RECORD OF EXECUTIVE DECISION – LEADER OF THE CABINET Title of matter: Erewash Core Strategy Review – Draft Options For Growth Decision maker: Cllr Chris Emmas-Williams, Leader of the Cabinet (elected on May 2019 by the Council) Power(s) giving authority to make an executive decision: Sections 9E(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 and under all other powers. a) Decision: a.1 That the following representations be made by the Borough Council in response to the consultation by Erewash Borough Council on the Erewash Core Strategy Review - Draft Options For Growth.

Amber Valley Borough Council (AVBC) has been consulted on the above document, which sets out the strategic growth options for housing development in Erewash up to at least 2037 and the preferred option for Erewash Borough Council (EBC).

EBC has established, through the application of the Government’s standard methodology to calculate a minimum annual housing need figure, that they will need to plan for the delivery of 393 additional dwellings per year in the Erewash Core Strategy Review, for the period up to at least 2037 i.e. a total of 6,680 for the period 2020 to 2037. This reflects the anticipated date of adoption of the Review in 2022 and the Government’s policy requiring local planning authorities to plan for at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

EBC also need to identify sufficient sites capable of delivering housing to provide a minimum of 5 years supply against the housing requirement. As EBC has not met the Government’s Housing Delivery Test, the minimum 5 year supply figure will include the 393 dwellings per year established through the standard methodology, plus a 20% margin (79 dwellings per year) giving a total of 2,360 dwellings.

AVBC has considered the Draft Options For Growth document, in terms of its wider implications for joint working on strategic planning matters across the Derby Housing Market Area (HMA) and the Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area (HMA) (which includes Erewash Borough), as well as the potential impact on Amber Valley of any specific proposals in the document.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

Comments on the potential implications for joint working in relation to plan-making within the Derby HMA and the Greater Nottingham HMA

In preparing plan documents, local planning authorities need to ensure that policies and proposals are soundly based on robust evidence and that cooperative working has taken place with adjoining planning authorities and other delivery partners on strategic cross-boundary planning issues.

In this respect, there are a number of serious concerns with the approach that has been taken by EBC in preparing and consulting on the Draft Options For Growth document.

The Draft Options for Growth document only includes proposals for housing development and does not appear to take into account the relationship between new housing development and economic growth

The range of potential sites and preferred sites for housing development appears to be based on a limited range of evidence – in particular it is unclear whether any up to date evidence in respect of employment need, landscape sensitivity or flood risk, has been undertaken or commissioned to inform the process

In relation to those options where it is proposed to delete land from the Green Belt boundary and allocate sites for housing growth, there is no evidence that a comprehensive review of the Green Belt within Erewash has been undertaken or commissioned, against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF and consequently no assessment of how each of the potential site options perform against these Green Belt purposes.

In terms of Green Belt, Erewash Borough is situated within the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt. The Green Belt covers all of the local authority areas in both the Derby HMA and Greater Nottingham HMA. In this context, it is of particular concern that the Draft Options For Growth document does not appear to have been informed by either a Borough-wide or wider strategic Green Belt Review, especially as the document is proposing the allocation of four large areas of land currently located within the Green Belt. Two of those areas of Green Belt, at Acorn Way on the edge of Derby and on land to the north of Cotmanhay raise significant implications for the wider areas of Green Belt within which they are located, as set out in more detail below.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

Two strategic Green Belt Reviews have previously been undertaken covering Erewash Borough, namely:

• the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt Review (NDGBR), which was undertaken jointly by County Council and Nottingham County Council in 2006/07 on behalf of the (then) Regional Assembly (EMRA) to inform the preparation of the East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP)

• the Derby Principal Urban Area Green Belt Review (DPUAGBR), which was undertaken jointly by Derbyshire County Council, Amber Valley Borough Council, Derby City Council, Erewash Borough Council and South Derbyshire District Council in 2012 to inform the preparation of each local planning authority’s Core Strategy or Local Plan.

In this context, it is disappointing that the Draft Options For Growth document has not referenced the conclusions of each of these Reviews, in respect of the assessment of their potential impacts on the Green Belt.

Furthermore, it is also of concern that no meaningful assessment has been carried out in the Draft Options For Growth document, or in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal, of the impacts of the proposed allocations on the five Green Belt purposes set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

It should be noted that the NDGBR assessed a range of broad areas against the five main Green Belt purposes. Three broad areas were defined that covered Erewash Borough, namely:-

• Area 1: Nottingham to Long Eaton and • Area 2: Derby to Long Eaton • Area 3: Derby to Ilkeston.

