Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance – Addendum December 2017

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance – Addendum December 2017

Introduction

This document forms an addendum to the Stockton on Tees Borough Council Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance. The document draws together a collection of minutes providing evidence of how the Council has conducted meaningful engagement with the prescribed Duty to Cooperate Organisations.

This information has been provided at submission stage to aid the Planning Inspector in determining the Soundness and Legal Compliance of the Local Plan.

The document is broken in to the following sections:

Section 1 – Tees Valley Meetings

Section 2 – Local Authority Meetings

Section 3 – Other Partner Meetings

Section 4 – Specific Project Meetings

Each section has an introductory page which provides an overview of what is contained within that part of the document.

Should the Planning Inspectorate require additional details, it may be possible to make further information available on request.

Section 1 – Tees Valley Meetings

Contents:

Tees Valley Management Group & Directors of Place Meetings

Tees Valley Planning Managers

Development Plans Officer Groups

Tees Valley Transport Committee Minutes

Tees Valley Transport Advisory Group Agendas

Tees Valley Transport Infrastructure Group Minutes AGENDA ITEM 4

DIRECTORS OF PLACE MINUTES [EXTRACT}

Wednesday 12th August 2015 Time: 10:30hrs Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton

Present:

Gerry Brough (Redcar & Cleveland BC) (Chair) Bev Henderson (Redcar & Cleveland BC) (Minutes) Sharon Thomas (for Kevin Parkes, Middlesbrough BC) Paul Dobson (Stockton BC) Denise Ogden (Hartlepool BC) Ian Thompson (Durham County Council) (first part of meeting) Jane Tarr (Arts Council England) (first part of meeting)

Item/Action BY

1) Apologies: Kevin Parkes (Middlesbrough BC), Ian Williams (Darlington BC), John Anderson (Darlington BC)

2) Ian Thompson (Durham County Council) Update IT gave brief update re Neighbourhood issues; current position re Local Plan; any development issues 10,000 houses Sedgefield, LEP

Devolution and any related Transport issues.

Local Plan Durham have challenged Inspectors decision, hoping decision will be quashed and can submit revised plan before June 2016. Resubmission will require going back out to consultation with near neighbours/public.

Transport Issues A19 Corridor and transport links – discussions have been held with Highways Agency. RMcG advised main issue is Sedgefield and impact on A19. Agreed useful to have representative from Durham attend future TIG meetings. RMcG to send TIG dates through to Ian RMcG Thompson.

Local Plan Present perspective/position regarding each Authority’s Local Plan/5 year Housing Plan given by PD, DW, GB and ST. ST advised Middlesbrough not facing same issues as other LA’s as pretty much AGENDA ITEM 4

Item/Action BY landlocked.

Devolution th IT advised discussions being held 4 September with Treasury for funding similar to that received by Manchester. Durham already have CA in place. LEP and CA have some issues regarding land which will need to be sorted within next 12 months. Agreed wider Road/Transport Strategy with immediate neighbours/cross boundary to be set up. RMcG will raise at TIG RMcG 13.8.15 and will feedback to TVUMG/DoPs.

AGENDA ITEM

TVU MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 11th November 2015 Time: 8.30 Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Ian Williams – Darlington BC Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council Richard McGuckin (RMcG) Stockton on Tees BC Paul Dobson (PD) Stockton on Tees BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley Unlimited Neil Kenley (NK) Tees Valley Unlimited Damien Wilson (DW) Hartlepool BC John Anderson Darlington BC James Bromiley (JB) Redcar-Cleveland BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar-Cleveland BC Denise Ogden (DO Hartlepool BC Stephen Catchpole TVU Andy Bryson (by invitation) – item 2

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Required Responsibility

7. Tees Valley Strategic See Item 3 above Economic Plan The TVU Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) is currently being reviewed.

Agreed that there is a need for a definitive timescale for production of the LE to produce LE TV SEP plan – long stop date April 2016 draft timetable for review of SEP

AGENDA ITEM

Evening session with KP/LE/SC/NK to be arranged for further discussion on Local Growth Fund (item 3) and Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan. See above KP

9. Tees Coast Special Agreed that ML will be the lead contact with Natural England and will keep ML to keep LAs ML Protection Area TVUMG updated on the review process and advise colleagues of any and TVUMG requirements. updated.

15. Tees Valley Economic Agreed: Assessment • Approve the content for the full Economic Assessment to act as ALL the evidence base for the SEP and ESIFS reviews. • TVUMG to provided with any comments by 19th November 2015, otherwise the report will be approved.

Agenda Item 2

MINUTES - TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 7th September 2016 Time: 9.00AM Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Garry Cummings Tees Valley CA/Stockton BC Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council Richard McGuckin (RMcG) Stockton on Tees BC Mark Ladyman Redcar & Cleveland BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Martin Waters Tees Valley CA Neil Kenley Tees Valley CA Ian Thompson (By invitation) (Item 3) Durham CC Rob Earnshaw (By invitation) (Item 4) Digital City Laura Woods (By invitation) (item 4) Teesside University Sarah Brackenborough (SB) (Item 9) Tees Valley CA Sue Craggy (SC) Middlesbrough Council Minute Secretary

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required 1. Apologies No apologies were received.

Agenda Item 2

2. Minutes of TVCAMG 6th The minutes from 6th July 2016 were passed as a true and accurate record. July 2016 2016/matters Arising Matters Arising

Item 2 (3.1) HCA have been invited to attend TVCAMG on 5th October. M. Waters/K. Parkes to discuss KP/MW agenda items.

Item 2 (13) – Tees Valley Estuary – SPA Update ML to meet with Natural England on 30th September to discuss SPA. Looking at a more complex Natural Heritage statement. Action ML • ML to take a view, along with other LA’s on whether there are any concerns regarding SPA designation and if so, report to TVCAMG. • RMcG to lead on River Tees Rediscovered and will report back to TVCAMG on RMcG Groundwork Bid

Item 2 (14) - HCA Update on Land Acquisition Telecon to be arranged with KP/AL/PD. KP

Item 4 – Devolution Update Further discussions proposed to keep momentum on the devo deal at October TVCAMG. AL added that devolution is being implemented.

Item 13 – Cultural Thematic Group AL reported that an increased emphasis in marketing/tourism to be focus in TVCA priority AL review.

Agenda Item 2

3. Ian Thompson – Ian Thompson gave a verbal update on NECA. Durham County Council Noted that Durham CC, Sunderland and South Tyneside have voted not to have an elected Mayor and withdraw from NECA.

However, still proposing to recruit new MD.

Transport. RMcG updated that North Trans Pennine studies are still under development. Junction 57 on the A1 and the A689 have capacity issues – looking at dual connections. More work to be undertaken at the A689 Wynyard. Future impacts noted at Sedgefield due to future expansion of new housing

Discussions with Transport for the North to improve rail connections are ongoing. HS2 at Darlington a strategic priority. DCC promoting Durham. Looking to improve rail links from Middlesbrough to London. Durham coastline and new Peterlee station expecting to commence work next year. Possible investment to improve the A66.

IT added that a new Local Plan is required. Hoping for version of new plan to go out at the IW/RMcg/DO beginning of December. Agreed discussions to be held with individual Las, rather than TVCA on duty to cooperate.

Objections expected for housing growth in Durham from northern neighbouring LA’s.

8. SEP Launch/Update LE reported that considering delaying the SEP launch further. Proposition to be prepared LE for the Combined Authority Board and budget approval to be sought. LE to keep TVCAMG informed.

MINUTES - TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 5th October 2016 Time: 9.00AM Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council Neil Kenley Tees Valley CA Richard McGuckin (RMcG) Stockton on Tees BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC John Anderson (JA) Darlington BC Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Garry Cummings (GC) Tees Valley CA/Stockton BC David New (DN) Tees Valley CA Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley CA Sarah Brackenborough (SB) Tees Valley CA Keith Wilson (KW) (Item 5) Tees Valley CA Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Bill Carr (By invitation) (Item 2) HCA Neil Cawson (By invitation) (Item 2) HCA Victoria Keen (By invitation) (Item 2) HCA Tim Gordon (By invitation) (Item 3) HMRC

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As listed above.

2. Bill Carr/Neil Bill Carr advised the group of the HCA restructure proposal – the outcome of which should Cawson/Victoria Keen – be known by the end of October. HCA HCA Presentation: – “Increasing Housing Supply - The Tees Valley Housing Growth Site Database”.

6. Housing Growth & TVMG agreed that the proposition of a prospectus is good and will require CEXS and L&M’s Renewal Prospectus agreement.

Action:- • AL & MW to look at the process of the Implementation Plan and will update TVMG AL/MW at the November meeting or beforehand via email.

