Charnwood Core Strategy.

Proposed Growth of 9075 Households and Essential Policing Infrastructure.

Statement by Michael Lambert, Growth and Design Officer

Leicestershire Police November 2011

Introduction. These submissions are made in response to Main Matter 15 - Other Policies, and specifically proposed Policy CS11, Infrastructure and Delivery, and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan [IDP] that underpins this. In the Matters and Issues Paper the Inspector asks 6 questions and I respond to some of these below as they relate to our concerns.

Police also refer to Main Matter 9 NE Urban Extension, 10 North of Birstall direction of Growth, 12 West of Urban Extension and 14 direction of growth. Therein the Inspector asks common questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 and I provide police response to these below.

Our primary concern as to the Soundness of the Plan. Police believe the Plan to be unsound because, contrary to NPPF, it will not secure and deliver adequate security, community safety and Policing infrastructure to meet the needs of the additional housing it proposes. [Para 17 purpose of planning last bullet, Para 69 attributes of healthy communities, Para 156 provision of security and other facilities, para 177 delivery of infrastructure in a timely fashion, Para 156 seamlessness in Planning]. Making adequate provision for Policing infrastructure were matters considered by the Inspector in finding Melton's Core Strategy unsound. In relation to 's Area action Plan for and , the matter of soundness was resolved by the Inspector securing a Main modification ensuring that adequate policing infrastructures were included in the Plan. The matter we bring to this Examination is the way the Council have captured our necessary infrastructure needs as "desirable" rather than "essential" at page 158 in its infrastructure delivery Plan [IDP].

Attached is our objective and up to date infrastructure and development assessment submission leading to the current iteration of the content of the IDP. We were surprised that the Council chose to isolate Policing infrastructure as desirable rather than essential and we have made representations to this effect with the latest exchange on this attached. We believe a minor modification by the Council was justified as far back as November last year and at the point when, somewhat belatedly, it included policing infrastructures in its delivery plan.

Consideration. There is nothing in Policy 11 nor the IDP which explains why the Council differentiates necessary infrastructure on this basis. Nor is there justification of how Policing has been treated in the way it has. Policy 11 says much about partnering and delivery but the experience of this statutory service is that minor matters like the one we have raised has not been effectively considered through such arrangements. The council's response to our concerns about this seems to suggest that in their view A] policing infrastructures are less essential than schools, health facilities, parks and open spaces, facilities for children, outdoor sports and so on and B] that development cannot be built without these other facilities.

We do not agree with these justifications. On A it is the case that in all appeal decisions on major applications considering the methodology which sits underneath our Core Strategy Submissions, Planning Inspectors and the Secretary of State have found Policing infrastructures as necessary ie not desirable. These are all attached and I quote from two Secretary of State decisions on large developments in Charnwood. In relation to - " it seems to me that the introduction of additional population and property to an area must have an impact on Policing , in the same way as it must on education and library services for example. Moreover it also seems to me that the twelfth core planning principle of the framework, that planning should take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs, can only be served if Policing is adequate to the additional burdens imposed on it in the same way as other local public services. The logic of this is inescapable. Section 8 of the Framework concerns the promotion of healthy communities and planning decisions, according to para 69, should aim to achieve places which promote, inter alia, safe and accessible environments where crime and the fear of crime and disorder, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion……………adequate policing is so fundamental to the concept of sustainable communities that I can see there is no reason, in principle, why it should be excluded from the purview of s106 financial contributions, subject to the relevant tests applicable to other public services. There

3

is no reason it seems to me why Police equipment and other items of capital expenditure necessitated by additional development should not be funded alongside for example additional classrooms and stock and equipment for libraries" The Secretary of State agreed with this conclusion.

I also refer to the Inspectors consideration at Lane. The Inspector found at para 5.1 " that the contribution sought accurately reflects the precise need that would arise from the development of 250 homes on the appeal site".

At para 5.2 " There appears to be no criticism by the appellant of the approach taken by LP… and no evidence has been produced to undermine LP's conclusions as to the nature and level of contributions required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on LP resources"

At para 5.4 " Mr Lambert explains…including the planning policy justification at both national and district level and the difficulties associated with funding new infrastructure items in response to growth in residential development which places additional demand on police resources"

At Para 5.6 " Mr Lambert explains why current revenue sources are insufficient to respond to growth in residential development, and are unable to fund much needed infrastructure to mitigate the additional demand placed on Police and verified by external consultants employed by local councils….."

At para 5.7 " There is no spare capacity in the existing infrastructure…in circumstances where the additional demand where additional infrastructure is not provided would impact on the ability of police to provide a safe and appropriate level of service and to respond to the needs of the local community in an effective way. That outcome would be contrary to policy and the development would be unacceptable without the contribution"

At para 5.8 " Mr Lambert has addressed each and every item of infrastructure required in his evidence and has sought to justify each request by reference to the

three tests…….a process which is under constant review to keep requests up to date and accurate as demonstrated……"

At para 5.9 " Furthermore LP confirms that the contribution can be, and would be spent on infrastructure to serve the appeal development because the sum requested is not required to meet the funding deficit elsewhere or to service existing development. The contribution sought is therefore directly related to the development"

At para 5.10/11 " The request is necessary, carefully considered and lawful…..it is directly related…..based on examination of present demand and existing deployment in the District…….The request is wholly related to the scale and kind of the appeal development"

The Secretary of State agreed with the conclusions of the Inspector.