In terms of their assessment against the five Green Belt purposes, these three broad areas were all assessed as being of ‘high’ importance in meeting the five Green Belt purposes. The overall conclusions of the NDBGR (paragraph 95) indicated that the area between Nottingham and Derby and the areas immediately to the north were strategically the most important areas of Green Belt.

The DPUAGBR assessed a range of broad areas of Green Belt on the edge of the urban area of Derby, against the five Green Belt purposes. Two broad areas covered part of Erewash Borough, namely:-

• Area C: Derby North East • Area D: Derby East.

The conclusions in respect of both of these broad areas was that they both performed well against the Green Belt purposes. In particular, both areas were assessed as performing a particularly important role in preventing the coalescence of the urban areas of Derby and Nottingham and the settlements in Erewash Borough in between.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

Both of the strategic Green Belt Reviews referred to above highlight the strategic importance of the whole of the Green Belt covering Erewash Borough and consequently, the importance of the need for a Green Belt Review (either Borough- wide, or Derby HMA/Greater Nottingham HMA-wide) to be undertaken to inform any consideration by Erewash Borough Council of the potential release of significant areas of the Green Belt for housing development. In particular, a Strategic Green Belt Review may have been likely to identify other alternative less sensitive areas of the Green Belt in the Borough that may be suitable for potential release for housing development than those which have been put forward in the Draft Options For Growth document. At the very least, such a Review would have provided an important assessment of how the sites that have been put forward for allocation compared to other alternative sites in meeting the five Green Belt purposes.

Green Belt and the need for Green Belt review will be a key strategic issue for the local authorities in both the Derby and Greater Nottingham HMAs to consider in taking forward the reviews of their respective Core Strategies/Local Plans and will be a key cross boundary ‘duty to cooperate’ matter that will require extensive discussion between all the authorities in both HMAs in due course. The Draft Options For Growth document and its proposals for significant Green Belt release is therefore considered to be premature, pending wider strategic discussions on this matter.

Overall, AVBC considers that the lack of prior and constructive engagement between Erewash Borough Council and the neighbouring upper and lower tier authorities within the Derby and Greater Nottingham HMAs could not only undermine the ‘soundness’ of the Erewash Core Strategy Review, but also have a similar impact on the preparation of the ongoing reviews of Core Strategies/Local Plans in both HMAs.

As highlighted above, one of the preferred site options for housing growth relates to land at Acorn Way immediately to the east of the existing built up area of Derby, the edge of which corresponds to the boundary between Derby City and Erewash Borough.

The Derby HMA authorities (Amber Valley, Derby and South Derbyshire) have recognised the limited capacity for development within Derby City to meet housing needs arising within the city boundary and both Amber Valley and South Derbyshire have previously agreed to make a contribution towards Derby’s unmet need that cannot be provided within the city. Housing development has taken place and is taking place and/or planned in the form of urban extensions to the Derby urban area, within Amber Valley and South Derbyshire. By virtue of its location, this development can be regarded as contributing to the unmet need for Derby.

Although Erewash Borough is within the Greater Nottingham HMA, that part of the Erewash which borders the Derby urban area is clearly dislocated from the concentration of existing built development in the east of the Borough (Long Eaton and Ilkeston urban areas, bordering Nottinghamshire). However, there is no recognition of this context in the Draft Options For Growth document, in relation to the preferred site option to the east of Derby. By virtue of its location, AVBC considers that this site should be regarded as contributing to any unmet housing need arising within Derby, in the same way as similar sites on the edge of the Derby urban area within Amber Valley and South Derbyshire.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

More widely, AVBC is also concerned that the Draft Options For Growth consultation does not appear to take into account the housing needs and strategic growth options across both the Derby HMA and the Greater Nottingham HMA. It makes no reference to the need for joint working between all of the respective local authorities within the two HMAs, having regard to the ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other and with other prescribed bodies on strategic planning matters that cross administrative boundaries.

The failure to engage appropriately with neighbouring authorities on these matters could not only undermine the ‘soundness’ of the Erewash Core Strategy Review, but could also have a similar impact on current and future plan-making by the other authorities within the two HMAs.