7. HCA Assets TVMG agreed that a letter be sent to HCA re: control of land disposal within the Tees Valley. Action:- • AL to write letter and circulate to TVMG for comment AL

8. Estates Regeneration TVMG agreed that they would like an update from Thirteen Group. Programme Action:- • MW to raise with Thirteen on behalf of TVMG MW

10. SEP Launch Event Some details of the launch have changed since TVMG papers were circulated prior to the meeting. Event will now take place on 8th December – venue TBC

Tees Valley Inward Item was not discussed. However as this paper needs to go to CEXS on the 19th October for Investment Summit approval before going to the TVCA on 2nd November, the paper was re-circulated after the meeting with comments requested back to SH by 10th October.

MINUTES - TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Monday 21st November, 2016 Time: 2pm Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA John Anderson (JA) Darlington BC Neil Kenley Tees Valley CA Richard McGuckin (RMcG) Stockton on Tees BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council David New (DN) Tees Valley CA Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley CA Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA

Ian Wardle (IW) Thirteen (rang in for Item 3)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As noted above. Agreed that TVMG meetings should be a priority and deputies be nominated for future meetings. To be discussed further at meeting on 7th December. Action • Add to Forward Plan for December, 2016 SH

4. Housing Growth & MW provided a presentation which focussed on:- Renewal • Land Commission

• One Public Estate • Housing funding and accelerating supply • Mayoral Development Corporation powers • Skills capacity – housing construction • Mistral project • £18m Large Sites and Housing Zones Capacity Fund It was agreed a further update would be provided at the January meeting.

Action: MW MW to provide a further update at TVMG in January, 2017

MINUTES - TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 7th December, 2016 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Richard McGuckin (RMcG) Stockton on Tees BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC John Anderson (JA) Darlington BC Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Sam Nixon (SN) Stockton on Tees BC Rob Earnshaw Digital City (Item3) Laura Woods Teesside University (Item 3) Tom Congrave Edge Economics (Item 4) Sarah Walker Tees Valley CA (Items 4 & 5) Sarah Brackenborough Tees Valley CA (Item 6) Martin Waters Tees Valley CA (Item 7)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As noted above.

4. Investment Plan & Andrew Lewis updated TVMG on the expected LGF allocation. Assessment Framework

Review Sarah Walker provided the proposed timescales, structure and content of the TVCA Investment Plan. TVMG agreed to:- • the proposed structure of the Investment Plan and the timeline for its development; • approve the Sustainable Transport Programme (STP) change request from Billingham Enterprise Zone Link; • Future STP decisions to be delegated to the Managing Director if they are less than 10% of the annual programme allocation. Decisions need only come to the full TVMG if they are over 10% of the annual STP allocation. • £250,000 of this year’s overall LGF programme underspend to be brought forward to the Tees Valley Sustainable Transport Programme to avoid delays in delivery. Resulting in a reduced STP allocation in 2017/18. • The proposal to undertake a review of the following LGF projects in the current programme: - Middlehaven Dock Bridge - Durham Tees Valley Airport - A689 Wynyard - Kirkleatham Business Park - Kirkleatham Catering Academy - TAMP 2 Research and Technology Centre - Salters Lane Phase 1 - Bilingham Bio-Pharmaceutical Campus

• All elements of the scoring framework being weighted equally initially.

AGE grant is given in 2 tranches and due to unprecedented demand, the first tranche of funding has been fully committed and a significant gap identified. To honour the applications submitted and create those apprenticeships, TVCA is to explore the use of its own funds until the second tranche becomes available.

Action:- • SW to bring a draft of the Investment Plan to the January meeting of TVMG

• TVCA to explore the use of its own funding until the second tranche of AGE SW grant is available. TVCA

7. Housing & Land Modular Housing Update:- Commission Project continues to progress. Heads of Terms are being worked on with Middlesbrough College and Teesside University are currently developing a post-grad course. A launch is scheduled for January – details still to be confirmed. TVMG asked to suggest sites where delivery can take place. Thirteen have already identified sites and will advise of more. The site at Kirkleatham which has been identified as a pilot site for HCA still needs confirming. Land Commission:- The Working Group is scheduled to meet 19th December. Meeting will be chaired by Neil Schneider, Chief Executive lead for this area of work and will include 2 or 3 representatives from each LA. Land Commission will meet towards the end of January. Still awaiting notification of Middlesbrough representative – should be a Councillor with portfolio. Andrew Percy, Northern Powerhouse Minister visit expected in the New Year so hope to time the first meeting of the Land Commission so he can attend. Housing Funding:- Proposition has been submitted to Govt and we are awaiting a formal response. To be discussed by CEXs to decide on the best approach going forward. One Public Estate:- Submission to be made by 16th December. We are seeking to put in “early win” projects:- Darlington Healthy New Towns Hartlepool Redevelopment of Civic Quarter Middlesbrough & Redcar South of Tees Children’s Hub Redcar – Station Business Quarter

Darlington Bank Top and Stockton Smarter Working projects also being considered

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 11th January, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Richard McGuckin (RM) Chair Stockton on Tees BC Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC John Anderson (JA) Darlington BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Sharon Thomas (ST) Middlesbrough Council Sam Gilmore (SG) Middlesbrough Council Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA David New (DN) Tees Valley CA (Item 3) Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Sarah Walker (SW) Tees Valley CA (Item 5) Sarah Brackenborough (SB) Tees Valley CA (Item 6) Jonathan Bretherton (JB) STDC (Item 4) Alex Knight National Audit Office (Item 6) Philip Taylor National Audit Office (Item 6) Catherine Taylor National Audit Office (Item 6)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

4. South Tees Jonathan Bretherton, Chief Executive of the South Tees Development Company attended Development Company the meeting to update the group of progress to date and plans to establish a Development Update Corporation for the South Tees area. The consultation closes on 10th March. TVMG agreed that a site visit would be useful.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 18th January, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Chris Renahan (CR) Stockton-on-Tees BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Sarah Walker (SW) Tees Valley CA (Item 3) Keith Wilson (KW) Tees Valley CA (Item 9))

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As noted above.

Keith Wilson provided an update on the Sector Action Plan 9. AOB Regeneris have conducted a Sector Action Plan Business Survey with 440 companies responding. Focus Groups are currently taking place with businesses which are focussing solely on the needs of businesses. So far 4 out of the 8 groups have met with good attendance at all however the Leisure & Culture sector has been under represented. In early February, council focus groups will take place.

In late February thematic groups are scheduled. An interim report is due early February. The final report is expected to be ready in late March. TVMG requested key findings are reported back to them before the final report.

TVMG requested an update on Broadband at their meeting in February.

CR advised of a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Tees Estuary Partnership which is circulating and could an effect on planning applications.

Actions:- • List of companies which have been invited to attend the focus groups to be KW circulated to TVMG • KP to send names of Middlesbrough companies in the culture sector KP • Regeneris to be invited to attend TVMG in February to report key findings prior to SH publication of final report. • Broadband to be added to the Forward Plan for February SH

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 1st February, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA (Item 4) Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley CA (Item 3) Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Gary Knight Stockton-on-Tees BC

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

3. Housing Martin Waters provided an overview of the proposal for a Tees Valley Combined Authority Housing Agreement. TVMG were generally supportive of the proposal but agreed it needed some “fine tuning” and requested criteria for assessing, selecting and prioritising sites. It was agreed that the 2 page briefing document would be useful for CEX.

Martin then provided an overview of the current government programmes in relation to housing and their relevance for the Tees Valley.

Linda updated on the MOBI project. Middlesbrough College will design an under-graduate course. A briefing for Leaders & Mayor, CEXs and TVMG will be scheduled in asap. There will be no public launch of the project until this briefing has taken place. The Teesside University post-graduate course will be first project to be launched – due to start September, 2017.

One Public Estate update: – Martin confirmed that we have been successful in joining the One Public Estate programme and indicative allocations have been circulated to TVMG. We are still waiting formal confirmation of these allocations.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 15th February, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Kevin Parkes (KP) Chair Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Sarah Walker (SW) Tees Valley CA (item 3) Shona Duncan (SD) Tees Valley CA (Item 5) Linda Tuttiett (LT) Tees Valley CA Bev Bearne Stockton-on-Tees BC

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As above

2. Minutes of previous Minutes of TVMG meeting of 1st February, 2017 agreed. meeting Matters Arising from 1st February, 2017 Matters Arising Housing paper which was presented to TVMG on 1st February will be presented at CEX today

and incorporates comments from TVMG. White paper on housing – Martin Waters to provide briefing to TVMG Green paper on Industrial Strategy –to be discussed at 15th March TVMG

Actions:- • The £2.3m allocation from DfT from the National Productivity Fund will be described as an uncommitted resource in the Investment Plan. How the fund is invested will RMc need agreement from Leaders & Mayor. TIG will discuss proposals at their meeting on 17th February and make recommendations which RMc will circulate.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 15th March, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) Middlesbrough Council Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Neil Kenley (NK) Tees Valley CA Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Chris Renahan (CR) Stockton-on-Tees BC Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC Andrew Carter (AC) Hartlepool BC John Anderson (JA) Darlington BC Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA Rob Pearson, (RP) HCA (Item 5) Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley CA (Item 5) Keith Wilson (KW) Tees Valley CA (Items 7, 8 & 9)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As above

4. Enterprise Zones NK tabled a paper outlining Middlesbrough Council’s request to extend the eligible sector criteria for their new Enterprise Zone to include Hospitality/ Leisure and Professional Services. The paper explained the process taken by the Enterprise Zone Development Group since October 2016 and shared the responses to the requested changes from Darlington BC, Hartlepool BC, Redcar BC and Stockton BC. As none of the LAs could agree with the requested change, the EZ Development Group found itself in a stalemate situation. An action was taken to raise the issue with TVMG.