Commenting on what I have underlined it seems to me that Inspectors and the Secretary of State have confirmed that Policing facilities are far more than desirable and indeed essential to the extent that these additional developments have had to make provision. Policing is impacted by development in the same way as other services; the emphasis on delivery in Guidance; adequacy of services to cope with additional housing applies to policing as much as other services - an inescapable logic; adequate policing is fundamental to sustainable development and should not be excluded from the purview of s106; keeping communities safe depends on actual provision of this infrastructure; these Policing requests are lawful, wholly related and necessary.

The plan can't achieve its main purpose, securing adequate infrastructure including through s106, as long as it does not recognise the essential nature of Policing infrastructures. Whilst we have demonstrated how the legal tests in NPPF are being applied substantiating that Policing is essential, the word desirable in the IDP is undermining this. Major developers are asserting that policing contributions can't be necessary if they are only desirable and Council planners themselves have said this

5

in advising members on Major development as attached. The plan itself as current is undermining its own purpose and is unsound.

In a recent case at the High Court, brought by Police, Justice Foskett found in his decision [attached] - It is obvious that a development of the nature described [4500] homes would place additional and increased burdens on local health, education and other services including the Police force. [Para11] - occupiers of the development will want to know that they are living in a safe Policed environment - the consumer view of the issue [para 61]. - Police have statutory responsibilities to carry out and although the sums at stake are small in comparison with what will be required to complete the development the sums are large for Police [para 61]. - if a survey of local opinion were taken concerns would be expressed if it were thought that the developers were not going to provide Police with sufficient to meet the demands of Policing the new area.

Commenting on this, again development places obvious burdens on Police as well as other services; public expectation is likely to be that infrastructures have to be provided if areas are to be safe. These are not descriptions of desirability but reality demonstrating the essential nature of policing in my view. I should also say that the value and quality of life experience of these other services depends to an extent on the delivery of adequate local Policing.

Turning to point B it is the case that development can take place without most if not all the other infrastructures the Council describes as essential. Policing is no exception to this. Unsustainable and unacceptable development would however result as much in relation to policing as any of these other services if this were permitted. More importantly Planning, according to NPPF, should prevent this by delivering infrastructure however because of this IDP content it is unable to do so. Indeed it is promoting unsustainable development in our view because of this content.

Turning to the inspectors questions on matter 14 in relation to 3 we say that as written the IDP is giving guidance that is preventing the proper purpose of planning as regards securing and delivering infrastructure. To this extent it is not providing adequate guidance for decision taking. This in part answers question 4 in that effective implementation is being prevented by the wording of the IDP. In relation to question 5 the result is an inconsistency with NPPF as far as securing timely delivery and providing adequate infrastructure is concerned. This bears in responding to question 6 as well in my view.

Other matters Questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 on Matters 9, 10, 12 and 14. Policing is delivered as a sub regional service with infrastructures located by economies of scale and to varying demand. Whilst we have captured this for the Core Strategy on an across the borough basis it is possible to provide requirements as site specific planning applications come forward and we do this. For example in relation to the 4500 home NE Leicester urban Extension planning application we require the following contributions;

Start up equipment £214583 Vehicles £126810 Additional radio call capacity £10125 PND additions £6525 Additional call handling £13815 ANPR £32888 Mobile CCTV £4500 Additional premises £1427734 Hub equipment £9000 Total £1,845,980

This is commensurate in terms of our impacted infrastructures and the amounts required in mitigation indicated in the IDP.

7

I believe this answers the Inspectors common question 7 about identifying requirements. In relation to common question 8 we are clear in our submissions that developer contributions will need to be provided if this is to be funded and that this is necessary. The difficulty we have is that the word desirable, differentiating the policing necessity, is preventing this. Securing timely delivery, as the Inspector challenges, is being rendered impossible by the current content of this part of the plan. In relation to common question 9 there will be adverse impacts without adequate Policing infrastructure, eg as we spread our existing infrastructures more thinly and use money we would normally use to pay additional officers to buy vehicles, equipment and premises. This was highlighted in our Core Strategy submission. In relation to common question 10 addressing this is simple and has been suggested. We have raised the concern that the necessary simple amendment appears to be being thwarted by the Councils view of its process rather than the case of necessity and the Soundness of the Plan which we believe are engaged here.

Conclusion We ask the inspector to consider the wording of the IDP which is part of the plan and change the description of Policing as desirable to essential and in so doing put right what we believe is a flawed approach in this part of plan making.

I am happy to attend the Examination to speak to this in any of the matters sessions and have suggested that this might best be at matter 15. If this is agreed by the inspector I do ask that the representations we make here are considered when matters 9, 10, 12 and 14 are before the Examination.