AVBC, Derby City Council and the other Greater Nottingham HMA authorities (collectively) have all previously written to EBC, prior to the decision to agree and publish the Draft Options For Growth for consultation, expressing concerns at the intention to proceed in this way.

Whilst the Draft Options For Growth document sets out a minimum annual housing need figure for Erewash, by applying the standard method set out in national planning guidance, it does not explain how or why it has been concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances that might justify an alternative approach, as referred to in paragraph 60 of the NPPF. The document also fails to reflect the national planning guidance in relation to ‘Housing and economic needs assessment’, specifically paragraph 10 of that guidance, as to whether or not it may be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure in Erewash that the standard method indicates.

Paragraph 10 highlights examples of circumstances where a higher level of housing need might be planned for, including where:-

• there are growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable • funding is in place to promote and facilitate additional growth (e.g. Housing Deals) • there are strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally • an authority agrees to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities, as • set out in a statement of common ground.

AVBC considers that any conclusions as to the appropriate level of housing need that should be planned for in Erewash should await the findings of the studies currently being undertaken on behalf of the local authorities within the two HMAs (the Greater Nottingham Growth Options Study and the Derby HMA Growth Opportunities Study). These studies are both focused on assessing the opportunities for strategic housing and economic growth e.g. the proposed HS2 East Midlands Hub station and taking into account the key constraints to development.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

Comments on the potential impact on Amber Valley of specific proposals within the Draft Options For Growth document

The Draft Options For Growth document proposes to allocate land north of Cotmanhay (600 homes). This site, which is currently within the Green Belt, immediately adjoins the Erewash Borough boundary with Amber Valley Borough. That part of Amber Valley between the south eastern boundary of the Heanor Urban Area and the Amber Valley/Erewash boundary is also within the Green Belt.

In assessing potential opportunities for housing growth around the Ilkeston Urban Area (which includes Cotmanhay), the Draft Options For Growth document concludes that opportunities to the east and west of the Urban Area are restricted by floodplain and to the south by the setting of a Conservation Area. In contrast, it concludes that apart from Cotmanhay Wood, there are no physical constraints to growth to the north of the Urban Area and that development to the east and west of the wood could enable it to be brought into public use as a community woodland, linked by a multi-user trail to give public access to the Erewash Valley and Shipley Country Park. It is anticipated that 200 of the proposed 600 dwellings could be delivered within the first 5 years of the Core Strategy Review period (i.e. by 2027).

AVBC has serious concerns as to the basis on which Erewash have concluded that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify the proposed Green Belt amendment and housing allocation in this location.

The Amber Valley Green Belt Review, which was undertaken by consultants (DLP Planning Ltd) in 2018, defined a number of parcels of land within the overall extent of the Green Belt within the Borough. These land parcels were then assessed against the Green Belt purposes as set out in the NPPF.

The area of land between the south eastern boundary of the Heanor Urban Area and Long Lane at Shipley was defined as a single parcel in the Green Belt Review (parcel 34), with the small area to the south east of Long Lane, up to the Amber Valley/Erewash boundary, being defined as a separate parcel (parcel 35).

Parcel 34 was rated as ‘critical’ against the first and second Green Belt purposes, namely a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and was rated ‘major against the third Green Belt purpose, namely c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Parcel 35 was not rated under a) above, on the basis that it does not adjoin any urban area, but was similarly rated as ‘critical’ and ‘major’ under b) and c).

Neither parcel was rated under the fourth Green Belt purpose, namely d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, as this was only applied to those parcels surrounding the Belper Urban Area. The Green Belt Review did not assess any land parcels under the fifth Green Belt purpose, namely e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, on the basis that this would apply equally to all of the Green Belt within Amber Valley.

Template 31 May 2019/CP

In relation to b), the assessment of both parcels concluded that they form part of an important gap between the settlements of Heanor and Ilkeston (Cotmanhay) to prevent them from merging and that a reduction in this gap will create the perception of the settlement merging and may lead to future coalescence.

The conclusions of the assessment of the various land parcels informed the subsequent assessment by DLP Planning Ltd of a range of potential sites for housing development within the Green Belt (Stage 2 of the Amber Valley Green Belt Review – February 2019), as identified through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). These Stage 2 assessments in turn informed the Borough Council’s decisions in March 2018 as to the locations where it concluded that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify an amendment to the Green Belt boundary to delete land from the Green Belt and to propose additional Housing Growth Sites in the Local Plan.