KP expressed concerns that the current restrictions in place are controlling and limiting growth and asked the group to consider whether there should be a review of the activities currently eligible. NK advised that a change in activities would require joint agreement as it could have an adverse effect on other EZ sites. Redcar & Cleveland would like a review of the types of business eligible for Kirkleatham, as the type of business are currently too restrictive. Stockton, Hartlepool and Darlington agreed they had no desire to review.

NK also raised the question concerning the existing round one EZ sites. Currently we have:- • five Business Rate Relief sites with incentives that end in 31 March 2018. One of these sites (Oaksway in Hartlepool) is a locally funded site. • four Enhanced Capital Allowance sites with incentives that end in 31 March 2020, which have an incentive deadline of 2018. • three new Business Rate Relief sites which have incentives that end in 31 March 2021.

A request to extend the incentive for the round one EZs to March 2021 will be discussed with DIT and other LEP areas.

5. HCA Update – Rob Introductions were made and KP provided RP with a general overview of TVMG role and Pearson remit. RP provided an overview of the changes to the staffing structure within HCA and the focus of the new team. There was a general, round table discussion surrounding:- • Housing Agreement (devolution/collaboration); • Land Commission; • Housing Market; • The importance of remaining focussed on delivery;

• Response to the Housing White Paper; • Modular Housing. TVMG agreed that it would be useful for the new HCA team to attend a future meeting.

7. Broadband Update Baseline maps identifying all activity supported under Phase 1 will be provided to TVMG and relevant officers on 31 March. Phase 2 Mapping by BT has been delayed from end of February and is now scheduled for completion for May 2017- KP asked whether maps could indicate whether current/planned provision would be either fibre or copper. Phase 3: Possible £600k of underspend so TVMG requested a discussion on potential opportunities for use of the underspend at their meeting in June. Action:- • Add Broadband to TVMG Forward Plan for June TVMG

8. Industrial Strategy A report on the Industrial Strategy consultation response will be considered by the Consultation Combined Authority Board on 22nd March. TVMG were requested to submit any comments to KW by 3rd April. Action:- • TVMG to submit comments on Industrial Strategy to KW by 3rd April TVMG

9. Sector Action Plans 5 thematic workshops have now taken place. ` A draft of the Sector Action Plans will be circulated by 22nd March and comments are requested back to KW by 29th March. Regeneris will attend the TVMG scheduled for 5th April and the meeting will focus solely on the Sector Action Plans.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 19th April, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Kevin Parkes (KP) - Chair Middlesbrough Council Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Andrew Carter (AC) Hartlepool BC Martin Waters (MWa) Agenda Item 3 Tees Valley CA Mark Wilson (MWi) Agenda Item 4 Tees Valley CA Richard Marshall (Agenda Item 4) Highways England Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies As above 3. HCA Update Martin Waters provided an update on current HCA activity.

A Housing Agreement workshop has been scheduled next week with the Local Authorities and registered providers. TVMG requested a briefing note on the outcome for their next meeting to include key objectives and a programme for delivery.

The first meeting of the Land Commission has been scheduled for 30th May and will be chaired by the new Mayor. The aim of the Commission is to maximise the use of brownfield land and land held by Government departments and their agencies to support, economic development and housing supply. The Commission will undertake analysis and assessment

to identify opportunities and barriers and, based on this assessment make recommendations to the Combined Authority and to asset owners.

The Land Commission Working Group continues to meet regularly and is chaired by Neil Schneider.

Action:- • A briefing note on the outcome of the housing agreement workshop to be provided MWa for the next TVMG meeting.

Post meeting note:- The Housing Agreement Workshop has been cancelled and will need to be re-scheduled. A briefing note will be provided once the workshop has taken place.

4. Highways England Richard Marshall from Highways England attended to provide an update from Highways Update England. Mark Wilson, Head of Transport from the Combined Authority also attended. KP provided an overview of the role and remit of TVMG. Richard acknowledged that the work currently undertaken by TIG is an excellent example of how working collaboratively is successful. Richard advised that there is a stakeholder workshop on route strategies scheduled for 11th May and it was agreed that the invitation should be circulated to TVMG and the Transport Committee. MWi enquired whether he could still attend the Project Board meetings for the dualling of the A69 as it links in to the work currently being undertaken on the A66. ML highlighted that investments in the South Tees Development Corporation site will have an effect on the A174 to Wilton. MWi agreed to investigate whether projects have been looked at and will report back to TVMG. MWi

£2.3m National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) has been allocated to Tees Valley to spend on transport schemes in the area. The guidance states that it is a condition of the grant that this allocated money must be spent in 2017/18. After lengthy discussions, the

suggestion from TIG is that the funding should be directed towards one of the key priorities of our Transport Framework: improving east – west connectivity across our conurbation. The funding available will be used to improve our Key Route Network (KRN), delivering local interventions on the A66 and connecting routes. This will support the ambition for a greatly improved strategic connection between the A1(M) and Teesport that is being brought forward via a business case submission to DfT’s Large Local Major Schemes Fund.

Actions:- • Invitation to Highways England Route Strategies Stakeholder workshops to be SH forwarded to TVMG and Transport Committee • MWi to report on A174 MWi

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 7th June, 2017 Time: 10am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC (Chair) Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley CA Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley CA Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley CA Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Kevin Parkes (KP) Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA John Leer (JL) Tees Valley CA Keith Wilson (KW) Tees Valley CA (Items 4)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

1. Apologies None

4. Broadband KW provided a report on the proposal for a revision of Phase 2 rollout of superfast broadband. TVMG agreed to the proposal of utilising potential underspend monies identified by BDUK from Phase 1, which they would match-fund, to increase the budget of the Phase 2 roll-out from £1.9m to £2.4m subject to the following:-

1. BDUK confirming the total amount of underspend. 2. A timeframe of delivery being agreed.

3. Roll out plan to be developed promoting up-take and highlighting the role of the Combined Authority and its partners.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 2nd August, 2017 Time: 9am Venue: Cavendish House, Stockton TS17 6QY

Attendees: Apologies: Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton -on-Tees BC (Chair) Andrew Lewis Tees Valley Combined Authority Alison Fellows (AF) T ees Valley CA Linda Edworthy (LE) T ee s Valley CA Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Kevin Parkes (KP) Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley CA John McNicholas South Tees Development Corporation (Item 3) Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley CA (Items 4) Keith Wilson (KW) Tees Valley CA (Items 5)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required 1. Apologies As above.

3. South Tees John McNicholas, Engineering & Programme Director for STDC, provided an update on the Development South Tees Development Corporation (presentation circulated post-meeting). Corporation Update STDC became a legal entity from 1st August which enables them to recruit staff, open bank accounts etc. Whilst the site has not been actively marketed, there have been many enquiries to date. The first Board meeting takes place on 24th August. A VIP visit is likely to take place towards the end of August and a short summary document will be produced and circulated.

A full transport study has been planned – a meeting has been scheduled between John McNicholas and Mark Wilson (TVCA). The next STDC update to TVMG is scheduled for 18th October.

4. Housing Update Martin Waters updated TVMG on the Housing Infrastructure Fund. There are 2 strands to the fund:- • Marginal Viability Funding – bids up to £10m infrastructure to unlock sites quickly. Individual LAs can bid for this but projects need to be “oven-ready” and priority is expected to be given on bids that can commit spend by March 2018. Funds to be paid by s.31 grant. • Forward Funding – bids up to £250m for strategic high impact infrastructure schemes. The Combined Authority are required to bid and schemes must unlock major housing growth, bring forward schemes over next 10 years & funding needs to be committed by March 2021. Funds to be paid by s.31 grant.

MW also provided an update on:- • The Garden Town new settlement. A piece of work will be commissioned which will scope out a preferred location for approximately 10,000 new homes. • One Public Estate Programme – funding has now been released to progress with projects and a programme lead has been appointed. • Tees Valley Housing Investment & Delivery Plan – work is currently in progress identifying housing sites.

