Report to the: Wards All

Planning Committee, 5th March 2014 Cabinet, 24th March 2014

Response to the East Riding of Council consultation on the Proposed Submission Strategy, and Proposed Submission Allocations Documents and Maps

Report of the City Planning Manager

1. Purpose of the Report and Summary

1.1. The purpose of this report is to seek Members’ approval to submit a response to the Council consultation on its Proposed Submission Strategy, and Proposed Submission Allocations Documents and Maps.

1.2. Members have previously considered and approved responses to earlier stages of consultation. This is the final consultation on the documents, and unless any major issues are raised, comments on these Drafts are normally considered by a Planning Inspector rather than the authority producing the document.

1.3. As this is the final stage, the Planning Inspectorate has advised that only responses received by the 10th March 2014 deadline will be acceptable. Any comments received after the deadline will be marked as such and their acceptance is completely at the discretion of the planning inspector. For this reason it is proposed once planning committee have considered the response a draft response is sent to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council on the 10th March 2014 which will be then considered at Cabinet on the 24th March 2014 for endorsement.

1.4 It is expected that the ERYC Local Plan’s Examination in Public will take place this summer at which this Council could be invited to attend by the planning inspector in connection with the comments and objections it has raised as outlined in Appendix A to this report.

2. Recommendations

It is recommended that:

2.1. Members approve ’s response to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Proposed Major Changes Document, as set out in Appendix A, incorporating any such amendments that Members require.

2.2. That the City Planning Manager, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Energy City, and the Chair of the Planning Committee is authorised, if necessary, to make any minor drafting changes.

The matter is not in the Forward Plan and the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee has been notified that this is a matter of general exception

3. Area Committee Impact

3.1 The response to the East Riding of Yorkshire Local Plan has no direct impacts on any area within the city to a greater or lesser degree than other parts.

4. Background

4.1. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council is currently seeking views on whether the Proposed Submission versions of their draft Local Plan’s Strategy Document, Allocations Document and associated maps are legally compliant, comply with the duty to cooperate and whether they are sound. When adopted, the draft Local Plan will set out the planning vision, objectives and policies which the East Riding of Yorkshire Council will use to guide planning decisions in the East Riding of Yorkshire until 2026. Once adopted the Local Plan, including the allocations Maps will identify appropriate land uses in the East Riding of Yorkshire, again until 2026.

4.2. Whilst the allocation of a site for a specific use does not guarantee a planning application for that use will automatically be approved, it does give significant weight to support its approval. Similarly, whilst not being allocated for a particular use does not mean that an application will automatically be refused, it does make it easier to justify a refusal.

4.3. The documents, once adopted, will become statutory plans.

5. Issues for Consideration

5.1 Hull City Council has been consulted throughout the development of these documents, and whilst we support many elements of the East Riding’s Plan, and are unlikely to be affected by large parts of it, some proposals may have implications for the city. Inappropriate development could potentially have a detrimental effect on Hull’s Housing and economic markets. It could also adversely affect Hull’s residents and businesses in other ways. There is also the potential for some changes to be beneficial to Hull. For example, they may lead to employment opportunities for Hull residents.

5.2 Hull City Council owns land in Cottingham and had requested that this was allocated for housing development. Although part of this land was initially allocated for housing, at the last consultation stage this allocation was then removed. Hull City Council raised an objection to the rejection of its land.

5.3 In the proposed Major Changes document, the Hull City Council land which had been allocated for housing and open space has now been rejected in favour of two other Cottingham sites. The rationale for this was largely based on removing any land within the Cottingham in Flood Zone 3 from a proposed allocation. Such an approach is consistent with the sequential approach identified within the NPPF but fails to consider the flood management benefits of developing this site.

5.4 Additionally during the previous consultation Hull City Council requested that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council look again at their decision not to allocate the former Aerodrome site for mixed housing, flood management and employment use, and also to express our support for the allocation of additional employment land at . These are included in the draft proposed response in Appendix A.

5.5 There is now a statutory duty to co-operate, and failure to respond to this consultation could be construed as a lack of co-operation. The Council si also working with the East Riding at a member and officer level to produce a joitn planning statement and ensure compliance with the duty to cooperate. A revised version of the Joint Planning Statement is expected for consideration by Cabinet in April/May 2014.

