Doncaster Local Plan: Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate

CSD12

March 2020

www.doncaster.gov.uk

Contents

1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………….. 2

2.0 Consultation on the Doncaster Local Plan and Doncaster Statement of Common Ground……………………………………..4

3.0 Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground……….…6

4.0 Summary of the Relevant Strategic Matters……………………...9

5.0 Outcomes of the Duty to Cooperate……………………………….17

Appendix 1: Neighbouring Authorities and Prescribed bodies involved in the Duty to Cooperate…………………………………………………….24

Appendix 2: Collaborative Working with Duty to Cooperate Bodies…………25

Appendix 3: Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground………….40

1.0 Introduction

1. The Localism Act 20111 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)2 place a duty on local planning authorities and prescribed bodies to cooperate with each other to address strategic issues relevant to their area during plan making. The duty requires continuous and active engagement during the preparation of the plan. 2. Local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before submitting their Local Plans for examination. The Local Planning Authority must demonstrate how they have complied with the duty, if they cannot then the Local Plan will not be able to proceed further in the Examination. 3. Local authorities are asked to produce one or more Statements of Common Ground. These statements should set out the relevant strategic matters, priorities and cross boundary issues to be addressed and what potential impact the strategic matters may have. They should contain any resolution/mitigation and monitoring. The Statements also include signatories to the agreements including those which need to be progressed or are outstanding. 4. The Doncaster Local Plan: Statement of Common Ground3 is a separate document and has been submitted as part of the Doncaster Local Plan. It follows the Planning Advisory Service guidance4 and sets out:

 The duty to cooperate requirements;  The parties involved in the Statement of Common Ground;  The signatories who have signed up to the Statement of Common Ground;  Doncaster's strategic geography;  The relevant strategic matters; and  The timetable for review and on-going cooperation.

5. The Doncaster Local Plan: Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) contains 19 Agreements which have been drawn up in conjunction with the relevant neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies. These cover relevant strategic matters including:

 housing;  gypsies, travellers and travelling show people;  employment;  transport infrastructure (road, rail and public transport);  air quality and noise;  retail and town centres;  flood risk;  green infrastructure;  built and historic environment;  waste management;  community facilities;  water quality;

1 Through the inclusion of Section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 3 www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan 4 https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/pas-topics/local-plans/statement-common-ground 2

 minerals.

6. These Agreements are in the process of being signed up to by the relevant neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies. 7. This purpose of this paper 'Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate' is to demonstrate how the Council has complied with the duty to cooperate. It sets out:

 A summary of strategic matters/issues included in the Doncaster Local Plan Statement of Common Ground;  How those matters have been resolved/not resolved;  Who we have worked with and on which strategic matters;  The nature and timing of the engagement;  The outcomes of the cooperation including how the Local Plan/Doncaster SoCG was influenced; and,  The relationship with the Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground.

8. Appendix 1 lists Doncaster’s neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies that are involved in the duty to cooperate.

9. It is important to note that the Council has written a Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation5 which sets out how the Council has consulted all relevant bodies and the local community during the preparation of the Local Plan (i.e. not just those included in the duty to cooperate). The Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation also sets out in detail the issues that have been raised and how they have been considered in the preparation of the Local Plan.

5 www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan 3

2.0 Consultation on the Doncaster Local Plan and Doncaster Statement of Common Ground

Doncaster Local Plan

10. As part of the Local Plan preparation process (including the evidence base), all relevant duty to cooperate parties have been consulted at each stage. This is in line with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning (England) Regulations 2012. These stages are not discussed in detail in this Statement of Compliance or in the Doncaster Duty to Cooperate Statement; instead they are listed and discussed in the Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation6. However for information, the Local Plan stages were:

 Call for Sites - October - December 2014  Issues and Options - September 2015  Homes and Settlements Strategy - March 2016  Ongoing stakeholder engagement and consultation - Spring 2015 - Spring 2018  Consultation on Draft Policies and Proposed Sites - September - October 2018  Publication - August - September 2019  Submission - February 2020

Key consultation on the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground

11. Throughout the preparation of the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground, neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies were consulted at key times in order to gain an understanding of the relevant strategic issues, and to ask for comments and amendments to a Draft and then a Revised Draft Statement of Common Ground. The key dates for the consultation on the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground were:

 24 September 2018 – email to prescribed bodies asking for comments which could be taken into account and reflected in the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground;  27 September 2018 – a draft of the Strategic and Cross Boundary Matters Table (now Appendix 2 in the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground) was sent to neighbouring authorities for comments. They were also asked formally whether their authority would be in a position to allocate land for housing in their Local Plan that would contribute to meeting some of Doncaster’s housing needs;  6 June 2019 – Email to neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies with a Draft Doncaster Statement of Common Ground for comments/amendments;  14 August 2019 – Email to neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies with a Revised Draft Doncaster Statement of Common Ground for comments/amendments.

6 www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan 4

 25th February 2020 – Email to neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies with final version of the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground for signing.

12. Reminder emails were sent out if no correspondence had been received.

13. A number of engagement methods were used through Local Plan and the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground preparation including email correspondence and meetings. Appendix 2 of this Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate sets out the collaborative working that has taken place with duty to cooperate bodies including how and when Doncaster Council has consulted or engaged.

3.0 Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground

14. In addition to the Doncaster Local Plan: Statement of Common Ground, Doncaster Council is also a signatory to the Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground (SCR SoCG). Paragraph 1.1 of the SCR SoCG states that the document “is a record of agreement on cross boundary, strategic matters between the nine local authorities and other key stakeholders in the Sheffield City Region. It has been produced by the signatory authorities to demonstrate how Local Plans are prepared on the basis of an agreed understanding of the issues facing the City Region.”

15. The local authorities engaged in the SCR Statement are:

 Bassetlaw DC  Barnsley MBC  Bolsover DC  Chesterfield BC  Derbyshire Dales DC  Doncaster Council  North East Derbyshire DC  Rotherham MBC  Sheffield City Council

16. The other key stakeholders and signatories to the SCR Statement are:

 SCR Mayoral Combined Authority  Nottinghamshire County Council  Derbyshire County Council  Peak District National Park Authority

17. It was agreed that the SCR SoCG would focus primarily on four strategic matters:  Housing;  Employment;  Transport;  Digital connectivity.

18. In additional, current working arrangements on several other strategic matters have been summarised to illustrate the range of shared interests being progressed. These strategic matters are developing and will be reviewed in future updates of the SCR SoCG. These strategic matters are:  Green Belt;  Energy and climate change;  Flood risk;  Minerals planning;  Waste planning;  Natural environment;  Peak District National Park;  Health.

19. The Statement was endorsed, in July 2019 by the SCR Infrastructure Board and it is currently being signed by participating authorities – Doncaster Council signed it on 28th January 2020. It will be formally approved by the MCA later in 2020. Although the Council is fully involved in the preparation of the Statement, the delivery and timescales are out of the Council’s control. A copy of the SCR SoCG is included as Appendix 3.

The relationship of the Doncaster SoCG and the SCR SoCG

20. Paragraph 1.6 of the SCR SoCG states that the document “has been prepared in light of existing work, in order to avoid duplication or conflict, and enable a more streamlined approach for the planning authorities in the SCR in the future.”

21. However, the Doncaster Local Plan has its own Statement of Common Ground produced by the Council. Work had already begun on a Doncaster Statement of Common Ground before the SCR version had started.

22. The Doncaster Statement of Common Ground addresses all strategic matters which are relevant to Doncaster and is therefore more detailed. As stated in the guidance (paragraph 27 the NPPF), a statement of common ground should document cross boundary strategic matters. In line with the relevant legislation (Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England) Regulations 2012), Doncaster’s neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies are more far reaching than those for the SCR.

23. The additional relevant bodies to Doncaster are:

Neighbouring Local Authorities  East Riding of Yorkshire Council  North Lincolnshire Council  Selby District Council  Wakefield Council (including minerals)  North Yorkshire County Council (minerals)  Nottinghamshire County Council (minerals)  West Yorkshire Combined Authority (minerals)  Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council (minerals)

Prescribed Bodies  Environment Agency  Historic England  Natural England  Highways England  Civil Aviation Authority  Homes England (formally known as Homes and Communities Agency  Marine Management Organisation  Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group  Office of Rail Regulation  South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority  South Yorkshire Local Nature Partnership  Yorkshire and Humber Aggregates Working Party

 East Midlands Aggregates Working Party

24. Therefore, although the SCR SoCG is relevant to the Doncaster Local Plan and helps to demonstrate how the Council has complied with the Duty to Cooperate, the Doncaster SoCG is far wider reaching and covers all strategic matters relevant to the Local Plan from all its neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies.

4.0 Summary of the Relevant Strategic Matters 25. The Doncaster Statement of Common Ground sets out the relevant strategic matters by topic and by Agreement (Section 6 and Appendix 2 of the SoCG). The Agreements are then signed up to by the relevant neighbouring authorities and/or prescribed bodies. The purpose of this section in this Statement of Compliance is to summarise those relevant matters and highlight the relevant agreements in the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground (February 2020). This has been done in Table 1 below which also lists how the matters were resolved or if they are still to be resolved (if relevant); and who was involved in the matter. Appendix 1 lists the neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies involved in the duty to cooperate and therefore are signatories to the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground.

Table 1: Summary of Strategic Matters/Issues (as listed in Section 6 of the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground)

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Housing (Agreement 1, 2 & 3) i. Doncaster is a single housing i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District market area. process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council: Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield Council.

ii. Doncaster has a housing ii. Doncaster asked its neighbouring authorities if ii. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District requirement of 920 per year any of them could accommodate some of its Council; East Riding of Yorkshire and some Green Belt sites will identified need and each one stated that it was Council; North Lincolnshire Council: be needed. not in a position to meet some of that need. Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; There are therefore no outstanding issues. Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield Council.

iii. Ensure that that scale and iii. No issues were highlighted through the DtC iii. Barnsley MBC, Bassetlaw District location of housing land does process and therefore there are no outstanding Council, East Riding of Yorkshire not have a negative impact on issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council: infrastructure outside the Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Borough’s boundaries. Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield Council; Doncaster CCG; Mayoral Combined Authority; Highways England; SYPTE. 9

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople (Agreement 4) i. Doncaster has a significant i. No neighbouring authorities including those in i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District gypsy and traveller community the Sheffield City Region raised any strategic Council; Bolsover District Council; base. uses. Therefore there are no outstanding issues. Chesterfield Borough Council; Derbyshire Dales District Council; North East Derbyshire District Council; Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Sheffield City Council; Wakefield Council.

Employment (Agreement 5 & 6) i. Doncaster is a separate i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District functional economic market process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire area. issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council: Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield Council.

ii. The Doncaster Local Plan will ii. No issues were highlighted through the DtC ii. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District meet its identified employment process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire; North land need of 481 ha in full. issues. Lincolnshire Council: Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield Council.

iii. Ensure that that scale and iii. No issues were highlighted through the DtC iii. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District location of employment land process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire does not have a negative issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council: impact on infrastructure Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; outside the Borough’s Sheffield City Council; and Wakefield boundaries. Council; Mayoral Combined Authority; Highways England; SYPTE.

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Transport Infrastructure Strategic Road Network (Agreement 7) i. Doncaster benefits from i. Throughout the Local Plan process, Doncaster i. Highways England; Mayoral Combined excellent motorway access. It Council and Highway England (HE) have Authority; Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw is important that the developed a collaborative approach to District Council; East Riding of Yorkshire; allocations in the Local Plan improvement works on and around the Strategic North Lincolnshire Council; Rotherham do not have a negative impact Road Network (SRN). Discussions have MBC; Selby District Council; Sheffield on the strategic road network. informed the site selection process and shaped City Council; Wakefield Council. proposed transport schemes. HE undertook modelling work to review the potential cumulative impact on the SRN and necessary mitigations have been agreed. Developer contributions and other potential funding opportunities will be sought.