5. Delivering the Industrial TVMG have now received all 8 of the revised sector action plans. An Executive Summary Strategy (Sector Action was circulated with papers and Keith Wilson provided TVMG with a presentation Plans) highlighting the principal findings (presentation circulated post-meeting). In September there will be a number of feedback and buy in sessions with each sector. There will then be a Plenary Session hosted by the Mayor which will bring together the feedback from each sector and an opportunity to consider cross sector issues and the way forward. A stakeholder engagement session will then be held. The draft report to Cabinet will be brought to TVMG in October prior to it being presented

to Tees Valley Chief Executives and the Combined Authority Cabinet in November.

Any comments on the Sector Action Plans should be fed back to Keith Wilson by 18th August. All TVMG Keith also offered to speak to any of TVMG individually if required.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 4th October 2017 Time: 10am Venue: Cavendish House

Attendees: Apologies: Richard McGuckin (RM) Stockton-on-Tees BC (Chair) None Andrew Lewis (AL) Tees Valley Combined Authority Alison Fellows (AF) T ees Valley Combined Authority Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley Combined Authority Neil Kenley (NK) Tees Valley Combined Authority Julie Gilhespie (JG) Tees Valley Combined Authority Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Kevin Parkes (KP) Middlesbrough Council Mark Ladyman (ML) Redcar & Cleveland BC Ian Williams (IW) Darlington BC Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley Combined Authority Ian Thompson Durham County Council (Item 5)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required 1. Apologies None

5. Durham County Council Ian Thompson attended to provide an update from Durham County Council including:- Update • North of Tyne Devolution Deal which is expected to be announced this week; • Housing Infrastructure Fund submission; • Durham’s Local Plan; • Road Safety (Ian & RM to discuss outside of this meeting). NK advised Ian of the EOI submitted by TVCA for the Logistics Hub for Heathrow Airport expansion.

TEES VALLEY MANAGEMENT GROUP MINUTES

Date: Wednesday 1st November, 2017 Time: 10am Venue: Cavendish House

Attendees: Apologies: Richard McGuckin Stockton-on-Tees BC (Chair) Julie Gilhespie Tees Valley Combined Authority Andrew Lewis Tees Valley Combined Authority Kevin Parkes Middlesbrough Council Alison Fellows (AF) Tees Valley Combined Authority Mark Ladyman Redcar & Cleveland BC Linda Edworthy (LE Tees Valley Combined Authority Ian Williams (IW) Da rlington BC (Chair) Denise Ogden (DO) Hartlepool BC Sam Gilmore (SG) Middlesbrough Council Sally Henry (SH) Tees Valley Combined Authority Martin Waters (MW) Tees Valley Combined Authority (item 5)

No. Agenda Item Summary of Discussion Actions Responsibility Required

4. Strategic Transport Plan RM advised that a Transport Workshop is scheduled for 2nd November. Transport & Supporting Committee, Transport Advisory Group (TAG) members, Cabinet and LEP Board members Documents have been invited to attend to discuss the draft Strategic Transport Plan. These documents have been developed over a long period of time and TAG members should already have briefed their TVMG Director on their content. An Executive Summary will be produced. Once approval has been given, this Strategy will be adopted in April 2018. Any comments on any of the documents should be fed in to and co-ordinated through TAG.

5. General Housing Proposals regarding the HCA Housing Agreement were discussed. It was agreed that the Update paper to Cabinet should reflect the key points emphasising the importance of local authority prioritisation and the additionality that the agreement will bring.

The draft Cabinet paper will be circulated to Management Group in advance of Cabinet. RM agreed to relay the discussions to Mark Ladyman. Action • Draft Cabinet paper to be circulated to TVMG. SH/MW

TEES VALLEY Planning Managers/DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 22nd August 2016 at 2.00pm Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Paul Clarke (PC) – Middlesbrough Council Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Rebecca Wren (RW) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) Barry Jackson (BJ) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council Steve Petch (SP) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Matthew King (MK) –Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) Jessica Bell (JB) - Middlesbrough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Alex Conti (AC) – RCBC Adrian Miller (AM) – RCBC Andrew Carter (AC) - HBC 2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed, minor changes made Previous meeting to be re-circulated in due course.

3. Terms of PC explained ToR have been reviewed by TV Management Reference of Group as part of a wider purpose - no immediate concerns amalgamated raised. It was identified that a member of the TVCAMG may be group in attendance. Awaiting feedback from TVCA timescales TBC.

All – Open discussion regards ToR, no immediate concerns raised.

TVDPOS and NEIGHBOURS MATTERS 4. Extension to RW explained NE’s request for ‘review of consents’ approximate Teesmouth and costs, RBC would like to understand other LPA’s approach. Cleveland Coast

SPA MBC to seek clarification from NE to determine requirements/ KW timescales and distribute accordingly; with a view to TV LPA’s deciding if external consultancy should be sought collectively if required.

5. Duty to SBC/HBC currently liaising over Wynyard development. Cooperate DB would like to arrange future meetings with MBC/RBC to discuss evidence base findings in relation to the SHMA and OAN. KW 6. Local Plan and The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were CIL progress given.

Middlesbrough – KW confirmed issues report at draft stage with consultation expected Oct 16. Preferred options expected to be approx. Feb 17 depending upon evidence base. Adoption of new Local Plan targeted for 2018. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Stockton –SA scoping report consultation closed, review of comments underway. Hybrid issues and options Autumn 16. Evidence reviews nearing completion. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Redcar & Cleveland – RW confirmed draft Local Plan consultation has closed and good response received. Responses will be reviewed and reported in due course. Publication expected Nov 16. Town centre study is underway and is to be expected Sept/Oct. CIL discussions will follow adoption of Local Plan.

Darlington –SP confirmed SA scoping report is open for consultation. Issues and scoping report consultation closed and consultation statement to be scheduled for cabinet Oct 16. CIL is at early discussions stage.

Hartlepool – MK confirmed preferred options consultation is

closed and preparation of consultation statement is underway.

Preferred Options publication is expected Oct 16, submission Feb 17, examination Summer 17 and adoption early 2018. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

6. Any other SP briefed LA’s on new RTPI (NE) Apprentice Scheme for 16-18 SP business year old school leavers. SP to circulate information for interest.

TEES VALLEY PLANNING MANAGERS/DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 3rd October 2016 at 2.00pm Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Paul Clarke (PC) – Middlesbrough Council Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council Barry Jackson (BJ) – Stockton Borough Council David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council Alex Conti (AC) – Redcar &Cleveland Borough Council Malcolm Steele (MS) – Hartlepool Borough Council Jessica Bell (JB) - Middlesbrough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Adrian Miller (AM) – Redcar &Cleveland Borough Council Andrew Carter (AC) – Hartlepool Borough Council Matthew King (MK) –Hartlepool Borough Council Steve Petch (SP) – Darlington Borough Council David Nelson (DN) Darlington Borough Council

2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed and accepted. Previous meeting

3. Tees Estuary DB updated group on Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Partnership Workshop.

Workshop explained the intention of MoU framework to be delivered December 2016; which DB explained is intended to be a flexible framework that is responsive to up to date evidence.

DB confirmed further workshops are scheduled for Jan 2017, consultations scheduled for January-March and SPA expected to be confirmed Sept/Oct 2017.

DB distributed a copy of Draft Sensitivity Map that indicated All most impact of SPA extension will be expected primarily at SBC and therefore SBC to take the lead in future TEP workshops. Any comments directed through DB/SBC.

AC would like confirmation as to how local businesses are feeling about SPA extension and the uncertainty it provides. Hopefully MoU can provide certainty for business such as seasonal workers.

4. Tees Valley PC introduced MW to the group and explained the intention of Combined the ToF and how they will intend to create an ongoing liaison Authority between TVPM and TVCA. Housing Update

MW updated the group on future topics of TVCA framework:

Land Commission The TVCA intend to create a core leadership group to deliver a land commission which will establish a brownfield and surplus public land register, to be used as an advisory mechanism for TVCA to identify land that can be best used to benefit the TV as a whole.

TVCA to explore ‘One Public State Programme’ with aims to maximise shared use of estate and release potential funding for economic growth through the use of estate. A business case is to be expected Dec 16.

Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) MW explained legislative process underway to allow MDC’s which will be granted full planning powers. MDC can provide more certainty for private sectors.

PC – Cross boundary regeneration could benefit from MDC.

AC - LA expertise must be used on local issues.

BJ - Who will determine permission LA/MDC?

MW reiterated the critical need for LPA’s involvement with ongoing MDC discussions.

Housing funding TVCA hopes to maximise investment with TV, bringing housing investment/funding by means of an Investment Prospectus. IP will be a consolidation of Local Plans to create a non-statutory TVCA Masterplan which will attract investment and business in TV to bring forward housing sites.