6. Options and Risk Assessment

The options available to Members are:

6.1. Option 1. Agree to approve the draft response, including the incorporation of any amendments required by Committee Members.

6.2. Option 2. To reject the draft response. This will mean that Hull City Council’s comments on the consultation documents will not be taken into account.

6.3. The preferred option is option 1.

7. Consultation

7.1. Views from other council officers have been sought. Due to the short notice of this consultation and the length of the consultation period, this has been more limited than would normally have been carried out.

8. Monitoring Officer Assurance Statement

8.1. Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 added section 33A to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which imposes a statutory duty on each Local Planning Authority to co-operate with its neighbouring Local Authorities by engaging constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in relation to the preparation of development plan documents. Therefore, the recommendation at paragraph 2 of this report is supported

9. Section 151 Officer Assurance Statement

9.1 The City Treasurer notes the draft response to East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s draft Local Plan and the timescales for submission. .

10. Comments of the City Human Resources Manager

10.1 The HR City Manager has considered this report and there appears to be no HR impact.

11. Comments of the Portfolio Holder: Energy City

11.1 Hull City Council has worked closely with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in the production of our respective local plans and have reached agreement on the vast majority of policy matters and allocations. Unfortunately there remains a handful of issues where agreement has not been possible, these relate to specific sites within the Council’s ownership not being allocated. These include land at Cottingham and Hedon. As a consequence the council remains opposed to elements of the East Riding local plan and will defend this position at the subsequent examination of the East Riding local plan.”

12. Comments of Overview and Scrutiny

12.1. This report has not been subject to scrutiny. (Ref. Sc 4092)

13. Conclusions

13.1. Members’ approval to respond to this consultation will ensure the City Council’s views and comments are included with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s submission to the examining Inspector.

Alex Codd, City Planning Manager

Contact Officer: Alex Codd. Telephone No: 612387

Officer Interests: None

Appendix A Hull City Council’s draft response to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Proposed Major Changes consultation.

Appendix B A summary of changes to land allocations since the Proposed Major Changes consultation in August 2013.

Background Documents:

Previous versions of the East Riding Local Plan Previous responses to East Riding Local Plan consultations and associated planning documents

Implications Matrix

Author: Name: Mark Palmer Service Area: Planning Policy Contact details: 612394. email: [email protected] Background Papers: Is this a Key Decision: No If yes, is it in the Forward Plan? No Forward Plan Ref: N/A Will further decisions be required? No If yes please outline the timetable: Is this report proposing an amendment to the No budget or policy framework? Have the financial (including capital) implications No been agreed with the Head of Corporate Planning and Finance? Have value for money considerations been Yes accounted for? Has the report been approved by the relevant Yes CST/HoS? Has the relevant Cabinet Member been Yes – the portfolio holder has been consulted and any comments documented? briefed on the need for a response to be made on the 10th March and has had sight of this response prior to being uploaded for planning committee. His comments are included within the report. Has Overview and Scrutiny been consulted? Yes, as part of the egenda consultation process. Have Area Committees been consulted? No Have the legal implications been agreed with the Yes Head of Legal and Democratic Services? Are there any procurement/commercial No issues/implications? Have communications issues been cleared by No Communications and Marketing? Has an Equalities Impact Assessment been No carried out in relation to the subject of the report? Are there any equalities and diversity No implications? Are there any community safety implications? No Has regard been paid to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act? Are there any environmental and climate change No issues/sustainability implications? Are there and Health and Safety implications? No Are there any human rights implications? No How does this report contribute to It is essential the city council ensures Council/LAA/Area priorities? development proposals on its boundary support the delivery of the cityplan objectives.

Appendix A

Hull City Council’s Response to the Proposed Major Changes to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Draft Local Plan

Hull City Council are working closely with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and in due course expects to agree a joint planning statement with the East Riding. In addition we have worked closely together on the development of a spatial plan and the simplification of the planning process in Enterprise Zone sites.

The Hull housing market and travel to work area extends beyond the city Council’s boundaries and therefore it is essential we work together on effectively managing a number of planning issues including housing, flooding, employment and infrastructure.