Local Road Network (Agreement 8) ii. Due to significant recent ii. Collaborative working and discussions are ii. Barnsley MBC, Mayoral Combined development and further ongoing between the Mayoral Combined Authority. planned growth in the Dearne Authority, Doncaster Council and Barnsley Valley area of Barnsley, Council to investigate potential mitigation and highway improvements are funding opportunities including a Hickleton and required between the Dearne Marr bypass. This includes a feasibility study Valley and the A1(M). and business case. At this time, there are no outstanding issues.

iii. There has been significant iii. Doncaster Council has concerns that the traffic iii. Bassetlaw District Council. housing and employment generated from development at development over recent Harworth/Bircotes is having a negative impact years in Harworth/Bircotes on the local network in Doncaster, particularly at (Bassetlaw) which has Tickhill and Bawtry. This development has taken impacted on Doncaster’s place through allocations and permissions a highway network (A631 number of which are in the Harworth/Bircotes Bawtry/Tickhill corridor). Neighbourhood Plan. After negotiation lasting a number of years, Bassetlaw Council recently 11

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? commissioned transport modelling, (partly funded by Doncaster Council) and the findings identified that by 2037 with committed developments added, 4 out of 5 of the junctions that were assessed in Doncaster are over capacity in one or both peaks. Both Councils will continue to work together to investigate how the required mitigation schemes will be delivered and funded including considering the use of developer contributions, external funding or any other available and appropriate funding sources.

Public transport (Agreement 3 & 6) iv. Doncaster has a iv. The Council and South Yorkshire Passenger iv. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport comprehensive public Transport Executive (SYPTE) have a Executive transport network serving partnership approach to the public transport urban and rural communities. network enhancements. The Council has been in regular communication with SYPTE and if any service provision changes are required, the Council and SYPTE will work in partnership. There are no outstanding issues.

Rail including local services and HS2 (Agreement 9) v. The Council works closely v. No issues were highlighted through the DtC v. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport with the SYPTE on the process and therefore there are no outstanding Executive. provision and improvement of issues. local rail services and infrastructure.

vi. Doncaster has responded to vi. No issues were highlighted through the DtC vi. Barnsley MBC; Selby District Council; consultations from HS2 process and therefore there are no outstanding Wakefield Council; Mayoral Combined Limited throughout the issues. Authority; South Yorkshire Combined scheme development and Authority; Transport for the North; HS2 route refinement process. Ltd; South Yorkshire Passenger 12

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Transport Executive.

vii. There are plans for a new vii. No issues were highlighted through the DtC vii. Network Rail; Mayoral Combined East Coast Main Line loop process and therefore there are no outstanding Authority. and Station at Doncaster issues. Sheffield Airport.

Air quality and noise (Agreement 10) i. Air quality and noise issues i. This is being addressed through joint working i. Mayoral Combined Authority, Barnsley for Doncaster resulting from with Mayoral Combined Authority and Barnsley MBC. development in Goldthorpe Council (see ‘local highway network’ above); (Barnsley).

ii. Air quality and noise issues ii. This is being addressed through joint working ii. Bassetlaw District Council. for Doncaster resulting from with Bassetlaw District Council (see ‘local development in highway network’ above). If mitigation schemes Harworth/Bircotes are necessary both Councils will jointly (Bassetlaw). investigate whether air quality management is necessary.

Retail and town centres (Agreement 11) i. Doncaster’s retail catchment i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw is relatively self-contained. process and therefore there are no outstanding District Council; East Riding of Yorkshire issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council; Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Wakefield Council.

Flood risk (Agreement 12) i. Flood risk is a major issue for i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Environment Agency; Wakefield Council; Doncaster as 43% of the process as there has been on-going consultation Internal Drainage Boards. borough is within Flood Zone with the Environment Agency. Therefore there 2 or 3. There has been on- are no outstanding issues. going consultation and 13

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? engagement with the Environment Agency.

Green infrastructure (including Thorne and Hatfield Moors) (Agreement 13 & 14) i. There is on-going dialogue i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District with relevant parties to ensure process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire that biodiversity interests are issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council; addressed. Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; Wakefield Council; South Yorkshire Local Nature Partnership; Humberhead Levels Partnership; Dearne Valley Green Heart Partnership; North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre.

ii. There is a need to reduce the ii. No issues were highlighted through the DtC ii. East Riding of Yorkshire Council; North potential impact of the Local process and therefore there are no outstanding Lincolnshire Council; Humberhead Plan on Thorne and Hatfield issues. Levels Partnership; Natural England. Moors.

Built and historic environment (Agreement 15 & 16) i. There is on-going consultation i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District and dialogue with Historic process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; North Lincolnshire Council; England to ensure there are issues. Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; no adverse impacts on the Wakefield Council; Historic England. existing built and historic environment.

ii. Due to the amount of ii. Bassetlaw District Council raised concerns that ii. Bassetlaw District Council. development in Bassetlaw there is no substantive evidence to support this district (Harworth/Bircotes) matter. Doncaster Council agreed that this was there were concerns that the case and therefore this issue and Agreement heritage assets in Tickhill and 16 has been deleted from the Duty to Cooperate 14

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Bawtry were being affected by Statement and is not relevant. There are no additional noise and traffic. outstanding issues.

Waste management (Agreement 17) i. The four South Yorkshire i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Rotherham MBC; authorities are working process and therefore there are no outstanding Sheffield City Council; and other Waste towards producing a new Joint issues. Collection and Disposal Planning Waste Plan. Authorities such as Wakefield and East ii. A statement of Common Ground/Statement of Riding. Compliance will be produced with the South Yorkshire Waste Plan.

Community facilities (health, education & cultural infrastructure) (Agreement 3) i. Ongoing dialogue takes place i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Barnsley MBC; Bassetlaw District between the Council and the process and therefore there are no outstanding Council; East Riding of Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group issues. Council; North Lincolnshire Council; (CCG) to ensure that sufficient Rotherham MBC; Selby District Council; community facilities such as Sheffield City Council; Wakefield Council; doctors and dentists surgeries Doncaster Clinical Commissioning and school places are Group; Mayoral Combined Authority; provided/available. Highways England; South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

Water quality (Agreement 18) i. Doncaster Council will liaise i. No issues were highlighted through the DtC i. Environment Agency; water authorities/ with the Environment Agency process and therefore there are no outstanding utility companies. and utility companies. issues.

Minerals (Agreement 19) i. Discussion takes place i. Any matters/issues identified in the Statement of i. Planning Authorities within the Yorkshire regarding cross boundary flow Common Ground have been signed up to by the and Humber and East Midlands of aggregate minerals. relevant authorities. Aggregate Working Parties: 15

Strategic matter Has the strategic matter been resolved in the Relevant body Doncaster SoCG? Nottinghamshire County Council; East ii. The Yorkshire and Humber, and East Midlands Riding of Yorkshire Council; North Aggregate Working Parties are not appropriate Lincolnshire Council; North Yorkshire signatories to SoCGs. The preparation of County Council; Derbyshire County SoCGs will be minuted at AWP meetings and Council; Derby City Council. The West appended for information. Yorkshire Minerals sub-region, namely Wakefield Council; Leeds City Council; Bradford, Kirklees and Calderdale councils; and the South Yorkshire Minerals sub-region Rotherham MBC; Barnsley MBC; and Sheffield City Council.

5.0 Outcomes of the Duty to Cooperate

26. As the stated in the introduction, national legislation and guidance7 place a duty on local planning authorities and prescribed bodies to cooperate with each other to address strategic issues relevant to their area during plan making. They should engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation. Section 2 of this Statement of Compliance lists the stages where consultation took place on the Local Plan and Doncaster Statement of Common Ground. 27. During the preparation of the Doncaster Local Plan and Doncaster SoCG, a number of changes/amendments were suggested by neighbouring authorities/prescribed bodies, and these resulted in some changes bring made to the Local Plan and the Doncaster SoCG including the Agreements. The Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation8 submitted alongside the Doncaster Local Plan, sets out the comments received during the local plan preparation process (Regulation 19 Stage) and how they have influenced the Doncaster Local Plan. 28. Table 2 below briefly sets out if the neighbouring authority/prescribed body commented on the Local Plan or the Doncaster SoCG and if any changes were made as a result of that involvement. It should be noted that this section does not intend to replicate the Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation but instead refers to the relevant sections.

Table 2: Responses to the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground and Doncaster Local Plan

Neighbouring Authority/ Suggested amendments/changes to the How was the Doncaster Statement of Common Prescribed Body Doncaster SoCG or Doncaster Local Plan Ground or Doncaster Local Plan amended? Barnsley Metropolitan No comments to make on the SoCG apart from a Amendments were made to Agreement 17 concerning Borough Council suggested amendment to Agreement 17 (Waste Waste Management. Management) – it should be re-worded to reflect the No amendments needed to the Local Plan. position that although joint working with the 4 South Yorkshire LPAs on an evidence base is progressing, the potential of a new Waste Plan has yet to be agreed. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

Bassetlaw District Council Comments were made and on-going discussions On-going discussions took place on the SoCG regarding took place on the SOCG regarding Agreements 8: Agreements 8: Local Road Network; 10: Air Quality and

7 Localism Act 2011, Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the National Planning Policy Framework 8 www.doncaster.gov.uk/localplan

Neighbouring Authority/ Suggested amendments/changes to the How was the Doncaster Statement of Common Prescribed Body Doncaster SoCG or Doncaster Local Plan Ground or Doncaster Local Plan amended? Local Road Network; 10: Air Quality and Noise; and Noise; and 16: Built and Historic Environment. 16: Built and Historic Environment. Agreement 8: the wording to the Agreement and Agreement 8: Bassetlaw suggested wording to explanatory text was amended to reflect the situation as update the explanatory text and Agreement wording it moved forward and progressed Bassetlaw undertook to reflect the current situation regarding the Harworth traffic modelling work (which Doncaster part funded) Bircotes Neighbourhood Plan and the Bassetlaw which identifies that 4 out of 5 junctions are over Local Plan and its evidence base. capacity. The Agreement states that both Councils are Agreement 10: Bassetlaw stated that there is no working closely to investigate how the required mitigation evidence to suggest that there are air quality issues schemes will be delivered and funded. derived from traffic from Harworth/Bircotes on the Agreement 10: the wording to Agreement 10 was A631. amended to state that both Councils will work closely Agreement 16: Bassetlaw stated that there is no together to jointly investigate whether air quality evidence to suggest that there is an impact on management is required and then if mitigation schemes Tickhill and Bawtry Conservation Areas due to an are necessary how they will be delivered and funded. increase in traffic from Harworth/Bircotes. Agreement 16: it was agreed that there is no tangible Comments made on the Local Plan regarding Policy evidence to support the Agreement. Agreement 16 has 13. Support the Policy and the recognition of been deleted. planned intervention of a joint feasibility study. Also No amendments needed to the Local Plan. See support the Revised Draft SoCG. See Regulation 22 Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraph Statement of Consultation paragraph 3.149. 3.149 They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

East Riding of Yorkshire Comments were made to the SoCG. These included: Minor changes were made to the SoCG. deleting reference to East Riding in Agreement 15 Amendments made to the Local Plan in Table 10: Locally (Historic Environment); including East Riding in sourced mineral provision for the plan period, and the Agreement 17 (Waste Management); suggested explanatory text. See Regulation 22 Statement of wording Agreements including 19.3 & 19.7 Consultation paragraph 3.206 for amendments to the (minerals); suggest Agreement 19.8 is deleted. Local Plan. Comments made on the Local Plan regarding Policy 62 (Minerals) - Table 10 and the explanatory text suggesting that ‘other relevant local information’ should be factored into the demand forecast. See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraph 3.206. 18

North Lincolnshire Council No comments to make on the SoCG (support the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. SoCG) or the Local Plan. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

Rotherham Metropolitan Confirmed that Rotherham are happy to sign up to SoCG was amended accordingly regarding Agreements Borough Council the relevant Agreements in the SoCG and with 3 and 6 supporting text and amendments were made to suggested amendments to the supporting text of Agreement 17 concerning Waste Management. Agreement 3 and 6 to state that separate No amendments needed to the Local Plan. discussions would be needed regarding future cross boundary infrastructure provision. Suggested amendment to Agreement 17 (Waste Management) – it should be re-worded to reflect the position that although joint working with the 4 South Yorkshire LPAs on an evidence base is progressing, the potential of a new Waste Plan has yet to be agreed. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need. No comments received regarding the Local Plan.