The IP will promote housing growth and renewal in the TV over the next 15 years with specific investment projects to deliver long term prospects. 5. Local Plan and The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were CIL progress given.

Middlesbrough – KW confirmed issues report at draft stage

with consultation expected Oct/Nov 16. Preferred options expected to be spring 17. Evidence base underway and to be finalised shortly. Adoption of new Local Plan targeted for 2018. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Stockton –Draft LP consultation scheduled for Nov 16, publication to follow Summer 2017 with expected adoption 2018 Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Redcar & Cleveland – RW confirmed draft Local Plan to go to Cabinet 25/10/16 and Council 17/11/16. Publication expected March 2017 CIL discussions will follow adoption of Local Plan.

Hartlepool –Preferred Options consultation is closed with approx. 230no representations received. Some objection to proposed wind turbine have been made. Draft publication due 18/11/16 with consultation Dec/Jan. SHMA evidence base to be updated. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

6. Any other PC – work development programme to be prepared. PC business TVNP Local Plan Assessment (as circulated via email 20.09.16) to be scheduled for next meeting.

Next meeting to be held 14th November 2016.

TEES VALLEY PLANNING MANAGERS MEETING Tuesday 28th February 2017 at 1.00pm Oberhausen Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough

Attendance Paul Clarke (PC) – Middlesbrough Council Alex Conti (AC) – Middlesbrough Council Adrian Miller (AM) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Matthew King (MK) – Hartlepool Borough Council Barry Jackson (BJ) – Stockton Borough Council David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council Jessica Bell (JB) – Middlesbrough Council Laura Hanson (LH) – Arup Vicky Neal (VN) - Arup

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Andrew Carter – Hartlepool Borough Council Martin Waters – Tees Valley Combined Authority Steve Petch - Darlington Borough Council 2. Minutes of Agreed. previous meeting held 14.11.16

3. Tees Valley LH delivered power point presentation outlining the intention of Land the TV Land Commission Register, explaining the need for Commission information and how it will be interpreted. Register Data source LH explained the source of data has come from some LA contribution and the rest from E-PIMS.

AC/PC explain that E-PIMS has no LA input and confirm primary source of data should be from the relevant LA.

LH reiterated the importance of receiving data from LA’s to complete the register.

PC determined that information for each LA should be sought, in LA the first instance, directly from those in attendance of the meeting. With LA’s to provide consistent, robust data.

LH to contact attendees of TVPM meeting asap with the data LH requirements.

Use of data LH explained TV Land Commission Register will be used to capture land ownership with details accessible through a secure access web based tool (demonstration given.)

PC explained the key principal of the land commission is to deliver a consistent approach in identifying key strategic sites across boundaries.

Terms of reference in relation to the TV Land commission to be JB circulated.

4. Housing White PC highlighted potential issues of the HWP as: Paper 2017 • OAN and delivery of LP • 5 Year Land Supply • Housing delivery test • Affordable housing definition • 20% increase on planning applications • DC initiatives.

AM identified the potential need for a collaborative response to consultation of the HWP.

AC provided overview of PAS HWP meeting. 5. HCA MK queried as to whether the group are aware of any funding Infrastructure initiatives in place for the development of strategic sites. Funding PC explained the HCA has reconfigured into teams to further accelerate housing growth therefore more potential for funding released for infrastructure to promote housing.

AM explained LGF funding potentially provided as a loan with TVCA looking at acquiring funding to pay the interest on the loan. 6. Any Other AM provided an MDC update in relation to the SSI site, whereby Business an agreement has been reached in principle to determine planning powers will remain with RBC with the potential of a liaison officer between the two authorities.

DB updated on the Tees Estuary Partnership, confirming that an action group has been endorsed to move it forward.

AC queried the need for a representative from the NHS to attend the next meeting, to discuss James Cook University Hospital plans and the wider aims for the Tees Valley.

Next meeting TBC.

TEES VALLEY PLANNING MANAGERS MEETING Tuesday 23rd May 2017 at 2.00pm Town Hall, Stockton

Attendance Simon Grundy (SG) – Stockton Borough Council Iain Robinson (IR) ) – Stockton Borough Council David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council Paul Clarke (PC) – Middlesbrough Council Adrian Miller (AM) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Neil Cole (NC) - Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Matthew King (MK) – Hartlepool Borough Council David Nelson (DN) – Darlington Borough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Martin Waters – Tees Valley Combined Authority Alex Conti - Middlesbrough Borough Council 2.Presentation Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations – Presentation by Lichfields followed by short Q&A. Standing Items 3. Minutes of Agreed. previous meeting held 17.02.17 & DPO minutes 4. Local Plan Officers provided short updates on Local Plan progress. Updates • Stockton Council aim to publish Publication Local Plan towards the end of Summer and Submit before the end of 2017. • Hartlepool & Redcar & Cleveland Councils have submitted All plans with examination to be held in September 2017. • Darlington Council aiming to put draft Local Plan to Cabinet in December 2017. • Middlesbrough will complete evidence base by the end of Summer with consultation in Autumn 2017. • IR – Referred to communications from Directors of Place Paper seeking summary timetable. All to review and respond. 5. Duty to • PC requested that future duty to co-operate requests be Cooperate issues circulated through Planning Managers and DPOs in order to / Practice Update ensure effective communication. • MK explained that the Hartlepool Local Plan Inspector will invite Stockton on Tees Borough Council to an examination session. • DB to organise the next DPO session. 6. Strategic SG – SBC currently undertaking highway modelling exercises at Transport Issues Wynyard and Yarm which will report Summer 2017. PC – As part of the revised Middlesbrough Local Plan there may be a need to identify further housing. This could have implications for the A19/Parkway Junction. MK – Hartlepool Council looking to submit a bid to the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (NPIF) to enable the Hartlepool By-pass. DN – Draft Strategic Busines Case is being developed for A66 relief road. Modelling work to be complete August 2017. 7. Combined • DB explained that Martin Waters intends to provide full MW Authority Update update at next TVPM session. Other Items 8. Brownfield • All attendees discussed the implications of these regulations. DB register and PiP Agreed that the brownfield register could be based on SHLAA information. DPOs to consider issue and agree a consistent way forward. DB to add to DPO agenda. 9. Self Build and • DB explained that changes to regulation allowed for local Custom Housing connection criteria to be applied to these submissions. It may Register be desirable to include consistent criteria across the Tees Valley. • Issue noted but due to the small number of submissions to the register it was agreed that this was not a priority issue. 10. Tees valley • PC/DB explained that a meeting had taken place at DPO All SEP and level. This meeting agreed that a position statement should Employment be produced that considered whether the needs of the Tees Land Needs Valley SEP are met in full. • This may result in more joined up monitoring of employment land across Tees Valley • Agreed that a position statement on this matter should be developed via DPOs. 11. Other • MK – Marine Management Organisation have engaged with Business Hartlpool over Marine Management Plan. MK can provide contact details for anyone interested in the plan. 12. Next Meeting • Next meeting TBC. DB/SG • Group agreed that meetings should take place every 8 weeks.

¢ £ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § § £ ¨ © £ ¥ £ § £ ¢ § ¦ £ ¤ £ £ ¢

¢ ! " # $ % & # " ' & ( # # ) %

* + $ , - *

¦ *

. / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 2 8 9 : 0 ; < = > ? 2 / 0 @ 0 / = 4 ; A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

E E

> = 0 F 0 G F 6 5 D 7 G 8 9 H B > D = F 2 3 B 4 5 I 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

: 3 J 0 F = > I K 3 B 4 C 7 : K 8 9 G 5 3 < L 5 3 4 A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

M = / 0 > 6 0 . ; = F J 7 M . 8 9 H = > / 6 4 C 5 3 4 A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

2 = > 3 / 6 4 0 G L 0 / /I 7 2 G 8 9 N = F O / 0 5 3 4 H 6 J 5 > 6 < 5 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

2 / = 6 > G D 6 0 /; J 7 2 G D 8 P Q 3 > 5 D K 3 > L R 3 3 > J Q = 5 6 3 4 = / S = > L . B 5 D 3 > 6 5 I

: 3 O G F 6 5 D 7 : G 8 9 Q 3 > 5 D K 3 > L J D 6 > 0 2 3 B 4 5 I 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

N 0 / 0 4 T 6 / / 6 = F J 7 N T 8 9 N = > 5 / 0 U 3 3 / A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

G = > = D T 0 O J 5 0 > 7 G T 8 P V M W

R = 5 5 D 0 X Y 6 < L 0 J 7 R Y 8 9 G < = > O 3 > 3 B C D A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

Z = 4 0 5 R 6 / O B > 4 7 Z R 8 9 : 0 ; < = > ? 2 / 0 @ 0 / = 4 ; A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

