Greater - Broxtowe BC, BC and — Aligned Core Strategies (ACS) Examination Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions Matter 7: Infrastructure and Delivery (Policies 1, 2, 10, 18, 19)

Main issues: (I) Whether the spatial strategy is capable of being delivered given the infrastructure, community facilities and services, and standards for development which are required to support it; (ii) Whether sufficient attention has been given to viability and funding in line with national policy bearing in mind the likely cumulative impact of the above requirements including affordable housing on developments; (iii) whether the monitoring arrangements are fit for purpose, giving clear targets, measurable indicators, and an indication as to when review or intervention will take place because policies are not delivering.

Questions: 1. Does Policy 18 satisfactorily reflect the introduction into national policy of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the three tests for planning obligations set out in CIL Regulations and the NPPF, paragraph 204.

Ashfield District Council Response 1.1 Ashfield DC does not have any specific issues with Policy 18 Points 1, 2 and 4. The Policy sets out that new infrastructure will be sought from new development to provide for new infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 175 identifies that where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy should be worked up and tested along side the Local Plan. However, this is not a definitive requirement and there are practical difficulties in achieving this particularly in relation to an aligned Core Strategy where a number of Councils are working together. The three tests for planning obligations are set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and repeated in NPPF, paragraph 204. Consequently, the statutory instrument forms the context for the consideration of any planning obligation and the Council does not consider that it is necessary for these requirements to be repeated in Policy 18.

1.2 Policy 18, Point 3 identifies that “for strategic sites which are strategic allocations, the IDP identifies what where and when and how critical infrastructure will be provided”. The key aspect is what is identified as critical infrastructure? The Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy (ACS) Policy 2 allocates strategic sites at North of Lane (600 homes) Top Wighay Farm (1,000 homes) and a strategic location at with up to 500 homes through new allocations and 79 homes on existing commitments. This development is focused adjacent to and around and is in addition to the development proposed under Ashfield Local Plan. The Council has specific concerns that the IDP and ACS Appendix A, Strategic Sites and Schedules and Plans does not identify the “what where and when” of the impact on the Gedling's proposed sites upon the infrastructure of Hucknall. Theses concerns are set out in more detail in the response to Question 5.

2. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) was updated in May 2013. It refers to related policy, investment programmes and strategies, to joint working arrangements, and considers a range of infrastructure. It reflects the strategic and non-strategic sites in the ACS (Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) and details stakeholder engagement and consultation (App A) before dealing with each main infrastructure topic area. Does the IDP provide a sound base for the ACS and is it consistent with the NPPF’s paragraph 177? If not, what are its shortcomings?

Ashfield District Council’s response 2.1 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IPD) sets out that Ashfield District Council is not included in the IDP but the council remains closely involved in the Joint Planning Advisory Board and supporting joint officer group. It also identifies that as the Hucknall wards of Ashfield have a close functional relationship with the area covered by the IDP, broad assumptions regarding the future levels of growth and potential strategic sites within Hucknall have been made (in consultation with Ashfield District Council).

2.2 Ashfield DC is on the Joint Planning Advisory Board and officers do meet on a regular basis. The Council in general has no issues with the IDP and it is recognised that the IDP has made broad assumptions regarding levels of growth in Hucknall in its background studies. It is also acknowledged that not all infrastructure issues can be determined through an IDP and the IDP will change over time as more definitive information becomes available. However, given the substantial development is focused on a small town outside the principle urban area of Nottingham, Ashfield DC has specific concerns that the IDP and the ACS does not identified the full impact that this development will have upon the infrastructure of Hucknall.

2.3 Hucknall is a town to the north of the city of Nottingham which was identified as a sub regional centre in the recently revoked East Regional Plan 2009. The 2011 census identifies the population of Hucknall as 32,099 people with 14,309 dwellings. Under the provisions of the Structure Plan reflected in the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002, Hucknall has seen a significant growth in the number of dwellings, which has increased from 12,670 in 2001 to 14,309 in 2011, a 13% increase. The growth currently proposed for Hucknall, in the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies, together with the agreed level of growth within Ashfield District is as follows:-

Hucknall Housing Stock (March 2011) 14309

Ashfield housing requirement for Hucknall (2011 to 2024) 2,253* (to 2024)

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN HOUSING STOCK IN HUCKNALL 16% (ASHFIELD DISTRICT) (at 2024)

Top Wighay Strategic Site (GBC) 1,000

North of Papplewick Lane (GBC) 600

Bestwood Strategic Location (GBC) 500

TOTAL ADDITIONAL HOMES IN HUCKNALL (Combined 4432 Ashfield and Gedling sites) (2011 – 2028)