Selby District Council Commented on the SoCG by saying that Selby Selby DC is included within Agreement 4 – Gypsies, should be included in Agreement 4 regarding Gypsy, Travellers and Traveling Show People. Travellers and Travelling Show People. No amendments needed to the Local Plan. No comments on the Local Plan – general support. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

Sheffield City Council A number of comments were made to the SoCG The MCA was referenced in Appendix 2 of the SoCG as such as suggesting that Mayoral Combined Authority requested and amendments were made to Agreement 17 (MCA) is included in additional Agreements. concerning Waste Management. Suggested amendment to Agreement 17 (Waste No amendments needed to the Local Plan. 19

Neighbouring Authority/ Suggested amendments/changes to the How was the Doncaster Statement of Common Prescribed Body Doncaster SoCG or Doncaster Local Plan Ground or Doncaster Local Plan amended? Management) – it should be re-worded to reflect the position that although joint working with the 4 South Yorkshire LPAs on an evidence base is progressing, the potential of a new Waste Plan has yet to be agreed. Some comments were made regarding the Local Plan (at the Informal Consultation Stage) mainly in support of a higher housing target and of Policy 7 Doncaster Sheffield Airport. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

Wakefield Council A number of comments were made regarding the The SoCG was amended accordingly. Draft SoCG such as including Wakefield as part of No amendments needed to the Local Plan. Agreements 9, 12 and 17. Also comments regarding the Minerals Agreements. There were no further comments submitted as part of the Revised Draft SoCG. Support the Local Plan – see Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraph 3.66. They also confirmed that they are not in a position to take any of Doncaster’s housing need.

North Yorkshire County No comments to make on the SoCG. No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Council Support the Local Plan - see Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraphs 3.207; 3.209; and 3.210.

Nottinghamshire County No comments to make on the SoCG or the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Council Doncaster Local Plan.

Derbyshire County Council No comments to make on the SoCG or the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Doncaster Local Plan.

West Yorkshire Combined No comments to make on the SoCG or the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. 20

Environment Agency Confirmation that the SoCG is an accurate reflection No amendments needed to the SoCG. of the matters and issues of concern to the EA. See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraphs A number of comments were made regarding the 3.145; 3.147; 3.166; 3.168; 3.199; 3.200; 3.202; 3.204, Local Plan – see Regulation 22 Statement of 3.205 and 3.206 for amendments to the Local Plan. Consultation paragraphs 3.145; Policy 3.147; 3.166; 3.168; 3.199; 3.200; 3.202; 3.204, 3.205 and 3.206.

Historic England Did not make any comments on the SoCG. No amendments needed to the SoCG. Officers worked A number of comments were made regarding the closely with Historic England to ensure that appropriate Local Plan throughout the preparation process. See changes were made to the Local Plan or its evidence Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation for those base. relating to the Regulation 19 Stage. The relevant See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraphs paragraphs are – 3.70; 3.140; 3.142; 3.161; 3.166; 3.70; 3.140; 3.142; 3.161; 3.166; 3.168; 3.169; 3.175; 3.168; 3.169; 3.175; 3.176; 3.185; 3.186; 3.187; 3.176; 3.185; 3.186; 3.187; 3.191; 3.194; 3.203; 3.204; 3.191; 3.194; 3.203; 3.204; 3.207; 3.227; 3.228; 3.207; 3.227; 3.228; 3.237; and 3.421 for amendments to 3.237; and 3.421. the Local Plan.

Natural England Minor amendments on the SoCG including Officers worked closely with Natural England to ensure clarification on Agreement 13 and 14 and Impact that appropriate changes were made to the Local Plan or Risk Zones. its evidence base. The SoCG was amended to refer to A number of comments were made regarding the Impact Risk Zones (under ‘Green Infrastructure & Thorne Local Plan throughout the preparation process. See and Hatfield Moors’. Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation for those See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraphs relating to the Regulation 19 Stage. The relevant 3.171; 3.172 and 3.205 for amendments to the Local paragraphs are – 3.171; 3.172; and 3.205. Plan.

Highways England Comments were made on the SoCG. Agreed with Officers worked closely with Highway England on revised the principles of Agreements 3 and 6. Wished to see wording to the SoCG (and the Infrastructure Delivery amendments to Agreement 7, as it was Plan). The revised wording reflects the way forward for unacceptable to Highways England. The reference the Local Plan and the allocations. to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was The SoCG (under Strategic Road Network and unacceptable and should be removed. Agreement 7) was amended to reflect the work Comments on the Local Plan were generally undertaken so far to assess the impact of allocations on 21

Neighbouring Authority/ Suggested amendments/changes to the How was the Doncaster Statement of Common Prescribed Body Doncaster SoCG or Doncaster Local Plan Ground or Doncaster Local Plan amended? supportive of the policies. – see Regulation 22 the road network and set out the proposed way forward. Statement of Consultation paragraphs 3.68; 3.149; The reference to a MoU has been removed. and 3.212. See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraphs 3.68; 3.149 and 3.212 for amendments to the Local Plan.

Civil Aviation Authority* No comments to make on the Local Plan or SoCG No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. as planning matters for airports were handed back to relevant Aerodrome Certificate and Licence Holders in 2003 under an ODPM directive.

Homes England* Did not make any comments on the SoCG. No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Submitted a site related representation to the Informal Consultation: Draft Policies and Proposed Sites.

Marine Management No comments to make on the Local Plan or SoCG No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Organisation* as they do not consider there to be any significant relevant cross boundary issues.

Doncaster Clinical No comments to make on the SoCG. Made a No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Commissioning Group representation to the Informal Consultation: Draft Policies and Proposed Sites.

Office of Rail and Road* Did not make any comments on the SoCG. No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Commented on the Local Plan in 2015 and asked to be excluded from correspondence which does not affect the operation of the mainline network.

South Yorkshire Passenger No comments on the Local Plan. Minor amendments More references to public transport provision were Transport Executive to the SoCG including referencing ‘bus, tram, inserted in the SoCG and SYPTE are included in tram/train and train’ specifically referencing ‘local rail’ Agreement 8, 9 & 10. and wishing to be including in Agreements 8, 9 and No amendments needed to the Local Plan. 10.

Yorkshire and Humber No comments to make on the SoCG or the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. 22

East Midlands Aggregates No comments to make on the SoCG or the No amendments needed to the SoCG or Local Plan. Working Party Doncaster Local Plan.

Mayoral Combined Authority A number of comments were made on the Draft The Draft SoCG was amended accordingly and the MCA (MCA)/Sheffield City Region SoCG. This included correcting the description of the has been included in the Agreements suggested. MCA/LEP. Confirmation that the MCA is happy to No amendments needed to the Local Plan. sign up to the relevant agreements and for the MCA to be mentioned in Agreements 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9. Supportive of the Local Plan and the work being undertaken so far. See Regulation 22 Statement of Consultation paragraph 3.66.

South Yorkshire Nature Comments made on the Draft SoCG with web links The Draft SoCG was amended accordingly. Partnership (SYLNP) made available to the SYLNP website and No amendments needed to the Local Plan. amendment to Agreement 13 to insert the words ‘ecological’. No further comments to the Revised Draft SoCG. No comments received on the Local Plan.

* These prescribed bodies are not signatories to the Doncaster Statement of Common Ground as they asked to be excluded, or have never made comments on it.

Appendix 1: Neighbouring Authorities and Prescribed bodies involved in the Duty to Cooperate

Neighbouring Local Authorities  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (including minerals)  Bassetlaw District Council  East Riding of Yorkshire Council  North Lincolnshire Council  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (including minerals)  Selby District Council  Sheffield City Council – although not a neighbouring authority they are involved due to minerals and housing need  Wakefield Council (including minerals)  North Yorkshire County Council (minerals)  Nottinghamshire County Council (minerals)  Derbyshire County Council (minerals)  Derby City Council (minerals) – included as working with Derbyshire County Council on a Joint Minerals Plan  West Yorkshire Combined Authority (minerals)

Prescribed Bodies  Environment Agency (EA)  Historic England (formally English Heritage)  Natural England  Highways England  Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)  Homes England (formally known as Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)  Marine Management Organisation  Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (formerly Primary Care Trust)  Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)  Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership(SCR LEP)/Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA)  South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority (formally the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive) (now part of the Mayoral Combined Authority)  South Yorkshire Local Nature Partnership  Yorkshire and Humber Aggregates Working Party (YHAWP) (minerals)  East Midlands Aggregates Working Party (EMAWP) (minerals)

Appendix 2: Collaborative working with Neighbouring Authorities and Prescribed Bodies

Collaborative Working with Duty to Cooperate Bodies

Duty to Cooperate How engaged When engaged What issues engaged Why engaged Key outcomes/current position Body

Barnsley One to one meetings 12 February 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues at this time as collaborative Metropolitan updates and cross boundary issues boundary issues in particular working is taking place. Borough Council 5 July 2016 such as the potential employment highways and air quality issues site at Goldthorpe, air quality, and around Hickleton and Marr. Also The Barnsley Local Plan includes explanatory text 10 August 2016 highway issues. cross boundary issues regarding which addresses the need for air quality and highway the flow of minerals issues to be addressed in relation to the major 15 March 2017 employment site in Goldthorpe which is in response to issues regarding Hickleton in Doncaster borough. Marr 18 October 2018 has also now been declared an Air Quality Management Area so routing agreements are Email correspondence 9 September 2015 Various issues including a joint necessary to ensure that HGV traffic avoids the village. approach to highway schemes, Doncaster Council, Barnsley Council and the Mayoral 10 December 2015 issues regarding the potential Combined Authority/Sheffield City Region are currently employment site at Goldthorpe, undertaking a feasibility study and business case for 26 August 2016 responses to stages of the Barnsley the delivery of a Hickleton and Marr bypass. There may Local Plan and EiP. be a need for a Memorandum of Understanding in the 15 November 2016 future to ensure the delivery of such a scheme.

15/16 May 2017 Issues relating to minerals also agreed. 29 March 2018

18 April 2018

27 September 2018 Request for potential strategic/cross (replied on 25 October boundary issues including if land can 2018) be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs.

25 June 2019 Confirmation that Barnsley are happy with the Draft SoCG.

14 November 2019 Cross boundary minerals flow

18 November 2019 Confirmation that Barnsley are happy with the revised Draft SoCG. Minor issue regarding wording for the Waste Plan.

Bassetlaw District One to one meeting 14 December 2015 Various issues including Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues. Council development impacts on the local boundary issues 23 August 2016 highway network and Harworth Work is on-going to resolve any highways issues Neighbourhood Plan and residential caused by an increase in development in 8 May 2018 planning applications in Harworth Harworth/Bircotes. This includes transport modelling and traffic modelling. with data input both from Bassetlaw and Doncaster. 20 September 2019 Meetings are also held with Bawtry Town Council who are concerned about the amount of development at 25

Email correspondence 20 February 2014 Various issues including travelling Harworth/Bircotes and the impact on the local highways show people. Of particular network. 10 March 2014 importance is information regarding proposed housing allocations then 16th June 2015 planning permissions for Harworth/Bircotes and traffic data for 29 June 2015 the A631 Bawtry/Tickhill corridor. Also requests for DtC meetings to 12 August 2015 discuss the impact on traffic on the local highway network. 31 May 2016 This also includes emails trying to 28 June 2016 agree wording for the Statement of Common Ground; agree a way 1 August 2016 forward on joint transport modelling. Also discussions on modelling 8 August 2016 results.