¦ % © ¦ *

" ( ¦ )

Z 3 D 4 N 6 / 0 J 9 : 6 < D F 3 4 ; J D 6 > 0 H 6 J 5 > 6 < 5 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

R = 5 5 D 0 X [ 6 4 C 9 N = > 5 / 0 U 3 3 / A 3 > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

[ = 5 D 0 > 6 4 0 T D 6 5 X 0 / / 9 R 6 ; ; / 0 J O > 3 B C D 2 3 B 4 < 6 /

& ( \ V D 0 F 6 4 B 5 0 J 3 ] 5 D 0 U > 0 @ 6 3 B J F 0 0 5 6 4 C 3 ] 5 D 0 V M H S ^ J C > 3 B U

) $

3 4 _ ` a b G 0 U 5 0 F O 0 > X 0 > 0 = C > 0 0 ; = J = 5 > B 0 > 0 < 3 > ; c . 2

= ; @ 6 J 0 ; 5 D 0 C > 3 B U D 0 X = J J 5 6 / / X = 6 5 6 4 C ] 3 > 5 D 0 ^ . Q = 4 = /I J 6 J

5 3 O 0 ] 6 4 = / 6 J 0 ; c

M . = 4 4 3 B 4 < 0 ; H ^ S J X 0 > 0 4 3 5 5 3 5 = L 0 5 D 0 R 3 W = 4 I ] B > 5 D 0 > c

2 = U 6 5 = 6 4 ] 3 > F = 5 6 3 4 4 3 5 > 0 < 0 6 @ 0 ; : K 5 3 < D = J 0 B U c : K

= ; @ 6 J 0 ; 5 D 0 C > 3 B U G 5 3 < L 5 3 4 D = ; J 0 5 B U = > 0 C 6 J 5 0 > 3 ] 6 4 5 0 > 0 J 5

] 3 > G 0 /] P A B 6 /; = 4 ; 2 B J 5 3 F A B 6 /; N 3 B J 6 4 C = @ = 6 / = O / 0 5 D > 3 B C D

O J 6 5 0 c 5 D 0 6 > X 0

V D 0 F 6 4 B 5 0 J 3 ] 5 D 0 U > 0 @ 6 3 B J F 0 0 5 6 4 C 3 ] 5 D 0 V M H S ^ J C > 3 B U

X 6 5 D 5 D 0 X 6 ; 0 > 4 0 6 C D O 3 B > 6 4 C = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J 3 4 d Z B /I X 0 > 0 = /J 3

= C > 0 0 ; = J = 5 > B 0 > 0 < 3 > ; c . / / = < 5 6 3 4 J D = ; O 0 0 4 < 3 F U / 0 5 0 ; c

e ( § *

V D 0 ] 3 / / 3 X 6 4 C B U ; = 5 0 J 3 4 Y 3 < = / S / = 4 = 4 ; 2 f Y U > 3 C > 0 J J X 0 > 0

C 6 @ 0 4 c

5 D 0 < 3 B > 5 c V D 0 > 0 ] 3 > 0 g 6 4 5 0 > 6 F > 0 U 3 > 5 h B = J D 0 ; c V D 0 > 0 X 6 / / O 0 =

4 0 X 0 1 = F 6 4 = 5 6 3 4 X 6 5 D = 4 0 X f 4 J U 0 < 5 3 > c 2 3 B 4 5 I 2 3 B 4 < 6 / 5 3

X 6 5 D ; > = X 5 D 0 > 0 4 5 U / = 4 c A = < L 5 3 : 0 C B / = 5 6 3 4 i ` c Q 3

5 6 F 0 J < = / 0 J = 5 U > 0 J 0 4 5 c S 3 > 5 ] 3 / 6 3 D 3 /; 0 > J 0 1 U > 0 J J 0 ;

0 1 = F 6 4 = 5 6 3 4 5 3 5 = L 0 U / = < 0 G B F F 0 > _ j i k c

R = L 6 4 C = 4 ; > 3 X 6 4 C S / = < 0 J H S H c T 3 > L 5 3 J 5 = > 5 3 4 = 4 0 X

Y 3 < = / S / = 4 c f 4 5 0 > 6 F U 3 / 6 < 6 0 J > 0 U 3 > 5 ; B 0 Z = 4 B = > I _ j i k c Q 3

5 6 F 0 5 = O / 0 6 4 U / = < 0 I 0 5 c 3 @ 0 > 4 F 0 4 5 / 3 3 L 6 4 C = 5 J 5 > 0 = F / 6 4 6 4 C

5 D 0 U > 3 < 0 J J 3 ] 5 D 0 Y 3 < = / S / = 4 c Y 3 3 L 6 4 C = 5 > 0 @ 6 0 X 6 4 C U / = 4 4 6 4 C

3 O / 6 C = 5 6 3 4 J G S H 6 4 5 D 0 J D 3 > 5 5 0 > F c

¤ * l m m ¢ n H 0 < 0 F O 0 > < = O 6 4 0 5 > 0 U 3 > 5 J 0 0 L 6 4 C

= U U > 3 @ = / 5 3 > 0 @ 6 0 X 0 @ 6 ; 0 4 < 0 O = J 0 c Y 3 3 L 6 4 C = 5 5 X 3

J < 0 4 = > 6 3 J p P

i c f ] 0 @ 6 ; 0 4 < 0 O = J 0 J B U U 3 > 5 J 5 D 0 U / = 4 X 6 5 D F 6 4 3 >

< D = 4 C 0 J c

H > = ] 5 S / = 4 Z = 4 9 G 0 U 5 _ j i k c 2 3 4 J B / 5 ^ < 5 9 H 0 < _ j i k c

G B O F 6 5 q r 1 = F 6 4 = 5 6 3 4 R = > < D _ j i d

. ; 3 U 5 Z B /I _ j i d

_ c f ] 0 @ 6 ; 0 4 < 0 > 0 h B 6 > 0 J F = s 3 > < D = 4 C 0 J g 5 D 0 4 U / = 4

O 0 < 3 F 0 J 3 B 5 3 ] ; = 5 0 c G 5 = > 5 = C = 6 4 c

T 6 / / > 0 @ 6 0 X J 5 = 5 0 F 0 4 5 3 ] < 3 F F B 4 6 5 I 6 4 @ 3 /@ 0 F 0 4 5 c t 0 O 9

R = > < D _ j i k 2 3 4 J B / 5 c

2 f Y 6 J 3 4 D 3 /; = 5 5 D 0 F 3 F 0 4 5 c

¨ l l ¦ ! n R 0 F O 0 > J

= C > 0 0 ; 4 0 X Y 3 < = / S / = 4 5 3 J 5 = > 5 6 4 Z = 4 B = > I _ j i k c

2 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 3 4 R 6 4 0 > = /J = 4 ; T = J 5 0 Z 3 6 4 5 S / = 4 g U > 0 ] 0 > > 0 ;

3 U 5 6 3 4 J J 5 = C 0 Q 3 @ _ j i u 9 Z = 4 _ j i k c . U U 3 6 4 5 0 ; 4 0 X D 0 = ; 3 ]

U 3 / 6 5 Z = 4 _ j i k c

, % n . C > 0 0 F 0 4 5 5 3 U > 0 U = > 0 4 0 X Y 3 < = / S / = 4 3 @ 0 > v

I 0 = > J X 6 5 D = ; 3 U 5 6 3 4 6 4 _ j i w c f J J B 0 J ? ^ U 5 6 3 4 J O 0 6 4 C 5 = L 0 4

5 3 2 = O 6 4 0 5 i x a H 0 < c G N R . C 3 6 4 C 5 3 2 = O 6 4 0 5 Z = 4 _ j i k c 2 f Y

= ; 3 U 5 0 ; 6 4 . U > 6 / g C 3 6 4 C X 0 / / c

¨ l ! 9 2 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 3 4 R 6 4 0 > = /J ?