Hull City Council wishes to re-iterate its objection to the extension of the site now referred to as COT-F. The proposed extension is predominantly outside the existing development boundary. This part of the site was originally rejected as the “site forms a significant part of the key open gap between Cottingham and Willerby. Development of the site would contribute to the coalescence of the two settlements and the loss of the key open area which conflicts with the place statement and Policy A1 of the Strategy Document.” Hull City Council still considers this to be the case and does not agree that it is logical that the built up area needs to be rounded off.

During the proposed major changes consultation, Hull City Council strongly objected to the decision to reject COT3/3a/39 and this objection remains. Whilst it is clear that a number of responses were received concerned over the allocation, many of the comments made, such as lack of need for housing, increased traffic in the village, school capacity etc. were not specific to the this site and would apply to any development within Cottingham. Some concerns were raised relating to the relocation of the park. Should the existing park be relocated, the developer could be required to provide new play equipment and there is, therefore, the potential for a much improved play facility. It could also be developed as an aqua green to increase flood protection elsewhere.

In seeking to reject the sites, one of the reasons given was that it is “predominantly within an area of high flood risk”. Very little of site COT39 which was originally allocated for housing is in the high flood risk area; and a significant proportion of COT3, also previously allocated for housing, is not in the high flood risk area. It should be noted that during the flood event in 2007, these sites did not flood.

Hull City Council wishes to re-iterate its support for COT-I, land east of North Moor Lane, to allow the expansion of the existing caravan manufacturing business. Hull City Council recognises the importance of the employment opportunities this business brings to both Hull City and the East Riding of Yorkshire, and welcomes its future expansion. Hull City Council welcomes the fact that policy relates to the existing manufacturing business only, as new employment land here could threaten the viability of the employment sites nearby in Kingswood.

Hull City Council has, during previous consultation stages, made representations for the former Hedon Aerodrome site to be allocated for mixed use, with housing adjacent to Hedon village, a flood alleviation scheme in the middle and employment use on the rest of the site. Hull City Council considers that unlike the other housing developments which have been rejected on flood risk grounds, the inclusion of flood alleviation measures justify the site’s inclusion and asks again that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council reconsiders its decision and includes the site. It is understood that further drainage studies are being undertaken for the wider Hedon area and it would seem illogical in a 15 year plan to not allocate sites which a study soon to be completed could indicate are capable of being allocated.

In addition it appears no weight has been attached to the Council’s willingness to use its land holdings to help reduce the risk of flooding to both Hull and East Riding residents. Of course it can only achieve this if the sites at both Hedon (employment/flood management/housing uses) and Cottingham (housing/flood management) are allocated at least partially for employment/housing uses. The NPPF supports sustainable development which facilitates further development and the council consider the Hedon Aerodrome site enables this. The Council has also been approached by a potential employment end user who could be accommodated on part of the site.

Finally, although no further changes to Hedon Haven are being proposed, Hull City Council wishes to re-iterate its support for the enlarged employment site here for use in connection with the renewables industry and the inclusion of provision for a park and ride facility. Appendix B

A summary of changes to land allocations since the Proposed Major Changes consultation in August 2013.

Proposed Changes outside the Joint Strategic Protocol Area.

The Joint Strategic Protocol, agreed between Hull City and the East Riding of Yorkshire Councils identifies the area surrounding Hull in which development has the potential to have an impact on the city. Any proposed Major Changes outside this area are unlikely to have an impact on Hull and are not listed below.

ERYC Submission Allocations Document – Differences in allocations

Since the last (Proposed Major Changes) consultation in August 2013, there have been few changes to land allocations, and with the exception of Dunswell (self-explanatory, see below) are unlikely to have any impact on Hull.

Dunswell

The map has been re-sized and now excludes the park and ride site. The park and ride site does not appear to have been allocated on any other map.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council has confirmed that this is a cartographic error and that the allocation remains. Reference to this is included in the draft response.

Hedon Haven &

Part of the employment site has now been allocated as a Habitat Mitigation Area.

Paull

A map for is now included. There are no site allocations.

The development limits are set out on it.

Preston

One site, previously allocated has been included as a smaller housing site.

One site previously allocated for housing has been increased to include a previously unidentified area.