21 September 2016

18 November 2016

21 November 2016

7 December 2016

24 February 2017 (phone call w/c 17 April 2017)

15 June 2017

6 October 2017

19 April 2018

26 July 2018

27 September 2018 & Request for potential strategic/cross 26 November 2018 boundary issues including if land can be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs

22 January 2019

13 March 2019

25 June 2019

27 September 2019

7 October 2019

10 October 2019

11 October 2019 26

19 November 2019

11 December 2019

16 January 2020

20 January 2020

23 January 2020

29 January 2020

31 January 2020

5 February 2020

6 February 2020

18 February 2020

20 February 2020 Agreed SoCG wording

25 February 2020 Agreed SoCG wording Local Plan response 7 December 2016 Response to Initial Draft Bassetlaw with issues including interconnectivity between settlements and highway network issues.

13 March 2019 Response to Draft Bassetlaw Local Plan (Part 1) with issues including growth at Harworth/Bircotes; the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment; and Duty to Cooperate.

30 September 2019 Bassetlaw response to Doncaster Publication Local Plan – concerning joint feasibility study work for highway assessments and duty to cooperate.

27 February 2020 Response to Draft Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020

Derbyshire County Email correspondence/ 26 November 2918 Confirm and agree wording on cross Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Council telephone call boundary minerals flow boundary flow of minerals 21 October 2019

19 November 2019

East Riding of One to one meeting 20 January 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Yorkshire Council updates and any potential cross boundary issues including mineral boundary issues flows. Workshop 24 January 2020 East Riding Employment Land Review workshop 27

Email correspondence 10 July 2015 Various issues including East Riding Local Plan; East Riding and Hull 10 June 2016 Joint Minerals Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents 27 January 2017 as well as cross boundary mineral flows. 12 June 2017

12 April 2018

16 July 2018

27 September 2018 Request for potential strategic/cross (replied on 15 October boundary issues including if land can 2018) be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs

9 November 2018

5 July 2019 Response to Draft SoCG with suggested amendments

28 August 2019

25 September 2019 Response to Revised Draft SoCG and local Plan Policy 62

12 November 2019

9 December 2019

Nottinghamshire One to one meeting 15 May 2019 Meeting with Nottingham and Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues County Council Rotherham to discuss flow of boundary flow of minerals minerals Email correspondence 16 April 2019 Cross boundary mineral flows

23 March 2019

9 July 2019 Response to Draft SoCG with minor typos

11 October 2019

17 October 2019

18 November 2019

19 November 2019

25 November 2019

17 January 2019

North Lincolnshire One to one meeting 17 February 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Council updates and any potential cross boundary issues including mineral 5 September 2019 boundary issues flows 28

On-line form (Local 5 April 2017 Response to Local Plan consultation Plan) - various issues including trans- 6 March 2018 northern route Email correspondence 29 September 2017 Various issues including cross boundary mineral flows

27 September (replied Request for potential strategic/cross on 11 October 2018) boundary issues including if land can be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs

23 April 2019

26 April 2019

03 May 2019

1 July 2019 Confirmation that there are no comments to made regarding the Draft SoCG

15 October 2019 Confirmation that there are no comments to made regarding the Revised Draft SoCG

North Yorkshire One to one meeting 11 January 2016 Cross boundary minerals flows Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues County Council boundary flow of minerals (Minerals) Email correspondence 15 January 2016 Comments on North Yorkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan and 2 August 2016 discussion/agreement on cross boundary minerals flows 10 August 2016

11 August 2016

28 November 2016

2 & 4 July 2019 Response on the Draft SoCG

13 November 2019

22 November 2019

Rotherham One to one meeting 18 February 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross Appropriate amendments were made to the wording of Metropolitan updates and any potential cross boundary issues including flow of Agreement 17. No outstanding issues. Borough Council 30 May 2017 boundary issues including minerals discussion with Nottingham CC 15 May 2019 about the flow of minerals

Email correspondence 27 September 2018 Request for potential strategic/cross (replied on 25 October boundary issues including if land can 2018) be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs

11 July 2019 & 8 Confirmation that Rotherham is August 2019 happy with the Draft SoCG if amendments are made to the wording of Agreement 17 – Waste.

26 March 2019

20 August 2019 Confirmation that Rotherham is happy with the Revised Draft SoCG.

5 August 2019

20 August 2019

25 September 2019

14 November 2019 Agreement on cross boundary mineral matters Local Plan response 5 February 2015 Various issues including response to Submission Sites and Policies 2 November 2015 document, proposed housing sites at Wath and Proposed Main 7 June 2017 Modifications

3 July 2017

5 January 2018

Selby District Workshop 30 July 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Council updates and any potential cross boundary issues boundary issues Email correspondence 28 September 2015 Various issues including responses to Local Plan and to draft studies 4 October 2016 and evidence base including Selby Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation 16 October 2016 Assessment; and Selby Economic Development Strategy 9 April 2018

3 May 2018

27 September 2018 Request for potential strategic/cross (replied on 12 boundary issues including if land can November 2018) be allocated in other local authority areas to help meet Doncaster’s housing needs

4th July 2019 Confirmation that Selby is happy with the SoCG. Local Plan response 16 October 2017 Response to Pool of Sites Consultation Telephone discussion 16 April 2018 Update on Local Plans and any potential cross boundary issues

Sheffield City One to one meeting 15 December 2015 Various issues including local plan No outstanding issues Council (not a updates

30 neighbouring authority Email correspondence 6 January 2016 Various issues including Sheffield but is included to asking if Doncaster can take some of reflect any potential 15 January 2016 Sheffield’s housing need housing need issues and minerals) 17 April 2018

10 July 2019 Response to Draft SoCG with minor amendments.

19 September 2019 Confirmation that Sheffield is happy with the revised Draft SoCG if amendments are made to the wording Agreement 17 – Waste.

Wakefield Council One to one meeting 2 December 2015 Various issues including local plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues updates and any potential cross boundary issues including mineral 20 June 2017 boundary issues including minerals flows and employment sites 11 February 2019 Local Plan response 20 November 17 Various including early engagement on Wakefield Local Plan and 21 May 18 Development Site Options Technical Consultation; and Initial Draft Local 26 October 18 Plan consultation.

26 February 2019

28 August 2019 Email correspondence 13 April 2018 Various issues including contribution to Local Plan evidence base – retail 22 June 2018 completions; waste movement data; and DtC strategic issues table.

5 July 2019 Response to Draft SoCG with minor amendments.

27 September 2019 Confirmation that Wakefield have no further comments on the Revised Draft SoCG

13 November 2019 Cross boundary mineral flows

West Yorkshire Email correspondence Cross boundary mineral flows Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Combined Authority boundary flow of minerals (no (minerals) evidence of strategic flow of 31

minerals specifically to Calderdale, Calderdale 12 June 2019 & 11 Kirklees and Bradford) July 2019

13 November 2019 Confirmation that have no comments to make on the Draft SoCG 5 December 2019

Leeds 15 July 2019 Confirmation that have no comments to make on the Draft SoCG and have signed the document 13 November 2019

15 November 2019

Kirklees 13 November 2019

Wakefield (see See above above)

Bradford 13 November 2019

Prescribed bodies Civil Aviation Email correspondence 24 June 2019 The CAA confirmed that they do not To ensure that the Local Plan No outstanding issues Authority need to be involved in the duty to reflects any views set out by the cooperate requirement. CAA due to Robin Hood Airport.

Doncaster Clinical Attendance at Health 1 September 2016 Update on the development of the To ensure that housing allocations No outstanding issues Commission Group and Wellbeing Board Local Plan and where opportunities in the Doncaster Local Plan do not (this also included the to support residents to lead healthier have an unacceptable impact on Yorkshire Ambulance lives has been incorporated. the health provision across the Service & NHS borough. England North) One to one meeting 14 October 2016 A range of matters discussed including a strategic overview of 30 March 2017 housing need and how it might affect health provision, an understanding of 4 August 2017 GP services, health strategies and service provision, and local plan update regarding housing need and site allocations and their impact on service provision.

Email correspondence 24 June 2019 Confirmation that have no comments on the Draft SoCG

24 October 2019 Confirmation that have no comments on the Revised Draft SoCG

East Midlands Email correspondence 17 October 2019 Cross boundary flow of minerals Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues. Aggregates Working boundary flow of minerals Party (minerals) The EM AMP decided it was not appropriate to be a formal signatory to SoCG.

Environment Agency One to one meeting 19 September 2014 Various issues including the policy To ensure that the policies and No outstanding issues position for the new Local Plan and allocations in the Doncaster Local 17 February 2015 the evidence base e.g. SFRA, Plan do not have an unacceptable HELAA, SA scoping report. Also impact on flood risk issues across 10 June 2015 ascertaining the latest available the borough and that the latest modelling work. available evidence is used

9 January 2019

21 August 2019

21 September 2019 Email correspondence 26 November 2014 Various issues including scope/brief for review of Level 1 SFRA

26 March 2015 Consulted on daft SA scoping report

25 September 2015 Formal response to Issues and Options consultation

18 April 2016 Formal response to Homes and Settlements Consultation

28 November 2018 Formal response to Draft Policies and Proposed Sites Consultation

28 June 2019 Confirmation that the SoCG is an accurate reflection of the matters and issues of concern to the EA

23 August 2019

4 October 2019 Formal response to Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Highways England One to one meetings 31 March 2015 Meetings to discuss updates on To ensure that the allocations in No outstanding issues. Local Plan including proposed the Doncaster Local Plan do not 8 June 2016 highway improvement schemes on have an unacceptable impact on Mitigation requirements have been agreed and are M18 and A1(M) and highways the strategic highway network included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. 26 April 2017 modelling process and results. Collaborative working will be maintained to secure developer contributions where appropriate and to 10 September 2018 investigate other potential finding opportunities.

12 November 2018

10 July 2019

13 August 2019

17 September 2019

15 October 2019

7 November 2019

2 December 2019

21 January 2020 Discussion regarding mitigation requirements for the Local Plan

Email correspondence 14 May 2015 Various issues including Local Plan potential allocations sent for traffic 15 June 2017 modelling and discussions regarding the results of the modelling 22 June 107

7 July 2017

14 July 2017

9 & 16 & 23 August 2017

14 December 2017

15 January 2018

25 June 2018

3 July 2018

21 & 24 September 2018

27 September 2018

9 November 2018

13 November 2018

20 November 2018

15 February 2018 7 March 2019

8 March 2019

11 March 2019

12 March 2019

15 March 2019

19 March 2019

24 April 2019

30 April 2019

14 May 2019

14 May 2019 34

5 June 2019

1 August 2019

8 August 2019

15 August 2019

17 September 2019

26 September 2019 Response to Revised Draft SoCG with minor amendments and suggested wording to amend Agreement 7

4 November 2019

25 November 2019

20 December 2019 Technical note setting out the mitigation requirements for the Local Plan

28 January & 5 Suggested words regarding the February 2020 Statement of Common Ground

3 & 5 February 2020 Suggested words regarding the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Historic England One to one meeting 16 October 2019 Meeting to discuss any outstanding To ensure that the Heritage Impact No outstanding issues issues regarding Local Plan Policies Assessment is in line with current best practice. To ensure that the Email correspondence 25 January 2017 Various issues including informal impact of development and policies consultation on the Heritage Impact proposed in the Local Plan have no 28 February 2017 Assessment; draft Heritage policies unacceptable impact on matters and amendments to the policies; relating to Historic England 11 April 2017 request for any strategic issues to be highlighted. 19 February 2018

1 March 2018

24 September 2018

4 January 2019

10 June 2019 Confirmation that happy with the SoCG Telephone 13 September 2019 Discussion about issues raised on conversation the Publication version of the Local Plan

Homes England Email correspondence 24 September 2018 Asking for comments on the SoCG No outstanding issues (formally Homes and including asking for any strategic Communities 6 June 2019 Issues to be highlighted Agency) 14 August 2019

21 October 2019

14 November 2019 Chase’ email sent

Marine Management Email correspondence 17 September 2019 The MMO have stated that they do To ensure that the impact of the No outstanding issues Organisation not consider there to be any development and policies proposed significant relevant cross boundary in the Local Plan have no issues to warrant agreement on a unacceptable impact on transport Statement of Common Ground. matters relating to the MMO

Natural England Email correspondence 26 September 2018 Various issues including local plan To consider the draft HRA and No outstanding issues consultation, request for any ensure that the impact of 4 February 2019 strategic issue to be highlighted, development and policies proposed response on draft habitats in the Local Plan have no 3 July 2019 Regulations Assessment (HRA), unacceptable impact on matters issues relating to water use in the relating to Natural England Local Plan.

