use the facility on a given number of occasions and the anticipated noise from the new circuit is calculated to be of negligible additional impact. When used for music concerts, etc then it will be necessary to exercise management controls on noise levels; (vii) Ecology: the ecological impact assessment identifies a number of risks to ecological receptors, particularly during construction works. These need to be mitigated by appropriate measures. There would be minor beneficial impacts from enhancement of the biodiversity of the locality; (viii) Ground Conditions/Water Resources: Construction works would result in minor adverse to negligible impacts. This can be mitigated by ‘best practice’. There could be minor adverse risk to the site from unforeseen extreme storm events, that may inundate the proposed sustainable drainage systems on site; (ix) Archaeology/Cultural Heritage: Potential adverse impacts have been identified upon 10 locally important sites, with neutral impacts (combined adverse and beneficial effects) upon two listed structure in Donington Park, and some adverse impacts on the nationally important site of the racing circuit itself. The EIA identifies a range of engineering and archaeological mitigation measures. Residual impacts are likely to be restricted to unknown discoveries, and a watching brief has been agreed with LCC Historic and Natural Environment Team; (x) Landscape and Visual Assessment: The principal landscape impacts will be changes to the topography (track modifications), new pit and paddock buildings, and other built development (mostly in-field). Whilst these will enhance the overall racing experience, it is concluded that they will not alter fundamentally the character of the circuit landscape and would be of local impact. From a number of viewpoints, the proposals will have minor impacts on local views, but the removal of the unsightly exhibition building would be beneficial. Landscape enhancements in the surrounding areas will assist in integrating the proposal into the site’s context, with long-term benefits to the wider landscape; (xi) Cumulative Impact: When taken with any impacts of the EMA runway extension, it is considered that the cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality and noise are negligible or minor ; (xii) Residual impacts: the majority of these will be negligible, with some beneficial residual impacts for ecology and ground conditions. Whilst a small number of adverse impacts might be anticipated at the demolition and construction stage, these will be temporary and minor in nature.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 8 2008/1356/07 – continued

Planning Policy

20. National Planning Policy relevant to the application is set out in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); PPG 6 (Planning for Town Centres); PPS 13 (Transport); PPG 17 (Open Space, Recreation and Sport) and PPG 24 (Noise). The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS 8), and the ‘saved’ North West Leicestershire District Local Plan (NWLDLP). The relevant policies in these documents are set out in Appendix A attached to this report.

21. The site is identified in the NWLDLP as a policy area for Donington Park Race Track (Policy L20).

Highway Considerations

22. As indicated above, the highway authorities and other key stakeholders in the wider area have been in negotiation with agents for the proposed development. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of information supporting the application, in the context of traffic impact and proposed solutions. However, it is understood that the DC does not consider it is justified to seek further details and/or any significant improvements in transport and/or traffic control arrangements for events at the Racetrack. It is unfortunate that the information is not available to allow a wider assessment to be made.

23. The latest version of the Transport Statement (TS in the recent EIA) reflects the earlier view of the applicant, namely that the circuit benefits from existing use rights and permissions that allow for Formula 1 Grand Prix and that a mechanism exists to deal with any future events (Category A events that generate the greatest number of customers). The applicant considers that the proposals represent qualitative improvements to the existing circuit, which neither increase the frequency nor intensity of the use, in terms of racing or spectators.

24. It refers to the potential for a ‘zonal’ system of accessibility to/from the site, based on ticket sales, and ‘encouragement of the use of public transport’. Previous references have been made to the possibility of satellite ‘park-and-ride’ facilities, the use of dedicated links to the new Parkway Station at Ratcliffe. This could be endorsed through the ticketing arrangements for (say) the Formula One Grand Prix. These arrangements have yet to be finalised.

25. Nevertheless, the latest version of the TS does acknowledge the need for a specific Event Management Plan (EMP) with measures to minimise disruption during the hosting of a Formula One Grand Prix. Whilst this is thought by the applicant to be outside the normal planning process, an offer of a S.106 Agreement to secure this Plan is put forward. Although the TS sets out the likely structure of such EMP, no particular details are submitted for this unusual situation, particularly the mechanisms for securing ‘non-car’ transport links for a large proportion of the visitors to the site.