T = J 5 0 S / = 4 6 J ; B 0 6 F F 6 4 0 4 5 /I c S B O / 6 < = 5 6 3 4 6 J ; B 0 . B 5 B F 4

_ j i k g X 6 5 D J B O F 6 J J 6 3 4 = 4 ; 0 1 = F 6 4 = 5 6 3 4 0 = > /I _ j i d c

, ) 9 2 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 3 4 U > 0 ] 0 > > 0 ; 3 U 5 6 3 4 J = 4 5 6 < 6 U = 5 0 ;

6 4 R = I q Z B 4 0 _ j i k c v G 5 > = 5 0 C 6 < J 6 5 0 J J B O F 6 5 5 0 ; 3 4 0 = U U > 3 @ 0 ;

5 X 3 3 4 D 3 /; c 2 f Y > 0 4 5 /I 3 4 D 3 /; c

¤ * 9 G B O F 6 J J 6 3 4 3 ] 5 D 0 / 3 < = / U / = 4 0 1 U 0 < 5 0 ; 6 4

G U > 6 4 C _ j i k c 2 f Y > 0 4 5 /I 3 4 D 3 /; c . 2 J B C C 0 J 5 0 ;

P B > 6 4 C

y z z y { | } { | ~ z y } { | y y { } |

= B 5 D 3 > 6 5 I c R Y 5 3 ; 6 J > = 4 C 0 6 ]

> 0 h B 6 > 0 ; c

* + $ 9 2 B > > 0 4 5 ; > = ] 5 Y 3 < = / S / = 4 3 B 5 ] 3 >

< 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 Z = 4 B = > I _ j i k g D 3 X 0 @ 0 > 5 D 6 J / 3 3 L J / 6 L 0 /I 5 3 J / 6 U c

^ . Q ; 0 / = I J g J 5 6 / / X = 6 5 6 4 C 3 4 > 0 U 3 > 5 O = < L ] > 3 F S 0 5 0 > A > 0 5 5 c A 6 C

6 J J B 0 > 0 C = > ; 6 4 C G G f 6 F U = < 5 g F 0 0 5 6 4 C J O 0 6 4 C D 0 /; 3 4 3 @ 0 > = / /

C > 3 X 5 D c V . . 2 3 F U / 0 5 0 c Q 0 X Y 3 X 2 = > O 3 4 J 5 B ; I < 3 F U / 0 5 0 c

Y H G 5 3 O 0 > 0 @ 6 J 0 ; 6 4 = < 3 B U / 0 3 ] X 0 0 L J c

* % ! m % P Y 3 < = / S / = 4 2 3 > 0 G 5 > = 5 0 C I

= ; 3 U 5 0 ; i q i _ q i c S > 3 C > 0 J J 6 4 C J / 3 X /I 5 3 = ; > = ] 5 2 f Y < D = > C 6 4 C

J < D 0 ; B / 0 O B 5 4 0 0 ; 5 3 > 0 J 3 /@ 0 > 3 O B J 5 4 0 J J 3 ] / = 4 ; @ = / B 0 ; = 5 = c

} y } z z y {

6 4 6 5 6 = 5 6 @ 0 g X D 6 < D X 3 B /; D 0 / U X 6 5 D 2 = 5 5 0 > 6 < L = > > 6 J 3 4 F = J 5 0 >

U / = 4 4 6 4 C 6 ] J B < < 0 J J ] B / c

: G = ; @ 6 J 0 ; = / / 5 D = 5 Q K 2 2 g 2 6 5 I 3 ] K 3 > L 2 3 B 4 < 6 / = 4 ; Q K R Q S

)

= > 0 X 3 > L 6 4 C 5 3 C 0 5 D 0 > 5 3 U > 3 ; B < 0 = R 6 4 0 > = /J = 4 ; T = J 5 0 Z 3 6 4 5

a b

Q 3 @ c f 4 U B 5 S / = 4 c t 3 > F = / < 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 5 3 < 3 F F 0 4 < 0 i k

X 0 / < 3 F 0 c H 0 F = 4 ; ] 3 > 0 < = J 5 6 4 C X 3 > L 6 4 < / B ; 0 J 3 4 C 3 6 4 C

> 0 h B 6 > 0 F 0 4 5 J ] 3 > V 0 0 J M = / / 0 I g X 6 5 D 6 4 U B 5 J 3 B C D 5 ] > 3 F V 0 0 J

M = / / 0 I = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J c 2 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 3 4 = 4 B U ; = 5 0 ; X = J 5 0

U 3 J 6 5 6 3 4 U = U 0 > ] 3 > K 3 > L J D 6 > 0 = 4 ; N B F O 0 > 5 3 O 0 J 0 4 5 3 B 5 6 4

0 = > /I _ j i k c : G 5 3 = > > = 4 C 0 J 0 U = > = 5 0 F 0 0 5 6 4 C 5 3 ; 6 J < B J J 5 D 6 J c

/ = 5 0 c : G 5 3 J 0 4 ; ; 0 5 = 6 /J 5 3 . 2 5 3 < 6 > < B

M . 9 ^ 4 5 D 0 O = < L 3 ] 5 D 0 ^ . Q > 0 U 3 > 5 g M . > = 6 J 0 ; 5 D 0 6 J J B 0 3 ]

D 3 B J 6 4 C = 4 ; ; 0 = / 6 4 C X 6 5 D < > 3 J J P O 3 B 4 ; = > I 4 0 0 ; J c M . 5 3 0 P

¥ ¦ ¦

F = 6 / ; 3 0 J U 3 4 ; c

' ( ©

4 ;

} { z | z ~ y z } { | { } { } { | y

¦ \

5 D = 5 = > 0 U 3 > 5 D = ; O 0 0 4 ] 6 4 = / 6 J 0 ; O I ^ : G = U U 3 6 4 5 0 ;

< 3 4 J B / 5 = 4 5 J c M . 0 1 U / = 6 4 0 ; 5 D 0 3 B 5 < 3 F 0 J 3 ] 5 D 0 > 0 U 3 > 5 = 4 ;

= /J 3 5 D 0 6 J J B 0 J 5 D 0 I ] = < 0 ; 6 4 ; 0 = / 6 4 C X 6 5 D ^ Q G ; = 5 = c

(

2 G = J L 0 ; X D = 5 2 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 G 3 ] 5 X = > 0 3 5 D 0 > / 3 < = / = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J

¤ \ n

B J 0 ; ] 3 > 5 D 0 Y 3 < = / S / = 4 c : 0 ; < = > = 4 ; 2 / 0 @ 0 / = 4 ; g

§ *

G < = > O 3 > 3 B C D = 4 ; H B > D = F = / / B J 0 ^ O s 0 < 5 6 @ 0 c ^ 5 D 0 >

= B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J J = 6 ; 5 D 0 I B J 0 ; = 4 . < < 0 J J ; = 5 = O = J 0 3 > = 4 0 1 < 0 /

J U > 0 = ; J D 0 0 5 c V D 3 J 0 X D 3 B J 0 ^ O s 0 < 5 6 @ 0 = C > 0 0 ; 6 5 X = J C 3 3 ;

] 3 > < 3 4 J B / 5 = 5 6 3 4 J = 4 ; / 3 C C 6 4 C < 3 F F 0 4 5 J g 0 J U 0 < 6 = / /I 5 D > 3 B C D

5 D 0 U 3 > 5 = / = 4 ; 5 D 0 > 0 X = J = 4 3 U 5 6 3 4 5 3 = 5 5 = < D ; 3 < B F 0 4 5 J 6 ]

4 0 0 ; 0 ; c 2 G = J L 0 ; 6 ] = 4 I = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 I > 0 ] B J 0 ; U = U 0 > < 3 U 6 0 J c . / /

z { ¡ | | } { |

¦ ¤

J I J 5 0 F = 4 ; 5 D = 5 6 5 6 4 6 5 6 = / /I 5 3 3 L = O 3 B 5 5 X 3 ; = I J 5 3 J 0 5 B U = 4 ;

O 0 5 > = 6 4 0 ; c

¢ f 4 D 6 J = O J 0 4 < 0 R [ > 0 h B 0 J 5 0 ; 5 D 0 5 D 3 B C D 5 J = 4 ; < 3 4 < 0 > 4 J 3 ]

3 5 D 0 > / 3 < = / = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J 3 4 5 D 0 H 0 @ 3 / B 5 6 3 4 ; 0 = / = 4 ; X D = 5

6 F U / 6 < = 5 6 3 4 J q 6 J J B 0 J 6 5 F = I D = @ 0 c

. ; 6 J 3 B 4 ; 5 D 0 5 = O / 0 g 0 @ 0 > I 3 4 0 X = J

= X = > 0 3 ] 6 5 g O B 5 6 5 X = J J 5 6 / / 6 4 5 D 0 0 = > /I J 5 = C 0 J 5 3 L 4 3 X 5 D 0

, £

3 B 5 < 3 F 0 c N T 5 3 < D 0 < L X 6 5 D R [ 3 4 = 4 I 5 D 6 4 C U = > 5 6 D 0

X = 4 5 0 ; 5 3 O > 6 4 C B U = 4 ; ; 6 J 3 B U = 5 5 D 0 4 0 1 5

H S ^ J F 0 0 5 6 4 C c

¤ ( ¦ !