2 & 3 & 5 July 2019 Minor amendments on and clarification regarding the SoCG

Office of Rail and Email correspondence 27 July 2015 Confirmation that the ORR had no To ensure that the impact of the No comments have been received therefore there are Road (ORR) comment to make the Local Plan development and policies proposed no outstanding issues 12 August 2015 (Vision, Aims and Objectives and in the Local Plan have no Issues and Options and SA) unacceptable impact on transport matters relating to the ORR 26 September 2018 Email to request for strategic Issues to be highlighted and for comments 6 June 2019 on the Draft and Revised Draft SoCG 14 August 2019

11 November 2019 ‘Chase’ email sent

Mayoral Combined One to one meeting 29 June 2016 Various issues including Local Plan Need to take account of cross No outstanding issues Authority/Sheffield update, employment strategy, boundary issues and agree and City Region LEP (this 11 December 2017 employment land review, housing sign off a Sheffield City Region includes the needs and SCR issues Statement of Common Ground preparation of the 22 January 2018 SCR SoCG) 8 October 2018 Email correspondence 21 November 2016 Various issues including an update on Doncaster’s housing requirement 19 October 2018 and completions and SoCG both Doncaster Local Plan version and 25 October 2018 SCR version.

31 October 2018

7 January 2019

15 February 2019

14 May 2019

17 May 2019

23 May 2019

31 May 2019

5 July 2019 Response on Draft SoCG with suggested amendments 17 July 2019

25 & 30 September Confirmation that have no further 2019 issues to raise in the Revised Draft SoCG

11 October 2019 Final version of SCR SoCG

28 January 2020 Confirmation that Doncaster had signed the SCR SoCG SCR meetings 5 August 2014 Discussions and updates regarding including Heads of the SCR SoCG Service & Planning 8 February 2018 Policy Managers & SoCG Working Group 12 April 2018

13 June 2018

16 October 2018

25 January 2019

14 February 2019

13 May 2019

South Yorkshire One to one meeting 26 May 2017 Meetings to discuss SCR Transport To ensure that the impact of the No outstanding issues. Integrated Transport Model – model availability, potential development and policies proposed Authority 15 November 2018 sites and results in the Local Plan have no unacceptable impact on the local 11 April 2019 highway network

25 November 2019 Email correspondence 22 May 2017 Various issues but principally to discuss SCR Transport Model – 30 May 2017 model availability, potential sites and results 2 June 2017

9 June 2017

15 June 2017

22 June 2017

22 November 2017

2 March 2018

21 March 2018

17 April 2018

16 November 2018

11 March 2019

12 March 2019

13 March 2019

14 March 2019

15 March 2019

19 March 2019

21 March 2019

22 March 2019

27 March 2019

24 April 2019

10 July 2019

26 September 2019

19 November 2019 Response to revised Draft SoCG with minor amendments

South Yorkshire Board Meetings 5 July 2013 Representation on the Board which To ensure that the impact of the No outstanding issues Local Nature provides strategic leadership and development and policies proposed Partnership 24 September 2013 direction of work for the SYLNP in the Local Plan have no including duty to cooperate issues unacceptable impact on the work of 13 May 2014 the SYLNP which is to protect and enhance South Yorkshire’s natural 11 November 2014 environment

23 February 2015

13 Nov 2015

16 March 2016

6 July 2016

26 October 2016

19 Jan 2017

4 May 2017

28 July 2017

13 September 2017

14 December 2017

18 May 2018

9 November 2018

11 March 2019

7 June 2019

9 Sep 2019

9 Jan 2020

Email correspondence 10 October 2018 Informal consultation on the Local Plan and to request for strategic issues to be highlighted

5 July 2019 Response to Draft SoCG with suggested amendments

11 December 2019 Confirmation that there are no issues with the Revised Draft SoCG

Yorkshire and Aggregates Working 10 January 2019 Cross boundary flow of minerals Need to take account of cross Minutes. 10/01/19 Humber Aggregates Party meeting boundary flow of minerals SoCGs. As AWP’s are supported by both local Working Party 25 July 2019 authorities and industry it is not always possible to (minerals) agree a consensus opinion on local plans and as such it is not clear how AWPs could sign up to minerals plans. The AWP agreed that more detail is needed on this and maybe a matter to take to the minerals PAG to address with MHCLG.

Minutes 25/07/19 Discussion took place around SoCGs and AWP Members being signatories of these. Council to raise with MHCLG that there is conflict of interest between industry and local authority Members signing these. There is also the issue of local authority members not having the delegated powers to sign these off.

Appendix 3 – Sheffield City Region Statement of Common Ground

SHEFFIELD CITY REGION STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND

OCTOBER 2019

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Signatories 5

3. Strategic Geography 7

4. Key Strategic Matters 9

4.1 Planning for Housing in Sheffield City Region 10 4.2 Planning for Employment in Sheffield City Region 14 4.3 Planning for Transport in Sheffield City Region 19 4.4 Planning for Digital Connectivity in Sheffield City Region 23 4.5 Planning for other Strategic Matters in Sheffield City Region 25

5. Governance Arrangements 27

Annex 28

Glossary of abbreviations 35

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground provides a record of agreement on cross boundary, strategic matters between the nine local authorities and other key stakeholders in the Sheffield City Region. It has been produced by the signatory authorities to demonstrate how Local Plans are prepared on the basis of an agreed understanding of the issues facing the City Region.

1.2 The Statement fulfils the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and has been developed in accordance with the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance. The local authorities directly engaged in the Statement are:

 Bassetlaw DC  Barnsley MBC  Bolsover DC  Chesterfield BC  Derbyshire Dales DC  Doncaster Council  North East Derbyshire DC  Rotherham MBC  Sheffield City Council

1.3 Other key stakeholders and signatories to the Statement are:

 SCR Mayoral Combined Authority  Nottinghamshire County Council  Derbyshire County Council  Peak District National Park Authority

1.4 An explanation of the key strategic matters and where we agree on these is set out in the following sections, with more detailed information in the annex along with technical issues and links to the evidence base we have developed and continue to maintain.

1.5 Other Statements of Common Ground have also been agreed, or are being prepared, by authorities in SCR. This includes Statements of Common Ground for:

 The Doncaster Local Plan (draft June 2019) covering several strategic matters relating to the Local Plan;  North East Derbyshire District Council, Bolsover District Council, Chesterfield Borough Council, Bassetlaw District Council, Derbyshire County Council and Highways England (Oct 2018) covering M1 J30 & Treble Bob Roundabout  Bolsover and Mansfield District Councils (August 2018) covering Gypsy and Traveller unmet need, housing needs, Junction 28 and 28 and development in Pleasley;  North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw (May 2018) on the Housing Market Area;  Sheffield and North East Derbyshire (May 2018) on Green Belt; 3

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

 Bolsover and North East Derbyshire (May 2018) on the former Coalite Works;  Bassetlaw and Mansfield (December 2018) covering Gypsy and Traveller unmet need, housing need and distribution, Welbeck Colliery site and A60 corridor.

1.6 This SCR wide Statement of Common Ground has been prepared in light of existing work, in order to avoid duplication or conflict, and enable a more streamlined approach for the planning authorities in the SCR area in the future. It is a live document that will be kept up to date by the signatories involved. This process will also allow other signatories and strategic matters to be added as appropriate.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

2. Key Signatories

...... for and behalf of Bassetlaw District Signature Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Barnsley Metropolitan Signature Borough Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Bolsover District Signature Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Chesterfield Borough Signature Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Derbyshire Dales Signature District Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Doncaster Council Signature ...... Title

...... for and behalf of North East Signature Derbyshire District Council ......

Title

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

...... for and behalf of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Signature

...... Title

...... for and behalf of Sheffield City Council Signature

...... Title

...... for and behalf of Derbyshire County Signature Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Nottinghamshire Signature County Council ...... Title

...... for and behalf of Peak District National Signature Park Authority ...... Title

...... Sheffield City Region Mayoral Signature Combined Authority ...... Title

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

3. Strategic Geography

3.1. This Statement of Common Ground covers the Sheffield City Region. Work at the SCR scale began in 2008 when a forum of private and public-sector partners was established to steer economic development and regeneration across nine local authorities. The Forum evolved into the SCR Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in 2010, which was followed by the formation of the Combined Authority in 2014 and the election of the first SCR Mayor in May 2018. The focus of both the LEP and the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) has been on growing the SCR economy.

3.2. SCR covers one city, several large towns, thriving smaller towns, other semi-urban areas and a rural surrounding area. Ten local authorities are responsible for preparing Local Plans (see Figure 1) - four metropolitan districts of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield; and five district councils of Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales and North East Derbyshire. An area of the Peak District National Park also falls within the western area of SCR and is a planning authority in its own right.

Figure 1: The Sheffield City Region area

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

3.3 The National Park plays a key role in the City Region, but also much more widely with special qualities that reflect the importance of its landscapes, wildlife and cultural heritage. 3.4 Research conducted by the OECD9 in 2012 (updated 2019) into functional urban areas highlights the limitations of existing administrative boundaries and strong relationships among several urban cores within the UK. The work concludes that most of SCR is a functional urban area, with a rural fringe which is also important to the economic, social, cultural and environmental functioning of SCR. This is further supported by the ONS10 which highlights five main travel-to-work areas within SCR as well as overlaps with five others. 3.5 These relationships are backed up by evidence relating to the retail, housing, transport and cultural linkages across SCR11. For example:  There is overlap between retail catchments in SCR with joint working on retail important in ensuring appropriate land/property provision and retail/leisure demand relative to transport networks.  Housing markets across SCR share some commonalities with most areas being more affordable than the national average, although this can mask areas of real need, especially for households with the lowest incomes.  The proximity of major urban areas and the relative ease of commuting between them for work (as demonstrated by travel-to-work flows and journey times) demonstrate strong linkages within SCR.  Administrative boundaries that cover the City Region demonstrate the complexity of geography but also the commonalities within SCR. The NHS has several Clinical Commissioning Groups within SCR demonstrating historical but also demographic commonalities. Other Government Agencies work across a broader geography (e.g. Homes England covers the North East, Yorkshire and The Humber as well the East Midlands).  The City Region’s cultural geography and green and blue infrastructure has never been assessed in its totality but there are clear linkages. These include the Peak District National Park, the West and South Yorkshire Green Belt and the canal and river networks as well as several historic and cultural assets.

3.6 However, relationships between areas don’t stop at the SCR boundary and we are committed to working with all neighbouring areas. For example, the SCR area is closely related to the Leeds City Region (particularly in Barnsley) and also overlaps with the D2N2 LEP (in Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, NE Derbyshire and Derbyshire Dales). These relationships have fostered close partnership working, producing some innovative projects on shared priorities as well as wider collaboration with other areas through the initiatives like the Northern Powerhouse12.

9 See OECD’s Functional Urban Area Definitions here: http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/functionalurbanareasbycountry.htm 10 See ONS’s Travel-to-Work Areas: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/traveltoworkareaanalysisingreatbrit ain/2016 11 Further evidence available through SCR LEP Review Geography Proposal see https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/SCR-LEP-Review-Geography-Proposal-Submission.pdf 12 For example, through the Department for International Trade’s Northern Powerhouse trade missions

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4. Key Strategic Matters

4.1 The local authorities of Bassetlaw; Barnsley; Bolsover; Chesterfield; Derbyshire Dales; Doncaster; North East Derbyshire; Rotherham and Sheffield work together at the city region scale on matters of shared strategic significance.