26. In this context, the County Highway Authority (as statutory consultee to the DC) is recommending that the development would not lead to a material increase in traffic visiting the site and there are no sustainable highway grounds for refusal of the proposal. However, it remains very concerned about the subsequent traffic impact of events associated with the use of these facilities on both the local and strategic highway network. DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 9 2008/1356/07 – continued

27. It supports the DC in seeking a S106 Agreement that will require the submission and approval of an EMP prior to any of the ‘Class A’ events (e.g. Superbikes; MotoGP; Download Festival; and of course an F1 Grand Prix). This would bring the matter into the confines of the planning system. The CHA (together with other agencies) will need to be involved in both the terms of the agreement and any subsequent EMP. The proposed Green Travel Plan for construction work is also supported. The CHA is also recommending detailed conditional requirements, which will be conveyed to the DC as part of this response (e.g. controls relating to construction traffic routes, linking the use of hospitality facilities to the requirement of an Events Management Plan).

Assessment of Proposal

28. The applicant considers that there is consent for Formula One events at the Racetrack under the present regime, and that the proposals represent qualitative improvements to the existing circuit without increase in the frequency or intensity of use. However, it is considered that the subsequent use of these facilities is also material to the decision process. In reality, the Formula One Grand Prix would not come to Donington without these ‘improvements’, and the primary purpose of the development is to secure the British Grand Prix.

29. Indeed, the EIA addresses (as it should) the environmental impacts of resulting changes to the characteristics of the use of the circuit. If these impacts could be significant, then any mitigation measures should be identified through the EIA process, including levels of commitment to and mechanisms for, their implementation, together with an assessment of their likely effectiveness ( see EIA: A guide to good practice and procedures – Government consultation 2006).

30. The EIA Regulations require assessment of all impacts, including indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts of a development and, in the absence of an assessment of the traffic implications of an event such as the F1 Grand Prix, it is questionable whether the submitted document deals properly with these matters.

31. At the time of writing this report, the CC has had sight of the EIA for less than a week, so it has not be possible to undertake a thorough examination of all the details contained therein. The CC is concerned whether the DC and its consultees will have sufficient time and resources to consider the information properly, if it is to meet its deadline of determination on 8 th January 2009.

Policy considerations

32. In the context of regional and sub-regional policies, there is clearly a need to find a balance between, the one hand, the objectives for economic and tourism growth and, on the other hand, concentration of new development to the main urban areas and reduction in the need to travel/use private cars. Whilst there are no policies in the Draft Review RSS relating directly to the Racetrack, many of the policy objectives support the potential contribution of this facility to the wider economy.

33. On balance, it is considered that the specific circumstances relating to the use of Donington Park be accepted in principle, but it is necessary to secure the most

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 10 2008/1356/07 – continued

sustainable solution to these proposals, and seek prior assurances that any adverse impacts of the development (and its potential uses) can be satisfactorily mitigated.

34. In the context of local policies, the presence of the Racetrack is acknowledges by Policy L20, but it is important that any new development meets the specific criteria of that policy, particularly in respect of landscape and traffic impacts.

Landscape and visual impacts

35. The submitted documentation includes a very comprehensive assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the physical development in the proposals. It is accepted that the impacts on the wider area are limited in visual/landscape terms, but notwithstanding the ‘bowl-shaped’ topography of the in-field area, that there are some (not insignificant) impacts of a local nature.

36. Many of the new buildings and structures are large in scale and height, having a marked impact on the local landscape, especially where they are adjacent to the local ridge across the south of the site. The conclusion that these have insignificant impact on the local landscape is not necessarily accepted. For instance, the new clubhouse is up to 27m high and impinges on the historic landscape setting of Grade II* Donington Hall. Other suites and buildings are significant in scale.

37. It will be important to secure substantial landscape improvements (planting) to set off the new development and reduce the impact on the local landscape. Similarly, the temporary grandstands should be removed between Class A events, to minimise their visual impact.