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN HOUSING STOCK IN HUCKNALL 31%** (Combined Ashfield and Gedling development) (at 2028) Table 1. Hucknall housing stock * 2460 dwelling requirement 2010-2024 less 207 net dwelling completions 2010 - 2011 * This is the minimum increase as Ashfield’s Local Plan is to 2024

2.4 The Ashfield Local Plan Publication document reflects Hucknall’s role as part of the Greater Nottingham area setting out Area Based Policies for Hucknall which identifies a requirement for 2,460 dwellings for the period 2010 to 2024. ACS Policy 2 identifies that, by 2028, 2,179 homes will be constructed adjoining or close to Hucknall at strategic sites at North of Papplewick Lane (600 homes), Top Wighay Farm (1,000 homes) and at Bestwood Village up to 500 homes through new allocations and 79 homes on existing commitments. Developments both in Ashfield and on the edge of Ashfield in Gedling would result in a minimum of 4639 new dwellings to 2028. Since 2010, there has been a net increase of 573 dwellings in Hucknall, which leaves 4066 dwellings to be serviced if Gedling’s proposals progress. This does not take account of the 4 years between 2024 and 2028 in Ashfield as the Ashfield Local Plan Publication goes to 2024. As can be seen from Table 1 above, If annual rates of development in Ashfield remained constant it would reflect a 31% increase on the number of dwellings currently in Hucknall.

2.5 The decision by Gedling BC to focus development on Hucknall rather that the urban areas of the borough means that Gedling needs to fully understand the impact on their proposed development on the infrastructure of Hucknall. The practicality of the transport links means that the impacts from the developments at Top Wighay, North of Papplewick Lane and Bestwood Village will be focused on Hucknall. The poor connectivity of these sites with the rest of the Borough makes this inevitable that Hucknall becomes the service centre for an additional housing requirement.

2.6 Whilst acknowledging that Gedling’s Local Plan allocated part of Top Wighay in 2005, this was before National Planning Policy Framework was published. There is now more of an emphasis on infrastructure delivery in the NPPF.

2.7 Given this context, it is considered that the ACS must address the impact that development in Gedling will have upon Hucknall and the delivery of Ashfield’s proposed development in Hucknall. The questions Ashfield DC would like Gedling BC to answer are:

Q. What are the broad impacts of the allocated sites in Gedling around Hucknall?

Q. Have those impacts in relation to Hucknall been assessed?

Q. How will the impacts be addressed?

2.8 Gedling Borough Council has not sufficiently addressed Ashfield’s concerns regarding the impact of development in Gedling Borough on the delivering of development in Hucknall. Although there have been meetings between the two Councils to discuss Gedling BCs proposals on the boundary of Hucknall, Ashfield DC considers that it has not received sufficient information from Gedling BC to address many of the questions raised about the delivery of infrastructure in Hucknall.

2.9 Ashfield has concerns that if development proposed on the boundary comes forward first it will compromise the delivery of development in Ashfield by absorbing existing infrastructure capacity. This would jeopardise Ashfield’s position with regard to meeting the District’s objectively assessed housing needs.

2.10 It was agreed that Gedling Officers (letter from Gedling 26 th April 2012) would set up a series of ‘themed workshops’ to enable Ashfield, Gedling and other Greater Nottingham Local Authorities to specifically tackle issues such as transport. Ashfield DC has attended three meetings to discuss various issues, (3 rd July 2012 and 18 th September 2012) and a meeting was held on 5 th December 2012 to discuss the Habitats Regulation Assessment. While the concerns over the Habitat Regulations Assessment have been resolved the other issues remain outstanding.

2.11 There are a number of specific issues relating to the impact on Hucknall from the Gedling’s development sites These include the following:

Education • Developments both in Ashfield and on the edge of Ashfield (at Top Wighay, North of Papplewick Lane and Bestwood in Gedling Borough) total a minimum of (Ashfield’s Local Plan is to 2024) of 4066 new dwellings up to 2028. In terms of the number of primary school places required (calculated at 21 places per 100 dwellings) this equates to a minimum of approximately 854 additional places by 2028. The Aligned Core Strategy IDP sets out that Top Wighay Farm and North of Papplewick Lane will require new primary schools on site. It is understood that there may be viability issues with regard to the delivery of a new primary school at the North of Papplewick Lane site.

• It is acknowledged that Gedling’s CIL Regulation 123 List includes a secondary school contribution of £2,760,000 associated with Top Wighay. Provision is also made for primary education within the IDP acknowledges that two new one form entry schools will be required on site (one for Top Wighay and one for North of Papplewick Lane). With regard to secondary education, the IDP sets out that there is ‘expected capacity within existing schools’. However, based on a minimum of 4066 new dwellings up to 2028 (Ashfield and Gedling) and secondary school provision at 16 places per 100 dwellings, this would equate to a requirement of approximately 651 additional places in Hucknall (the catchment area for the three sites in Gedling is Hucknall). There are two secondary schools in Hucknall, National Academy CofE and Holgate Academy. It is understood that the National Academy CofE cannot physically be expanded. Ashfield DC would like to know from Gedling BC:

Q. Will the proposed developments at Top Wighay and North of Papplewick Lane meet the requirements for on-site Primary School provision as set out in the Aligned Core Strategy IDP?