4.2 Together, we have agreed that this Statement of Common Ground should focus primarily on the following strategic matters:

1. Housing; 2. Employment; 3. Transport; and 4. Digital connectivity

4.3 In addition, current working arrangements on several other strategic matters are summarised in this statement in order to illustrate the range of shared interests being progressed. These are developing and will continue to be reviewed in future updates of this statement. They include:

 Green Belt  Energy and climate change  Flood risk  Minerals Planning  Waste Planning  Natural Environment  Peak District National Park  Health

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.1 Planning for Housing in Sheffield City Region

The Collective Housing Needs of SCR

4.1.1 All Local Planning Authorities in SCR are planning to ensure that their own housing need is met within their Local Authority boundaries. Based on adopted Local Plan targets, emerging Local Plan targets and local housing need figures, there is no housing shortfall or re-distribution of unmet need required in SCR.

4.1.2 Using the Government’s standard methodology, the assessment of Local Housing Need in SCR would be 5,389 (net) new homes per annum13, which informs developing Local Plans or plans being reviewed. However, housing requirement targets in our adopted and emerging Local Plans currently total 6,659 new homes per year. This means we are currently planning for more than 1,200 homes per year above the standard housing need figure, helping to enable the economic growth being delivered through Local Plans and supporting the SCR Strategic Economic Plan.

4.1.3 Table 1 in the Annex provides a local authority breakdown of local housing need figures and Local Plan requirement targets.

4.1.4 The combined Local Plan housing requirements of 6,659 homes per year is also within the range of new housing calculated to meet the growth in jobs expected from the SEP, as defined by consultants Edge Analytics in 201514.

Housing Delivery 4.1.5 All SCR Local Planning Authorities are currently working to maximise the delivery of new homes in their area and across the city region.

4.1.6 The number of new homes completed in SCR has risen steadily over recent years, rising from 5,323 in 2015/16 to 6,557 in 2017/18. Table 2 in the Annex provides a local authority breakdown of net housing completions, which represents the total of all new homes added to the housing stock in the city region, including conversions and change of use. For accuracy and consistency, this is based on figures provided annually by local authorities to Government through the Housing Flows Reconciliation returns15, which are used to calculate performance against the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) - a key feature of the Government’s push to increase housing delivery.

13 Correct as at 1. April 2019. Based on increase household projections for 2019-2029 and affordability ratio for 2018. Full guidance at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments 14 Work by consultants Edge Analytics (2015) for the city region suggested that between 5,035 and 7,424 new homes would be required per year to take account of the overall scale of jobs growth, in line with SEP ambitions. See: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/planning-and-development/sheffield- plan/Sheffield%20City%20Region%20Demographic%20Forecasts%202014-2034.pdf 15 See fuller explanation at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/dwelling-stock-data-notes-and-definitions-includes-hfr-full-guidance-notes-and-returns- form

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.1.7 Overall, annual housing delivery in SCR is now almost in line with Local Plan targets and we will provide an annual report on the rate of new housing completions within SCR to ensure that progress continues to be monitored.

4.1.8 Monitoring of completions by house type and size is not available consistently across all Sheffield City Region authorities and is therefore not included in this Statement of Common Ground. Similarly, other housing issues such as tenure and provision for specific groups like Gypsies and Travellers, students or armed forces personnel are better addressed at the local planning authority level and so are not covered within this Statement.

Housing Land Supply

4.1.9 All SCR Local Planning Authorities are currently working to ensure that a housing land supply of at least five years is available within each local authority area, which in turn will result in a 5-year supply across the city region as a whole. The most recent monitoring suggests that there is in excess of a 5-year deliverable housing land supply across SCR, rising to a supply in excess of 8 years if compared to the combined local housing need figure.

4.1.10 Table 3 in the Annex provides the full local authority published 5-year housing land supply and publication dates of data. Due to the variation in publication dates, some positions will have since changed. Further work is being undertaken where needed to check deliverability of sites in the light of the revised NPPF definition and we will continue to monitor land supply in relation to Local Plan requirements.

4.1.11 Major strategic transport investment such as HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail is likely to be delivered towards the end of current plan periods, or immediately after. We will work collaboratively to anticipate and respond to long term requirements and opportunities, including exploring sustainable housing growth opportunities arising from proposed major improvements to strategic transport infrastructure.

Housing Market Areas 4.1.12 Figure 2 below shows the extent of different Housing Market Areas defined across SCR and used to understand housing needs and demands at a local level. It illustrates the complexity of our housing market geography as well as the close relationships between areas, particularly in the south of the city region. It is recognised that Housing Market Areas can operate differently for different groups, and that there is some overlap. These more complex relationships will be addressed through local assessments and discussions between neighbouring districts wherever necessary.

4.1.13 In some cases, where Local Plans are adopted with housing requirements above the Local Housing Need assessment figure, this may provide additional flexibility to meet SCR wide growth ambitions. This would only apply in situations where new homes and areas of jobs growth do not result in unsustainable commuting patterns and would need to be subject to separate agreements between individual authorities.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Figure 2: Housing Market Areas

Based on the above, the current position is that we:

 Plan for our own housing need within our own Local Authority boundaries, taking account of housing market geographies and agreements between individual authorities as necessary.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

 Through Local Plans, ensure that the housing required to deliver the growth ambitions of the current SCR Strategic Economic Plan16 (SEP) are being met.  Through Local Plans, agree Housing Market Areas in the city region and understand the relationships between these.  Use the plan making system to maximise delivery of sustainable housing development.  Monitor housing delivery on an annual basis, as a minimum, to ensure that housing growth continues to meet identified local need and support the economic aspirations of the SEP.

16 Available at https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/our-strategic-economic-plan/

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.2 Planning for Employment in Sheffield City Region

Employment Targets

4.2.1 The SCR Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) was agreed in 2014. It sets out the economic ambitions for Sheffield City Region and authorities are currently working to ensure that Local Plans help to deliver the SEP and its growth ambitions. The current SEP seeks to create 70,000 new jobs and 6,000 new businesses across the City Region (between 2015 and 2025). Subsequent work by Ekosgen17 to inform the development of the SCR Integrated Infrastructure Plan apportioned these 70,000 new jobs to each authority area, identifying where the new jobs were likely to be created and in which economic sectors they are likely to be created. 4.2.2 Although Local Plans in SCR are at different stages of preparation and have established job figures relating to different time periods, together they ensure that the overall quantum of jobs being provided for across the City Region meets the 70,000 jobs target set in the SEP. 4.2.3 Table 4 in the Annex sets out the headline jobs figures being planned for in the adopted or emerging Local plans. These are the figures that are currently being worked to, and are based on more up to date evidence than the Ekosgen work. 4.2.4 Table 5 shows the potential distribution of the 70,000 jobs estimated by the consultants Ekosgen in 2014. Economic assumptions and evidence available at the time informed the distribution of the jobs by sector, which were then distributed across the nine Local Authorities on the basis of existing employment adjusted to take into account local intelligence and priorities at the time. It is a useful historical reference from which more up to date evidence is developed for current and emerging Local Plans.

Employment Land Supply and Major Growth Areas

4.2.5 Each place within the city region plays an important role in the economy and contributes to the economic ambitions of the SEP. The roles of different places and their contribution to the city region economy are defined in each Local Plan. Key points from these plans are summarised in the Annex to this Statement. 4.2.6 Working across these places and the different roles they fulfil, SCR has also identified some Key Urban Centres and Major Growth Areas in the city region. Defined in detail through the SCR Integrated Infrastructure Plan18, these are places where growth will be supported through investment and a package of different infrastructure measures. They are set out in Figure 3 as:

 A61 Corridor

17 See Ekosgen (2014) Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan Sectoral and Local Authority Distribution of SCR 70,000 Jobs Target – Assumptions Report

18 See https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Integrated-Infrastructure-Plan_Executive-Summary.pdf

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

 Doncaster/Sheffield Airport  Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District (AMID)  Dearne Valley and J36 of M1  Markham Vale  Unity (formerly the DN7 Project)  Sheffield city centre and the town centres of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Chesterfield and Worksop

Figure 3: Key Urban Centres and Major Growth Areas

4.2.7 Local Plans will help to drive employment in these Key Urban Centres and Major Growth Areas, ensuring that an appropriate supply of employment land is available for economic growth and that the infrastructure needed to deliver this is recognised and capable of being funded.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.2.8 Table 6 in the Annex summarises the employment land requirements from each of the Local Plans in SCR. 4.2.9 The City Region has also commissioned an Employment Land and Premises Study from consultants Lichfield. This will provide a more coherent, joined up understanding of current employment land across all nine districts in the SCR. It will play a key role in helping to shape the emerging Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) as well as informing the decisions of individual planning authorities.

Functional Economic Market Areas and Travel to Work Areas

4.2.10 The geography of commercial and industrial property markets needs to be understood in terms of the requirements of the market, location of premises, and the spatial factors used in analysing demand and supply – often referred to as the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). 4.2.11 However, patterns of economic activity vary from place to place and there is no standard approach to defining a FEMA. Instead, the extent of a FEMA needs to be defined on the basis of a number of factors such as travel to work pattern; flows of goods, services and information; service markets for consumers; administrative boundaries; catchment areas for cultural facilities; and the transport network. Where evidence indicates, a FEMA could also be defined around the extent of a LEP area. 4.2.12 Based on this approach, Local Planning Authorities across SCR define a FEMA for their own local plans, which are summarised in the Annex. Each Local Planning Authority is individually responsible for identifying employment needs and employment land supply in their local plans to meet their District’s economic needs and growth priorities. 4.2.13 The definition of the FEMAs is not always straightforward and there can often be overlaps. At the SCR scale, therefore, there are also strong links between the different market areas and current travel to work patterns suggest that it is reasonable to consider the whole of SCR as a Strategic FEMA; which would sit above the local FEMAs defined in Local Plans. Considering the SCR as a strategic FEMA will ensure that together we can offer the optimum supply of land to address large scale strategic or inward investment growth requirements that would otherwise be above and beyond the indigenous needs of any one district. This approach will provide further assistance to work already undertaken to plan infrastructure and help support closer integration between policy areas such as planning and transport. It would not prejudice the work done by any individual district in developing their Local Plans. 4.2.14 In total, 88% of the working people who live in SCR also work within SCR; looking at this pattern from the other perspective, 90% of the people whose job is in SCR also live here19. In short, the great majority of residents work locally or commute between districts within SCR for work. These internal commuting flows are set out in Figure 4.

19 Based on 2011 TTWA data (published by ONS in 2015), analysed for SCR by Lichfields (2019)

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.2.15 At the same time, there are also important links between SCR and employment opportunities in Leeds, Wakefield, Derby and the Amber Valley-Ashfield-Mansfield corridor. The extent of these external commuting flows is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Travel to work commuting flows within SCR20

20 Based on 2011 TTWA data (published by ONS in 2015), analysed for SCR by Lichfields (2019)

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Figure 5: Travel to work commuting flows between SCR and neighbouring areas

Based on the above, the current position is that we:

 Cumulatively, create the conditions in which at least 70,000 new jobs can be delivered through Local Plans  Support employment growth in Key Urban Centres and Major Growth Areas  Monitor delivery of employment land and ensure an appropriate supply of land in line with the SEP ambitions  Monitor the loss of employment land to other uses, in particular residential use  Share local evidence as appropriate and strengthen our collective evidence base  Continue to work collaboratively to achieve the economic ambitions of the SEP, developing our evidence and giving further consideration to formalising a strategic FEMA at the SCR scale, and understanding the operation of it.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.3 Planning for Transport in Sheffield City Region

Transport Strategy

4.3.1 The SCR Transport Strategy21 sets goals and policies for South Yorkshire but recognises the importance of the wider SCR economic geography. It was adopted by the Mayoral Combined Authority in January 2019 as a basis supporting the economic aspirations of the city region. Importantly, the strategy also looks beyond the immediate boundaries of SCR to include interventions that benefit the wider Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Connect sub-national areas, as well as the rest of the UK. 4.3.2 The Transport Strategy sets three specific goals for the SCR area:

 Residents and businesses connected to economic opportunity  A cleaner and greener Sheffield City Region  Safe, reliable and accessible transport network.