Environmental impacts

38. The EIA deals with various other environmental impacts arising from the physical development (including construction) and subsequent use of the improved facilities at the Racetrack. The findings on these matters are generally matters for the DC and its advisors and they appear to be acceptable in principle. However, it will be important that all necessary mitigation measures are taken to off-set the impacts on ecological and archaeological features in and around the site.

39. On the matter of noise, this becomes an issue during racing, pre-race practice and other noise generating events such as the Download Festival. The findings on noise impacts arising from racing appear reasonable (i.e. that there would be marginal benefits for some local communities and negligible additional impacts overall. However, it is difficult to predict the actual noise impact for future events and an Environmental Action Plan would assist in addressing any unsuccessful mitigation, by monitoring and corrective actions.

Traffic and Transportation

40. Clearly one of the main issues arising from the development is the likely impact of future activities on traffic generation, highway safety, and transport solutions.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 11 2008/1356/07 – continued

These matters become most significant for the major (Class A) events at the circuit and especially the potential Formula One GP event. To date, the applicant has sought to address this issue through the vehicle of a potential EMP, now enhanced by the offer of S106 Agreement to secure such EM Plan.

41. However, the submitted documentation contains no evidence of the likely number of spectators to the F1 event, the likely distribution of trips, or – more critically – any details of the arrangements to realise a ‘public transport’ Grand Prix.

42. It is understood that the DC would seek to ensure that these details are provided through a ‘Class A’ Event Management Plan, to be secured before each such event could take place. This would be an additional control (under the planning process) to current licensing requirements (for public events). However, without the details, it is not possible to assess the overall impacts on the highway network or the probability that preferred transport solutions will be realised in practice. Moreover, there may be residual impacts from, say, a scheme for ‘off- site’ shuttle facilities (as yet undefined), giving rise to potential congestion and disturbance to more distance communities, including those beyond Leicestershire.

43. In traffic terms, it would be important to ensure that the total number and amount of activities on the site (as altered) does not exceed the current restrictions on the existing site. Additionally, the implication that the clubhouse may become the source of other conference and/or hospitality events would not accord with national and regional policy objectives for such activities.

Conclusion

44. In summary, the physical development proposals cannot be separated from the underlying ‘raison d’etre’ for the scheme. On balance, there is no strategic objection to the principle of the development and the subsequent changes in the characteristics of the use of the site that may arise. However, the development gives rise to significant impacts that need to be addressed as part of the overall determination process, rather than remaining uncertain at this stage. Not least of these concerns is the issue of the likely traffic impact on the local and wider highway network.

45. The response on this application (and the related proposal for two temporary grandstands and toilet block) should highlight the concerns of the County Council that all the likely impacts of the development are addressed properly and that any mitigation is secured in advance of a decision on the matter.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 12 2008/1356/07 – continued

Recommendation

The Cabinet be recommended to forward the following as the views of the County Planning Authority -

North West Leicestershire District Council be advised that:

In the context of the relevant national, regional and sub-regional policy objectives, on balance, the County Planning Authority has no strategic objection in principle to the proposed development.

However, in the time available to consider the information contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment, there are a number of concerns arising from the proposals and the subsequent changes in the characteristics of the use of the facilities at Donington Park, particularly the potential for Formula One events, as follows:

• The District Council needs to be satisfied that the Environmental Impact Assessment deals properly with all the likely impacts (including any indirect, secondary and accumulate impacts) of the consequences of the proposed development, in accordance with the EIA Regulations. • There is a need to secure the details of traffic management plans for major events at the site in advance of determination. To date, there is little evidence of the likely impacts and/or mitigating solutions to traffic generation arising from such events, or the probability of securing sustainable transport solutions to address this issue. • Any such solutions might have implications for adverse impacts on communities in a wider area, which impacts cannot be assessed without the proper details (e.g. remote shuttle services). • The nature and frequency of use of the development should be strictly controlled by conditions, to limit the number and types of events held at Donington Park (similar to existing planning controls affecting the site). Otherwise the overall environmental impacts on local communities would not be acceptable. • Whilst acknowledging the findings and projections on noise levels arising from the proposals, it would be advantageous to incorporate an Environmental Action Plan in any decision, to deal with the uncertainty of predictions and any unforeseen adverse impacts on local communities. • The use of facilities for conference (or similar) activities would conflict with the objectives of national and regional policies for such uses. • Whilst accepting that there are no significant impacts on the wider landscape, many elements of the development are substantial in scale and height, or occupying prominent locations in the local landscape setting. The impacts on the local landscape is not always insignificant, include a significant impact on the historic setting of Donington Hall (Grade II* listed). • A comprehensive and substantial landscape enhancement scheme should be secured to mitigate the impacts on the local landscape. Careful use of external materials is required to reduce these impacts. • The temporary grandstands should be removed (by condition), except when required for major events at the site. • Appropriate conditions should be imposed to mitigate any impacts on archaeological and ecological features in and around the development site.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 13 2008/1356/07 – continued

In its role as Highways Authority, the County Council. The County Council has serious concerns regarding the subsequent traffic impact of events associated with the use of these facilities on both the local and strategic highway network. It acknowledges the advantages of securing planning controls over Event Management Plans for future ‘Class A’ events (through the offer of a S106 Agreement). Along with other interested stakeholders and agencies, the CHA must be party to the terms of any such legal agreement and the terms of subsequent EMPs that require approval.

However, the likely impacts and necessary mitigation cannot be assessed properly without prior knowledge of the intended arrangements (especially for Formula One Grand Prix events). To date, there is no certainty of the commitment to, or mechanisms for, securing particular travel solutions to such major events.

A Green Travel Plan should be secured for construction activities at the site.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 14 APPENDIX A 2008/1356/07 - continued

National Planning Policy Guidance

1. Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) (Delivering Sustainable Development) deals with the Government’s overall objectives for the planning system through a plan- led system, and retains the primacy of the development plan. It sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development and creating sustainable communities, while achieving other objectives such as protecting and enhancing the natural environment and the quality and character of the countryside; and ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car.

2. The Government is committed to promoting a strong and stable economy, bringing jobs and prosperity for all. Planning authorities should recognise the wider sub regional, regional and national benefits of economic development and balance these alongside local impacts. A high quality of design is endorsed.

3. PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres) deals with activities considered to be main town centre uses, including ‘leisure and the more intensive sport and recreation uses’. Where retail uses are proposed as ancillary elements to other leisure, tourist and recreational facilities, it is important to ensure that these are limited in scale and genuinely ancillary to the principal development.

4. PPG 13 (Transport) sets out the Government’s intentions to secure an integrated land use-transportation policy that reduces the growth in use of the private car and encourages alternative means of transport. It is recognised that the availability of car parking has a major influence on transport choice.

5. Local authorities should seek to make maximum use of the most accessible sites, such as those in town centres and others which are, or will be, close to major transport interchanges and allocate or reallocate sites which are (or will be) highly accessible by public transport for travel intensive uses (including offices, retail, commercial leisure, hospitals and conference facilities).

6. Where development will have significant transport implications, Transport Assessments should be carried out alongside the relevant planning application, and developments involving leisure, tourism and recreation which generate large amounts of travel should accord with the thrust of advice in the guidance (para. 37). In determining the acceptability of such developments where they are near existing buildings ……….. or landscapes and which will not be well served by public transport, the LPA should : (i) Consider the extent to which the proposal needs to be in the proposed location, including whether it has meaningful links with the particular location or attraction; (ii) Pay particular attention to the scale, layout, parking and access arrangements; and (iii) Seek measures to increase access to the site by sustainable transport modes, and the use of traffic management and appropriate parking policies near to the site.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 15 2008/1356/07 - continued

7. PPG17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) identifies the important role of these activities in people’s quality of life. Stadia and major developments which will accommodate large numbers of spectators, or which also function as a facility for community based sports and recreation, should be granted permission only where they are located in areas with good access to public transport.