In relation to those potential sites within that part of the Green Belt between Heanor and Ilkeston (Cotmanhay), the Borough Council proposed to delete approximately 1 ha of land immediately adjoining the Heanor Urban Area from the Green Belt and to propose this land as an additional Housing Growth Site. These proposals took into account the conclusions of the Green Belt Review (Stages 1 and 2), together with the benefits that could be provided through development in this location and concluded that were ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify an amendment to the Green Belt boundary in this location. However, the Borough Council concluded that in respect of the other potential sites in this part of the Green Belt, there were no ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify amending the existing Green Belt boundary and proposing additional Housing Growth Sites.

There is no indication in the Draft Options For Growth document, or related supporting information, that any of the proposals to amend the Green Belt boundary to delete land from the Green Belt and to propose allocations for housing development have been informed by a comprehensive review of the Green Belt in Erewash. In the absence of any such review, it is reasonable to assume that in relation to the land north of Cotmanhay, any assessment would be consistent with that for parcel 35 within Amber Valley, as to how this area of land performs against the various Green Belt purposes.

Whilst the potential benefits of bringing Cotmanhay Wood into public use as a community woodland and linking it by a multi-user trail to give public access to the Erewash Valley and Shipley Country Park, are recognised, it is not clear, in the absence of a comprehensive Green Belt review, how it can be concluded that these benefits would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through development in this location and that ‘exceptional circumstances’ can be demonstrated to justify the proposed amendment to the Green Belt boundary.

Date of decision: 16 April 2020

Template 31 May 2019/CP

b) Reasons for decision: To set out the Borough Council’s concerns to Erewash Borough Council on the Erewash Core Strategy Review - Draft Options For Growth, in terms of their implications a) for Amber Valley and b) more widely in relation to the joint working on strategic cross-boundary planning issues with other local planning authorities within the Derby Housing Market Area and the Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area. c) Details of any alternative options considered and rejected by the member when making the decision: N/A d) Record of any conflict of interest declared by any Cabinet member consulted by the Leader of the Cabinet which relates to the decision: N/A e) Dispensations granted by the Head of Paid Service in respect of any declared conflict of interest: N/A

f) Background documents referred to:

Erewash Core Strategy Review – Draft Options For Growth

Signature

Cllr Chris Emmas-Williams, Leader of the Cabinet

Date of written record: 16 April 2020

Template 31 May 2019/CP

Executive Decisions – By Individual Member

Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) () Regulations 2012

Regulation 13(1) written record of executive decision

The individual member who has made an executive decision must record their decision in writing or instruct the proper officer to do so.

The written record of the executive decision must contain the prescribed information.

Regulation 13(2) sets out what the written record of the executive decision must contain.

Regulation 13(1) states: ‘As soon as reasonably practicable after an individual member has made an executive decision, that member must produce or instruct the proper officer to produce a written statement of that executive decision which includes the information specified in paragraph (2)’.

Regulation 13(2) states: ‘The statement referred to in paragraph (1) must include – (a) a record of the decision including the date it was made; (b) a record of the reasons for the decision; (c) details of any alternative options considered and rejected by the member when making the decision; (d) a record of any conflict of interest declared by any executive member who is consulted by the member which relates to the decision; and (e) in respect of any declared conflict of interest, a note of dispensation granted by the relevant local authority’s head of paid service.’

Regulation 13(3) states: ‘Executive decisions made by individual members of local authority executives are prescribed decisions for the purposes of section 9G(4) of the 2000 Act (duty to keep a written record of decisions made by individual members of local authority executives).’

Executive Decisions – By individual Officer

Regulation 13(4) written record of executive decision

The individual officer who has made an executive decision must record that executive decision in writing.

The written record of the executive decision must contain the prescribed information.

Regulation 13(4) sets out what the written record must contain.

Regulation 13(4) states: ‘As soon as reasonably practicable after an officer has made a decision which is an executive decision, the officer must produce a written statement which must include – (a) a record of the decision including the date it was made; (b) a record of the reasons for the decision; (c) details of any alternative options considered and rejected by the officer when making the decision; (d) a record of any conflict of interest declared by an executive member who is consulted by the officer which relates to the decision; and (e) in respect of any declared conflict of interest, a note of dispensation granted by the relevant local authority’s head of paid service.’

Template 31 May 2019/CP