4.3.3 Taken together, the Strategy is intended to ensure all parts of the City Region are well-connected, with journey times that connect every neighbourhood to a regional hub in 15 minutes; a regional hub to another regional hub in 30 minutes; and all regional hubs to a major centre in 75 minutes22. 4.3.4 We will work closely together on all relevant aspects of the SCR Transport Strategy, with Local Plans and planning decisions particularly helping to deliver priorities around economic growth, housing, health and air quality:

 Growth: improved transport network connectivity and greater capacity are vital in enabling economic growth, both in the SCR area and across the wider North of England.  Housing: transport contributes to meeting our housing targets by helping to unlock new development sites and provide more sustainable modes of travel for residents.  Health and Air Quality: provision for more active travel like walking and cycling as well as public transport alongside development enables more sustainable choices to be made, benefitting health and air quality.

National and pan-northern interventions

4.3.5 The SCR Transport Strategy defines a number of transport interventions that will have a national and pan-northern impact as they are progressed by SCR and

21 See full strategy on the SCR website at https://d2xjf5riab8wu0.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/SCR_Transport_Strategy_11.04.2019.pdf

22 The Transport Strategy defines a neighbourhood as the closest built up area to your home; it defines 11 regional hubs in SCR which are economic centres that people need to access quickly and easily for work, health services, education, shopping and leisure.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

partners such as Transport for the North, neighbouring authorities, the Highways Agency, public transport operators, businesses and Government. 4.3.6 Local Plans in the SCR Transport Strategy area will seek to support the following:

 Major Rail Improvements: nine separate improvements including new infrastructure like HS2 and improvements to existing capacity;  Integrated and smart travel programme: with multi-modal, integrated ticketing and real time information; and  Strategic Road Network Improvements: seven improvements which will increase connectivity between SCR and neighbouring regions as well as movements within SCR itself.

4.3.7 Information in the annex lists these national and pan-northern interventions. Together they will improve SCRs links other Northern towns and cities as well as with the East Midlands region. It will, therefore, be particularly important to work closely with bodies such as Transport for the North and East Midlands Connect so that people can commute between city regions more quickly and easily, ensuring the right people have access to the right jobs.

Local Interventions

4.3.8 Each part of the city region will have its own transport priorities and several local authorities have (or are developing) their own transport strategy, which are also used to inform Local Plans. At the city region scale, the SCR Transport Strategy identifies 11 key regional economic centres that need reinforcing with transport infrastructure and 20 priority transport corridors. These are set out in Figure 6.

4.3.9 We will work together and with other SCR partners to seek to deliver improvements to transport corridors and enhance the strategic transport network with a combination of bus, tram, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and tram-train.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Figure 6: Transport Strategy Programme Corridors

Strategic Testing Tools

4.3.10 Since 2016, authorities across SCR have been working with the MCA to produce a region-wide computerised model of transport networks and demand (SCRTM1). Utilising the latest trip data, this will provide the evidence required to justify external and internal funding for improvements to the city region’s transport infrastructure. In addition, work is also underway to update the existing model of land usage, transport and the economy (FLUTE) to allow all schemes seeking funding, from local or national sources, to be justified in accordance with the Government’s standards for assessing value for money.

4.3.11 We will use these city region wide models alongside local transport models, including in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, to ensure a complementary hierarchy of modelling is applied. Working at different scales, from strategic interventions of major schemes to micro-simulation of individual sites or junctions, this will ensure

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

the impacts and value for money of projects are understood in a clear, consistent way.

Based on the above, the current position is that we:

 Support the implementation of policies in the SCR Transport Strategy  Help to bring forward the national and pan-northern interventions agreed through the SCR Transport Strategy  Work together to improve connectivity, particularly within and around the 20 regional transport corridors defined in the Transport Strategy.  Support the safeguarding and delivery of critical transport routes (both existing and new) and collaborate across boundaries to make the best use of inter-regional rail, road and water transport networks.  Secure financial contributions (through S106 obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy) wherever appropriate to help leverage funding for relevant transport interventions.  Apply a complementary hierarchy of transport models to understand and assess the impact of projects and proposals on the transport network at appropriate scales

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.4 Planning for Digital Connectivity in Sheffield City Region

4.4.1 A Digital Action Plan for Sheffield City Region23 has been developed and implemented by a number of Local Bodies since the launch of the Government’s Superfast Broadband Programme in 201324. At that time, Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) asked Local Authorities to group together and form local bodies to develop Local Broadband Plans and to bid for funding from the Superfast Broadband Programme in order to increase coverage from c80% to 95% of premises in their areas. 4.4.2 The Local Bodies in Sheffield City Region are:

 ‘Superfast South Yorkshire’ which covers the majority of the city region, that is, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield;  ‘Digital Derbyshire’ which includes Chesterfield, North East Derbyshire, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales; and,  ‘Better Broadband For Nottinghamshire’ which includes Bassetlaw.

4.4.3 Overall, large parts of the city region are well served by current generation digital connectivity technology such as Superfast Broadband (fixed line broadband that is capable of download speeds of 30Mbps) and 4G (cellular broadband with average download speeds from 16 to 33Mbps), although this is not the case in more rural parts of SCR. 4.4.4 Coverage of superfast broadband in South Yorkshire has increased from 80% to over 95% and will reach around 99% by 2021.25 The take-up of superfast broadband in areas where the Superfast South Yorkshire programme has invested has increased from 18% to 45%, Enterprise Zones and business parks in South Yorkshire were amongst the first in the country to access gigabit full fibre broadband; and business development programmes have helped local SMEs understand how digital can sustain and grow their business as well as enabling them to access support for connection charges and innovation projects. At the same time, Sheffield City Centre now benefits from one of the best public access Wi-Fi networks.

4.4.5 However, both Superfast Broadband and 4G technologies are incapable of meeting future demands for speed, capacity, reliability, and responsiveness; and are fast approaching end of life. 4.4.6 The next generation of digital connectivity technology is full fibre networks and 5G cellular networks. Full fibre networks dispense with copper wire and traditional street cabinets, providing direct connection from a property to exchange using glass fibre with download speeds in excess of 1,000Mbps. 5G uses a new radio interface

23 See full Action Plan at https://d2xjf5riab8wu0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SCR-Digital-Action-Plan-Strategic-Framework-and- Action-Plan.pdf 24 See details at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/building-digital-uk 25 See current coverage at https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/south-yorkshire and future at https://news.openreach.co.uk/pressreleases/ps10m-broadband-boost-for-south-yorkshire-2815397

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

that enables much higher radio frequencies to be used and significantly more data to be carried over the air for faster speeds. 4.4.7 The city region is not well served by this next generation of digital connectivity technology, although plans have been announced by mobile operator EE to start to roll out 5G in Sheffield from 2019. As SCR develops and grows over the next 3 years, there will be an increased demand for high speed, ubiquitous connectivity, especially in more rural areas.

Based on the above, the current position is that we:

 Support the implementation of policies in Local Broadband Plans.  Help to bring forward a range of local and city region interventions to improve digital connectivity, improving speeds and addressing gaps in provision across the whole of SCR.  Create a supportive planning framework for digital connectivity, including consistent planning conditions.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

4.5 Planning for other Strategic Matters in Sheffield City Region

4.5.1 All nine Local Planning Authorities in SCR commit to work together at an SCR scale on other issues where we have a common interest and cross boundary work is required. These are defined around the following areas, with further information and evidence highlighted where this is available:

 Green Belt: Local Planning Authorities in SCR have agreed a common assessment method for reviewing Green Belt and will adopt this where appropriate to ensure a consistent approach across SCR26

 Energy and climate change: Local Planning Authorities in SCR have agreed to work together to develop and support the implementation of the SCR Energy Strategy and Delivery Plan

 Flood risk: Local Planning Authorities have agreed to work together on a catchment wide basis to reflect the natural geography of the city region and seek consistency in respect of permitted run off rates for greenfield and brownfield developments.

 Minerals: Local Planning Authorities in SCR have agreed to share evidence on minerals planning, working closely together and with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils who are currently updating their own Minerals Plans. This includes evidence from Local Aggregates Assessments, exploring the benefits of undertaking joint assessments.

 Waste: Local Planning Authorities in SCR have agreed to share evidence on waste planning, with the four South Yorkshire authorities working together to develop a single evidence base before commencing a South Yorkshire wide waste plan. Districts in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are working with their respective County Councils to prepare or update county wide waste plans, ensuring these coordinate with the South Yorkshire plan.

 Natural Environment: Local Planning Authorities in SCR have agreed to share evidence and data on a city regional basis, particularly in areas where the local environment is sensitive or critical to the wider ambitions of the city region.

 Peak District National Park: Local Planning Authorities recognise the statutory purposes of the Peak District National Park and the special qualities which make it unique. The Park’s Management Plan27 sets out these qualities, alongside areas of focus for management, so that they can be properly respected in decision making.

 Local Planning Authorities recognise the health and wellbeing challenges facing many areas of the city region and agree to share evidence to ensure that Local

26 See detailed explanation at https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5273/sheffieldcityregiongreenbeltreviewacommonapproachaugust2014.pdf

27 See https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/national-park-management-plan

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Plans are effective in addressing those challenges. This will be in terms of the provision of health services as well as tackling the wider determinants of health such as sub-standard housing, air pollution, social isolation and lack of access to green space. There will be an emphasis on creating environments that are conducive to people being able to be physically active as part of their daily life.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

5. Governance Arrangements

5.1 This Statement of Common Ground has been prepared by the SCR Heads of Planning Group, which brings together senior planning managers across all nine local planning authorities as well as from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire County Councils. 5.2 The Group meets on a 6-8 week basis and has responsibility for the Statement of Common Ground alongside other pieces of collaborative work including the preparation of new evidence and developing a shared planning approach on some service issues. The Heads of Planning Group will ensure that the Statement is consistent with local planning practice and is updated on an annual basis28 in order to reflect any changes to local practice or arrangements at the city regional scale 5.3 Progress and oversight for the Statement and other joint planning work is the responsibility of the city region’s Infrastructure Board, which includes Cabinet Portfolio Holders from local districts as well as representatives from the LEP. The Infrastructure Board is accountable to the MCA and LEP through wider governance arrangements established for the city region29 (see Figure 7).

SCR Heads of Planning Group

Figure 7: governance arrangements

28 The next update of the Statement of Common Ground will be October 2020, or earlier should the Heads of Planning group identify the need for this. 29 A full account of SCR Governance arrangements is available in the SCR Assurance Framework at https://d2xjf5riab8wu0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SCR-Assurance-Framework-2019- FINAL.pdf 27

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Annex

Table 1: Sheffield City Region – housing needs 2019 Local Housing Need Local Plan assessment target Difference Local Plan Status Barnsley 890 1,134 244 Adopted January 2019 Bassetlaw 297 390 93 Reg. 18 stage Bolsover 230 272 42 Reg. 25 stage Chesterfield 240 247 7 Reg. 22 stage Derbyshire Dales 229 284 55 Adopted December 2017 Doncaster 550 920* 370 Reg. 19 stage North East 248 330 82 Awaiting Inspector's report Derbyshire Rotherham 581 958 377 Adopted 2014/2018** Sheffield 2,124 2,124** 0 Reg 18 stage SCR 5,389 6,311 - 6,659 922 - 1,270 *The emerging Local Plan presents the housing requirement as a range, the bottom of the range representing a Local Housing Need figure (as reviewed and updated) but with allocations for the top of the range in line with economic growth aspirations and planned infrastructure

** The Rotherham Local Plan is made up of a Core Strategy (adopted in 2014) and a Sites and Policies document (adopted 2018).

*** The local housing need assessment figure is within the range (2,000-2,300 per year) suggested by the City Council as the local plan target in the Reg 18 consultation in 2015.’

Table 2: Sheffield City Region – net completions* 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total Barnsley 706 850 1,009 2,565 Bassetlaw 338 462 551 1,351 Bolsover 325 290 248 863 Chesterfield 206 123 110 439 Derbyshire Dales** 130 173 295 598 Doncaster 1,170 1,057 1,173 3,400 North East 431 282 396 1,109 DerbyshireRotherham 585 599 471 1,655 Sheffield 1,432 2,248 2,304 5,984 SCR 5,323 6,084 6,557 *All data collected directly from local authorities (other than Derbyshire Dales), and in some cases varies slightly (1%) from the Housing Flows Reconciliation figure used to calculate the Housing Delivery Test30. Includes new build completions, change of use from non-residential to residential and conversions from one to multiple dwellings.