8. PPG24 (Planning and Noise) outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining applications for noise sensitive/noise generating development. It states that the impact of noise from sport, recreation and entertainment will depend to a large extent on the frequency of use and design of facilities. The LPA should balance the enjoyment of participants against the level of disturbance to other people.

Regional Planning Guidance

9. Regional Spatial Strategy 8 was adopted in March 2005 and sets out the regional guidance for development in the East Midlands and applies the general principles for sustainable development in national guidance. Most new development should be directed to locations in and adjoining existing urban areas and the fullest use should be made of vacant and underused (brown) urban land in preference to greenfield sites. Site well served by public transport should be a priority.

10. The strategy promotes concentrating development in principal urban areas such as Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, Northampton and Nottingham, growth towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough and at a lesser scale in Sub-Regional Centres which in Leicestershire are Coalville, Hinckley, Melton Mowbray, Market Harborough and Loughborough.

11. Policy 1 (Regional Core Objectives) includes Objective 4: - to promote and improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional competitiveness . The application site falls within the 3 Cities Sub Area, which are acknowledged as the major commercial, industrial, administrative and cultural centres. Tourism is recognised as a key driver to the regional economy, with a number of key strengths in areas such as culture and sports (including motor sports). Policy 25 refers to the need to accommodate tourism growth which maximises economic growth whilst minimises adverse impacts on the environment and local amenity.

12. Draft Review of the RSS 8 was published for consultation in September 2006 and is now at an advanced stage, with the Secretary of State’s proposed changes published in July 2008 and consultation ending October 2008. The S of S’s approval is anticipated in early 2009. The Review maintains the thrust of policy from the adopted RSS, such as Regional Core Objectives ( Policy 1 ) and the concentration of development within the main urban areas of the 3 Cities Sub- area ( Policy 13 ). Development associated with EMA should be focussed where possible in surrounding urban areas, particularly Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Loughborough.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 16 2008/1356/07 - continued

13. Policy 24 sets out the Regional Priorities for Tourism, re-iterating the thrust of the adopted RSS8 (i.e. tourism growth that maximises economic benefit, whilst minimising adverse impact). Measures should include … improvement in the quality of existing facilities and services; and improvements to accessibility by public transport and non-car modes.

14. Policy 40 sets out regional Priorities for Culture, Sport and Recreation, which encourages Las to work towards adequate provision of sports and recreation facilities, in accordance with the overarching priorities for urban and rural areas (e.g. concentration of facilities and improvements to public transport/transport infrastructure). There is no specific steer on the future development of the Racetrack itself.

15. Policies 41 and 42 set out Regional and Sub-Regional Transport Objectives, which concentrate on sustainable options and reduction in traffic growth. In the Three Cities Sub-area these objectives deal mainly with improvements to public transport and infrastructure improvements in the urban areas, but also seek to improve public transport (surface) access to EMA and reduce congestion along the M1 corridor and highway network generally.

Strategic Policy Considerations

16. The Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan (1996-2016) has now been deleted, except for two housing policies (as an interim measure to the approval of the Review RSS8. There are no relevant policies ‘saved’ which relate to the proposed development.

Local Plan considerations

17. The North West Leicestershire Local Plan was adopted with effect from August 2002 and provided the local framework for development up to 2006. Pending the preparation of the Local Development Framework, many of the policies in the adopted Local Plan have been ‘saved’, to provide for transition.

18. Policy S1 sets out the overall strategy for the District and provides (inter alia) that: • The environment is conserved and where possible enhanced; • Built development in the countryside is minimised; • The recreational needs of the district are met; • Tourism is promoted where it is compatible with the conservation and enhancement of the environment; and • The operational development potential of East Midlands Airport is safeguarded as an asset of national and regional importance.

19. Policy S3 seeks to restrict development in the countryside to that which is essential to agriculture; farm diversification; public services/utilities; recreation, community facilities and tourism related proposals, in accordance with the …. policies of the Local Plan; or involves the reuse of rural buildings in accordance with Policy E24. The application site is designated as ‘countryside’ in the Local Plan.