Q. Has Gedling BC determined if the secondary schools in Hucknall can meet the combined development requirements?

Q. Can the requirement for secondary school provision be met at Holgate Academy?

Q. If not, where will a new secondary school be located to address this requirement?

Transport • The IDP usefully sets out strategic highway improvement schemes with indicative costs in Table 7.8 of the document. However, with regard to site specific highway improvements, Table 7.10 of the IDP indicates that this will be dealt with at the planning application stage and will be developer led. Given the potential combined impact of these sites it is important to identify a mitigation strategy prior to any planning application. The Ashfield Transport Study 2013 Update identifies that the combine impact of the development in Hucknall (Ashfield) and on the edge of Ashfield (Gedling) will require improvements to a number of junctions on the A611. As such, contributions should come from developments in both Gedling and Ashfield. The indicative cost of junction improvements in Hucknall equates to a minimum of £1.5 million (excluding any land take or movement of service). If strategic sites in Gedling come forward before those in Ashfield it could seriously hinder the Council’s ability to meet the district’s objectively assessed housing needs. It may result in the costs of infrastructure solely being met by development schemes in Ashfield and this would impact on the viability and deliverability of schemes in Ashfield.

• For the Gedling sites the IDP sets out that an ‘Integrated transport/ walking and cycling package is required including ‘potential’ link buses to Hucknall NET/train station at Top Wighay. It also specifies improvements to the services at Papplewick Lane. The use of the word ‘potential’ is of concern to Ashfield. It implies that there is no firm plan in place for a bus service from the site into Hucknall. The IDP also does not confirm whether or not the bus services will be improved in relation to the North of Papplewick Lane site. Ashfield has concerns about how this will impact on the District in terms of traffic congestion. The Tribal Study concludes that Top Wighay would be suitable for residential-led mixed use development subject to a Tram extension (see Appendix 2 – paragraph 4.2.33). Ashfield would like to be assured that a public transport service will be in place from the early outset of the development. Failure to have a public transport service in place would make the scheme unsustainable as residents would rely on private transport. Without access to public transport, a development scheme of 1000 dwellings and 8.5 hectares of employment at Top Wighay would not accord with Part 4 of the NPPF. The NPPF seeks to ensure that plans protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable modes of transport. It also provides that Local Planning Authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development.

Q. With regard to public transport and highway infrastructure, what plans are in place to ensure that the required transport schemes are delivered from the early outset of development?

Health

• It is accepted that currently there are difficulties through the re- organisation of local health services are being experienced in obtaining information on future health provision. However, there is no indication of the potential impact of the Gedling sites in relation to doctors and dental and other health providers in Hucknall. A substantial issue in Ashfield is the health and longevity of the population which is less than the national average.

• The developments in Gedling will add substantially to the population of Hucknall. However, there appears to be no consideration of the potential impact on Hucknall’s community, leisure or recreational facilities from this increased population.

Q. How has Gedling BC assessed the impact/requirement for health and community facilities associated with the proposed development?

Q. How will the requirement for health and community provision impact on the viability of schemes at Top Wighay, North of Papplewick Lane and Bestwood?

Protocol for Management of section 106 Planning Obligations & Gedling Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy 2.12 Following a meeting of the Joint Planning Advisory Board Gedling has proposed a Protocol for Management of section 106 Planning Obligations to address cross-boundary impacts of new development. Ashfield DC welcomes this initial approach and is supportive of its general aims and intent. However, it is consider that this has a number of problems and as it stands it provides no certainty that the outstanding issues will be resolved satisfactorily. The protocol developed by Gedling specifies that “any request for contributions by an adjoining authority should include a robust evidence and relevant information…”. It goes on to state “Councils will seek to reach agreement but the final decision rests with the local planning authority”. This suggests that Ashfield will have to undertake its own work to assess the impact of development undertaken in Gedling upon Hucknall. This is not acceptable to the Council as it is unreasonable to expect this Authority to utilise its own resources to assess the impact of development on its boundary.

2.13 Ashfield is seeking reasonable guarantees that financial contributions are made towards services in Hucknall to the satisfaction of Ashfield and other interested bodies. As it stands, there is no reassurance that the impact of development in Gedling on the infrastructure of Hucknall would be addressed by Gedling.