30 See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-delivery-test-2018-measurement

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

** Note discussions with MHCLG concluded that an additional 76 completions should be included in the Derbyshire Dales Housing Delivery Test for 2015/16 and 2017/18, representing completions within the Peak District National Park area. This takes the three year total for the district to 674.

Table 3: Sheffield City Region - housing land supply*

Annualised Total (net) Supply (net) 5-year in Date of requirement supply years publication

Barnsley 1,469 7,522 5.12 Jan-19 Bassetlaw 324 2,681 7.90 Oct-18 Bolsover 272 2,274 8.49 Feb-19 Chesterfield 298 1,775 5.96 Apr-18 Derbyshire Dales 357 2,056 5.75 Jul-19 Doncaster 889 8,300 9.34 Aug-17 North East 283 2,178 7.33 May-18 RotherhamDerbyshire 958 6,655 5.80 Apr-18 Sheffield 2,231 9,970 4.47 Nov-17 SCR 7,081 43,411 * Figures taken from the most recently published 5-year supply statements, which allow for any backlog in delivery over recent years. As such annualised requirement figures may vary from Local Plan requirements set out in Table 1.

Table 4: Job Figures being planned for in Local Plans

Local authority Job target Barnsley 28,840 (2014-2033) Bassetlaw 3400 (2018-2035) Bolsover A baseline jobs growth of 3,000 used in SHMA for OAN. No specific target set in Local Plan (2014-2033) Chesterfield 3,175 (2011-2036) Derbyshire Dales A need for 1,700 additional jobs calculated in employment land availability assessment. No specific target set in Local Plan (2013-2033) Doncaster Growth of 27,100 jobs being planned for. No specific targets set in Local Plan (2015-2032) North East Derbyshire 3,000 (2014-2034) Sheffield 25,550 (2015-2024, covering SEP period only) Rotherham 12,000 – 15,000 (2013-2028)

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Table 5: Distribution of additional jobs (Ekosgen 2014)*

* these figures show the increase in additional jobs anticipated by the SEP between 2015 and 2025, with a percentage change figure based on the job totals in 2015.

Table 6: Employment Land requirements in Local Plans

Local authority Employment Land Barnsley 297 ha (2014-2033) Bassetlaw 63 ha minimum (2018-2035) Bolsover Allocating 92ha in the Local Plan (2014-2033) Chesterfield Emerging Local Plan target = minimum 44ha employment land in B1, B2, B8 uses (2011- 2026). Supply over emerging Local Plan period = 51.63ha Also approximately 20-30ha land at Staveley Works that can come forward dependent on final form of HS2 phase 2b IMD Derbyshire Dales At least 24 ha (2013 – 2033) Doncaster 481 ha (2015-2035) North East Derbyshire 25.3 – 38.3 ha (2014-2034) Rotherham 235 ha (2013-2028) Sheffield 152 ha (2015-2035)

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Summary of economic role of places in SCR

Local Plans across SCR describe the economic role of each area.

Barnsley Barnsley has a growing economy, creating an M1 economic corridor, thriving town centre and some outstanding cultural heritage. In terms of current sectors, evidence from Mott Macdonald (2016) identified a higher proportion of employees in manufacturing and construction than comparator areas including the national average. In contrast, Barnsley has lower proportions of IT and finance professionals and a higher proportion of jobs in public administration, health and education (29% compared to a national average of 26%). Bassetlaw Bassetlaw’s accessibility is the basis for an expanding economy, with a growing economic corridor stretching along the A1, direct access to the East Coast Main Line and close proximity to the M1 attracting business and investment to the main towns of Worksop and Harworth & Bircotes. The District’s third main town of Retford has a quality urban core and opportunities for further growth as part of new development along its northern edge. In terms of current economic sectors, evidence from GL Hearn (2019) identifies a high proportion of jobs in manufacturing, transport distribution/logistics and storage. Looking forward, Bassetlaw’s priority is to create quality jobs, support supply chains and promote growth in the construction industries, environmental and energy technologies, advanced manufacturing and technology. Doncaster Doncaster has a high quality urban centre with attractive retail opportunities within an expanding mixed-use offer. Doncaster’s multi-modal connectivity offers access to major conurbations and coastal ports whilst the Doncaster-Sheffield Airport and iport areas provide an international gateway with growing engineering and logistics business base. A new National College for High Speed Rail and University Technical College are part of a growing vocational education offer. Doncaster’s Inclusive Growth Strategy identifies four broad industry specialisms with the potential to grow, create quality jobs and support supply chains: engineering and technology; digital and creative; future mobility (rail, road, air); and advanced materials. In addition a fifth, non-specialist platform is identified from growth: supporting Services. Rotherham Rotherham has developing strengths in new economic sectors, as part of SCR’s wider regeneration agenda, with a particular specialism in manufacturing. The adopted Core Strategy identifies the priority of safeguarding this manufacturing base and targeting several priority sectors including Creative and Digital Industries; Advanced Manufacturing and Materials; Environmental and Energy Technologies; Construction Industries; Business, Professional and Financial Services; and Low Carbon Industries. Bolsover Bolsover is a rural area, with the need and ability to accommodate significant economic growth in key settlements, taking advantage of access to the M1. In the Bolsover Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) (2015) competitive sectors identified were: Wholesale and Retail; Manufacturing; Transport & Storage; Construction; Information & Communication (knowledge-based activity); and Energy & Water. 31

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

North East Derbyshire North East Derbyshire is a predominately rural area with the population concentrated in four towns, and the potential for growth along the A61. It has close links with Sheffield and Chesterfield. Key sectors are Digital and Creative Industries; Advanced Manufacturing; Food and Drink; Construction and Environmental Industries; and Health and Care. Derbyshire Dales The Derbyshire Dales economy is based on thriving micro businesses and SMEs with manufacturing the largest employment sector. Pay in the Derbyshire Dales is amongst the lowest in Sheffield City Region and England. Businesses in the Dales want to grow but can’t find the space locally, and provision of new employment space in the district is the highest priority. Chesterfield Chesterfield is a key market town and the sub-regional economic centre for Northern Derbyshire, with a high quality urban core and opportunities for further growth in the Staveley and A61 corridors. Along the M1, Markham Vale is an area recently developed with plans to establish itself as a major employment hub, supporting activity elsewhere in the City Region. The area includes Enterprise Zone sites. Chesterfield’s key sectors are Public administration ; Wholesale/retail; Financial and business services and Manufacturing. Sheffield Sheffield is the fourth largest city in England and a major centre of engineering, creative and digital industries, with a wide range of culture and retail facilities. Sheffield City Centre will be the primary office location in the City Region, providing a high proportion of the City Region’s jobs in business, financial and professional services, higher education and health and wellbeing services. The retail and leisure offer in the City Centre is expected to grow through the Heart of the City 2 development but will be complemented by that provided at Meadowhall and by other built leisure facilities in the Lower Don Valley. The Lower Don Valley and Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (in the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District) are important employment areas, focused on advanced manufacturing. The area includes an Enterprise Zone at Sheffield Business Park. Sheffield’s key sectors are Advanced Manufacturing and Health.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Summary of Functional Economic Market Areas within SCR

Local Plans across the SCR define their Functional Economic Market Areas in line with national planning guidelines.

• Barnsley: part of a wider area of a single Sheffield and Leeds City Region FEMA.

• Bassetlaw: sits between several larger, dominant centres and takes a pragmatic approach which considers multiple linkages and influences on the district’s economy from these centres.

• Bolsover: a wide FEMA made up of Amber Valley; Ashfield; Bassetlaw; Chesterfield; Mansfield; and North East Derbyshire DC authority areas.

• Doncaster: defines a standalone FEMA along its own administrative boundary.

• Derbyshire Dales: is divided between surrounding areas, with the southern part of the District in a wider Derby focused FEMA; the Northern area in a Sheffield focused FEMA; and the central part of the district falling in an overlap with influences from Sheffield, Chesterfield and Derby.

• NE Derbyshire and Chesterfield: share an employment market and FEMA

• Sheffield and Rotherham: share a single FEMA, consistent with a single travel to work area.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

SCR Transport Strategy: national and pan-northern interventions

The following schemes are being progressed by our partners or are included in Transport for the North’s initial investment programme for a start by 2027. As such they form a baseline for the City Region’s interventions.

MAJOR RAIL IMPROVEMENTS  HS2 – SCR supports the principles of high speed rail services across the North to the rest of the UK, radically reducing journey times and providing enhanced connectivity beyond the HS2 network. We need to maximise the benefit of HS2, exploring all options for a parkway in South Yorkshire and minimise the impact on local communities and the environment  Hope Valley line capacity improvements – initial capacity improvements to allow a frequency of three fast trains in addition to one stopping train per hour and freight trains  Sheffield to Hull – journey time improvements to achieve a frequency of two trains per hour and capacity enhancements at Doncaster station to accommodate Northern Powerhouse Rail services  Sheffield to Leeds – improvements to the Northern Loop from Sheffield station to HS2, including new stations in South Yorkshire, along with journey time and reliability improvements via Barnsley  Doncaster to Leeds – capacity, journey time and reliability enhancements  South Trans Pennine Line – capacity and journey time improvements between Doncaster and Cleethorpes  East Coast Main Line power upgrade  Improvements to allow wider/higher freight trains on the Doncaster to Immingham route  Electrification works in the Sheffield area to support other major rail investment programmes

INTEGRATED AND SMART TRAVEL PROGRAMME  Multi-modal, integrated, contactless ticketing across the North  Enhanced real time customer information  Smart ticketing on rail

STRATEGIC ROAD NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS  Trans Pennine upgrade programme – a package of improvements including Mottram Moor link road and the A616/A61 Westwood roundabout  Trans Pennine Tunnel and wider connectivity package – a feasibility study into a new route to improve the resilience of Trans Pennine road links, including a new or upgraded route from the M1 to M18 and A1(M)  M1 Junctions 35A to 39 – upgrade to smart motorway  A1 Redhouse to Darrington – upgrade to motorway standard  A1(M) Doncaster bypass – widening to a three-lane motorway  Hollingworth to Tintwistle bypass and M56 capacity improvements, which are both outside of SCR but included due to the benefits they can bring SCR.  A1 junction improvements with A46 in Bassetlaw.

Final Draft at 08 October 2019

Glossary of abbreviations

BDUK – Broadband Delivery UK, now called Building Delivery UK, the Government programme to deliver superfast broadband and local full fibre networks.

D2N2 – the Local Enterprise Partnership for the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire area.

FEMA – Functional Economic Market Area, the spatial level at which economies and markets operate.

FLUTE – Forecasting Land Use, Transport and Economy, a forecasting model used across South Yorkshire.

HDT – Housing Delivery Test, an annual measurement of housing delivery across relevant plan making authorities.

HS2 – High Speed 2, the new rail line proposed between the south and north of England.

LEP – Local Enterprise Partnership, a partnership between local authorities and businesses to set economic priorities for an area and negotiate growth deals with Government.

LIS – Local Industrial Strategy, strategy to promote the coordination of local economic policy and national funding streams and establish new ways of working between national and local government, the public and private sectors.

MCA – Mayoral Combined Authority, a corporate body enabling two or more local councils to collaborate and take collective decisions, established with a directly elected Mayor.

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework, sets out the Government’s planning policies and how these are expected to be applied.

OECD – Organisation for Economic Collaboration and Development, an international organisation set up to promote world trade and stimulate economic progress.

ONS – Office for National Statistics, executive office of the UK Statistical Authority responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society of the UK

SCR – Sheffield City Region

SEP – Strategic Economic Plan, setting out the city-region’s plan to transform the economy, create jobs and encourage new businesses.

SCRTM1 – Sheffield City Region Transport Model version 1, a model of transport networks and demand across for the SCR area.

TTWA – Travel to Work Area, a geography created by the ONS to approximate labour market areas.