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 17 2008/1356/07 – continued

20. Donington Park Racetrack is recognised in the Local Plan as a ‘special’ policy area, given its unique role in the area. Whilst identifying the occasional environmental, noise and traffic problems previously associated with the racetrack, these are largely controlled by conditions attached to planning permissions and an Abatement Notice in respect of noise nuisance. The District Council seeks to control the amount and type of development that takes places through Policy L20 . This states that:

‘Development of land within Donington Park Racetrack limit, which is identified on the Proposals Map and is otherwise subject to the countryside policies of the Local Plan, will be permitted where the proposal: a) is either essential to the operational needs of, or has a clear functional relationship with the racetrack; b) is compatible with the existing character and landscape of the racetrack; c) is unobtrusive in relation to nearby countryside; d) make provision for substantial landscaping, including intensive tree planting where the development adjoins open countryside; e) demonstrates satisfactory arrangements for vehicular access, f) would not adversely affect traffic conditions on the local or wider road network or environmental conditions in nearby settlements, especially Castle Donington; and g) in the case of built development, is sited in association with existing buildings.

21. Policy T19 (as updated by Alteration No 2 in 2004) deals with the matter of Public Safety Zones (PSZs) for East Midlands Airport. These are shown on the Proposals Map and identify the limits of 1 in 10000 risk contours. All but the very eastern extreme of the application site is outside these contours. The policy states that: ‘There will be a general presumption against new or replacement development, or changes of use of existing buildings within the designated PSZs. However, the following exceptions to this general presumption may be permitted within those parts of the PSZs lying outside the identified 1 in 10,000 risk contours : • An extension/alteration or change of use (to non-residential property) which would not increase the number of people working or congregating beyond the current level; • Other forms of development which would involve a low density of people living, working or congregating within the site (e.g. long- stay car parking; unmanned structures, agricultural buildings, informal open space.

Local Development Framework (LDF)

22. The District Council has published its Core Strategy for further consultation and this is being considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 16 th December 2008. The documents set out those development control policies to replace the ‘saved’ Local Plan policies, and preferred options for broad allocations for new development (including housing and employment land).

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 18 2008/1356/07 – continued

23. There are no specific policies or proposals relating to the Racetrack facility itself, but the document includes proposals for an ‘economic activity zone’ around the airport and Donington Park. Cabinet is expected to express its concerns, because such policy would conflict with objectives in the Draft RSS for urban concentration and focussing development associated with EMA in the surrounding urban areas. Such economic zone would be some distance from the proposed housing growth areas and encourage commuting.

24. It is understood that the District Council anticipate that the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document will be adopted in 2009 and the allocations document will be adopted in 2010.

Other considerations

25. The East Midlands Regional Economic Strategy sets out priorities for economic development between 2006-2020, which highlights the challenge of building on the region’s cultural, sporting and tourism strengths. The visitor economy is expected to make a growing contribution to the region’s prosperity and productivity, and sporting and tourism assets (including sports venues) attract and retain investment and skilled employment.

26. The East Midlands Tourism Strategy outlines opportunities to develop tourism through to 2010, and makes specific reference to Donington Park and the role of motorsports in the region. The section on ‘Accelerating Motorsports’ recognises the particular strength of motorsport in the region, and the support of EMDA for retaining some of the region’s highest skilled employees.

27. The Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) for the County includes several priority outcomes which are relevant to the proposal, such as those which relate to economic development and enterprise; achieving a prosperous and dynamic economy; improved business and tourism; highly skilled and motivated population. There are also priority outcomes relating to the provision of accessible and sustainable transport.

28. The Multi Area Agreement (MAA) for Leicester and Leicestershire is centred around economic priorities, supporting the delivery of long-term economic change. These target increase employment, higher skill labour and business growth. The proposed scheme needs to demonstrate how it would contribute towards the aims for supporting objectives such as efficiency, better co-ordination of delivery and a greater return on public sector investment. ______

DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008 19

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all preceding applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children’s Services and the Director of Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970, the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Assistant Personnel Officer (Disabled People) if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Strategy, Structure Plan or any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders. DC®. BOARD 18/12/2008