2.14 Whilst it is noted that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) underpins the document, Ashfield District Council has concerns that the IDP is a living document which is subject to change at any point in the future. Ashfield would like an assurance from Gedling that any infrastructure requirements in Ashfield, relating to the development of the sites on the periphery of Hucknall, will be delivered first.

2.15 Gedling has brought forward the initial stages of adopting a CIL. Ashfield DC is concerned that the CIL collected from Top Wighay , North of Papplewick Lane and Bestwood will not necessary address the impacts arising from development at Top Wighay, North of Papplewick Lane and Bestwood. It is acknowledged that Gedling’s CIL Regulation 123 List includes a secondary school contribution of £2,760,000 associated with Top Wighay. However, it is unclear whether the remaining contributions required for secondary school places in relation to the North of Papplewick Lane site and Bestwood site can be achieved – this is not included in Gedling’s CIL list of projects.

2.16 It is vital that the impact of Gedling sites on Hucknall infrastructure is identified and that sums raised either from planning obligations or from CIL from these sites mitigates the potential impact on Hucknall’s infrastructure. This necessitates a formal written agreement between the two Councils which sets out the impacts of development on infrastructure in Ashfield (once identified) and the funding which will be required to deliver the necessary improvements in the District.

3. Section 8 of the IDP presents a Strategic Site Schedule similar to Appendix A in the ACS. Should Appendix A be amended to include this more up-to- date information?

Ashfield District Council’s response 3.1 If the IDP presents more up-to date information the ACS, Appendix A should be amended to reflect this information.

4. Should more detailed and specific information on critical infrastructure and costs be added to Appendix B of the ACS, especially in respect of education and open space, to assist implementation?

Ashfield District Council’s response 4.1 It is considered that Appendix B of the ACS should reflect the critical infrastructure in relation to allocated strategic sites. Therefore, it should include education, open space and other infrastructure which are key to the sites being taken forward.

5. Section 9 and Appendix B of the IDP report on viability testing to appraise the deliverability of strategic sites. Bearing in mind that these are broad-based assessments, do the results for Field Farm, Top Wighay Farm and North of Papplewick Lane provide credible evidence that the ACS meets the requirements of the NPPF, paragraphs 173 and 174, and is deliverable? Has the cumulative impact of all local policy and standards and infrastructure requirements been taken into account?

Ashfield District Council’s response

5.1 As is set out in the response to Question 2, the Council does have specific concerns regarding the specific impact on the infrastructure of Hucknall The viability assessment of sites, set out from pages 208 to 217 of the IDP, indicates that the model used includes potential infrastructure costs and S106 contributions ‘where known’. Table 9.2 (Top Wighay Farm) on page 211 of the ACS IDP states that transport and health requirements have not been calculated in the viability assessment. Table 9.3 (North of Papplewick Lane), on page 211 of the ACS IDP, states that transport, health and green infrastructure requirements have not been calculated in the viability assessment. There is also a requirement to purchase third party land in order to access the North of Papplewick Lane site. This cost has not been factored in to the viability assessment. As such, it is unclear how the costs associated with transport, health provision and green infrastructure will affect the viability of development at Top Wighay and North of Papplewick Lane.

5.2 Ashfield’s Affordable Housing Viability Assessments resulted in the Council taking forward a 25% requirement for affordable housing in Hucknall. It is noted that the sites at Top Wighay and North of Papplewick Lane sets out a 30% requirement for affordable housing. The Council does have concerns that this provision of 30% will potentially jeopardise funding for wider infrastructure for Hucknall if taken forward?

5.3 The NPPF sets out that, to ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable development to be deliverable - this is acknowledged in the IDP. Ashfield is concerned that development on its boundary with Gedling will be unsustainable as there is no certainty that the infrastructure required to make it sustainable can be delivered if the developer can demonstrate that the scheme would not be viable. Can Gedling confirm how the requirements for transport and health have been accounted for in their assessment of viability?

6. Table 9.1 provides results for Field Farm based on scenarios of achieving 15°h, 20% or 25°k affordable housing, but Broxtowe BC is aiming to achieve 3O% affordable housing through Policy 6. Why have lower affordable housing percentages been tested; does this conflict with Policy 6 and suggest inconsistency with the NPPF?

-

7. The Severn Trent/ Boots scheme is described under smaller sites in the IDP. Have any of the other sites in Nottingham City, notably the regeneration zones such as Waterside where it is planned to build 3,000 new homes without Enterprise Zone status, been appraised? Would it be possible to seek 20% affordable housing there in line with Policy 6, as well as achieve the necessary abnormal costs for site remediation?

-

8. Are the monitoring arrangements sufficiently specific? Are the targets and indicators ‘smart”? Should the ACS provide more information as to when a departure from targets would lead to intervention or plan review?

-