G T J 0 5 5 6 4 C B U ] B 5 B > 0 F 0 0 5 6 4 C J / 3 3 L 6 4 C = 5 6 F U > 3 @ 6 4 C U B U 6 /

U > 3 s 0 < 5 6 3 4 F 3 ; 0 / c G T = ; @ 6 J 0 ; 5 D 0 C > 3 B U 5 D = 5 F 0 0 5 6 4 C J D = ;

¤ £

5 = L 0 4 U / = < 0 X 6 5 D J < D 3 3 / U / = 4 4 6 4 C 3 ] ] 6 < 0 > J c G T 5 3 = > > = 4 C 0

X 6 5 D = / / c

R Y F 0 4 5 6 3 4 0 ; 5 3 5 D 0 C > 3 B U 5 D = 5 H = @ 6 ; N = 4 ; D = ; O 0 0 4

J B < < 0 J J ] B / 6 4 U > 0 U = > 6 4 C @ 6 = O 6 / 6 5 I = J J 0 J J F 0 4 5 J 6 4 P D 3 B J 0 = 4 ;

D = ; O 0 0 4 J B < < 0 J J ] B / X 6 5 D ; 0 = /J 6 4 6 F U > 3 @ 6 4 C = ] ] 3 > ; = O / 0

D 3 B J 6 4 C c ^ ] ] 0 > 6 4 C J B U U 3 > 5 5 3 3 5 D 0 > / 3 < = / = B 5 D 3 > 6 5 6 0 J 6 ]

> 0 h B 6 > 0 ; c R = I O 0 4 0 ] 6 5 = 4 I J < D 0 F 0 J 5 D = 5 F = I O 0 < 3 F 6 4 C B U ¦

R Y = ; @ 6 J 0 ; 5 3 < 3 4 5 = < 5 H N 6 ] J B U U 3 > 5 > 0 h B 6 > 0 ; c

2 G = J L 0 ; 6 ] = 4 I 3 4 0 D = ; 5 D 0 < = U = < 6 5 I 5 3 = J J 6 J 5 X 6 5 D

y { { } | z y { ¡ § | | { } { |

z y y } { y } } y z y } y y © ª z «

¤ § E

= < 3 U I c G 5 3 < 6 > < B / = 5 0 c R Y 5 3 < D 0 < L X 6 5 D G 5 0 @ 0 T 6 /J 3 4 c

M . 5 D = 4 L 0 ; 0 @ 0 > I 3 4 0 ] 3 > D 0 / U > 0 < 0 6 @ 0 ; 3 4 5 D 0 > 0 J U 3 4 J 0 5 3

Y 3 < = / S / = 4 r 1 U 0 > 5 > 3 B U c . 2 5 D = 4 L 0 ; M . ] 3 > < 3 3 > ; 6 4 = 5 6 4 C c

M . = /J 3 = 4 4 3 B 4 < 0 ; 5 D = 5 J D 0 X 3 B /; O 0 5 = L 6 4 C ] 3 B > F 3 4 5 D J

D 3 / 6 ; = I / 0 = @ 0 = 4 ; H = @ 6 ; Q 0 /J 3 4 X 3 B /; O 0 = 5 5 0 4 ; 6 4 C 5 D 0 4 0 1 5

H S ^ J F 0 0 5 6 4 C q J 3 4 D 0 > O 0 D = /] c

( ©

V B 0 J ; = I _ _ ¯ ° H 0 < 0 F O 0 > g _ U F g : 0 ; < = > ? 2 / 0 @ 0 / = 4 ; N 3 B J 0 g

% \ ®

: 0 ; < = >

a b

% £ ) ± V B 0 J ; = I i u R = > < D g _ U F g : 0 ; < = > ?

2 / 0 @ 0 / = 4 ; N 3 B J 0 g : 0 ; < = > c

¬ TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Tuesday 2nd February 2016 at 2.00pm Redcar & Cleveland House, Redcar

Attendance Alex Conti (AC) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Matthew King (MK) – Hartlepool Borough Council Isabel Nicholls (IN) – Darlington Borough Council Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council Rosemary Young (RY) – Stockton Borough Council Janet Milburn (JM) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies David Nelson – Darlington Borough Council

2. Minutes of The minutes of the last meeting held on Tuesday 22nd previous meeting December were agreed as a true record.

AC confirmed he had no further information from TV Planning managers on the devolution deal.

Darlington suggested they were progressing with the Scotch Corner retail development on their own. Hearing scheduled for early May.

KW confirmed the joint response for the NPPF will be circulated this week and that MBC will be sending a response to Government.

3. Local Plan and The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were CIL Progress given.

Hartlepool – Consultation on preferred options anticipated May. Draft - October 2016 for publication in February 2017. Support received from PAS. Still no indication on progressing with CIL.

Darlington – MGP DPD withdrawn. Revised LDS to go to cabinet in April. DBC to make a decision on CIL to run alongside the new local plan. Valerie Adams due back to work 16th March.

Middlesbrough – Local Plan still scheduled for later in the year. Neighbourhood Plan submitted for ‘Marton West’.

Stockton – Reviewing evidence base report gone out for tender, cut-off date 5th Feb. Interim findings due May. Significant changes to evidence base will mean a new local plan. No new plan will look to submit Jan 2017 for adoption September 2017. CIL currently on hold but looking unlikely to proceed.

Redcar & Cleveland – New LDS published in January. Draft Local Plan due in May. GTAA looking at site options. OAN housing growth averaging 10%, at 130 a year. Lower than historical delivery rates. Awaiting final SHMA report. The Council is not proceeding with CIL at the moment.

4. Duty to RY – Where appropriate, other LPAs will be involved in the Cooperate studies for the evidence base review. Duty to Cooperate letters are to be sent out to the other Tees Valley authorities and individual meetings will be arranged. AC

AC to set up Duty to Cooperate meetings ahead of the consultation on the Draft Local Plan (due May).

5. PAS Support: Further on from the e-mail AC circulated on 8th Jan, discussions New Duty to Co- were made around the table on whether this support would be of Operate Offer benefit.

It was agreed by all to take up the offer of a meeting with PAS to discuss the support. AC to contact PAS and confirm how much extra work would be involved, and to arrange a meeting. AC 6. Tees Estuary RY discussed with the team the issues raised at the expansions Partnership SPA meetings following on from the minutes circulated. All proposed master neighbouring authorities to recognise issues around SPAs. plan Once the revised boundary for the SPA is adopted, local authorities will have to review planning permissions that have not been implemented or which are not “substantially complete” to determine if they will have an adverse effect on the SPA and, if permissions have to be revoked, will have to pay compensation to affected businesses. The Tee Estuary Partnership (TEP) has been set up as a response to the DEFRA/Natural England consultation with a remit of producing a master plan by Sept. 2016 which addresses the issues of all parties affected by the extension to the SPA, in particular to enable the allocation of employment sites in the Seal Sands area, which has been a particularly difficult and intractable problem for Stockton Council over the past few years. INCA Co- ordinating. INCA may require additional funding from Local Authorities. AC asked the question which authority would take over when RY leaves SBC. RY suggested Stockton should still be involved in the group. Rosemary to report back after the next meeting on the 9th Feb. RY

7. New Homes Further on from the discussion at the last DPOs meeting. It Bonus appeared no one was proposing to respond due to time consultation restrictions. AC indicated that R&C might be happy to sign up to other LPAs’ responses to add weight, where appropriate. MK to MK ask Andy Carter if he has any information and report back to

RY.

8. Any other None. business Following RY’s announcement that it is likely that she will be leaving SBC soon, AC thanked RY for her contribution to DPOs and wished her all the best for the future.

9. Date and time Monday 14th March, 2.00pm, Redcar & Cleveland House, of next meeting Redcar

TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 25th April at 2.00pm Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Roger Tait (RT) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Valerie Adams (VA) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Helen Williams (HW) – Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) Jessica Bell (JB) - Middlesbrough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Matthew King – Hartlepool Borough Council Alex Conti - Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council 2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed and deemed correct. Previous meeting TVDPOS and NEIGHBOURS MATTERS 3. Local Plan and The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were CIL Progress given.

Middlesbrough – A full review of the Local Plan, excluding minerals and waste, is to be undertaken and is scheduled for Executive on 10/05/16. An indicative timetable is included which predicts adoption in September 2018. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Hartlepool – HW confirmed Local Plan on track to being delivered. Consultation due to start 27/05/16 with the hope to submit February 2017. DCLG have further contacted HBC and have confirmed they accept the deadline. Early discussion have been made regards CIL but concentrating on the delivery of the Local Plan at present.

Stockton – Local Plan on track to be adopted March 2017. Reviewing evidence at present including SHMA, ELR & retail study. CIL discussions to follow adoption of Local Plan.

Redcar & Cleveland – Local Plan on track with consultation due to commence in June 2016. Currently updating evidence base for SHMAA and open space; and duty to cooperate meetings to follow shortly.

Darlington – LDS agreed at cabinet and Council to approve. Revised SCI (draft) underway Cabinet agreed Strategic Issues and Options paper and consultation to start on the full review of Local Plan (excluding minerals and waste) October 2017, with the hope to adopt December 2018. Duty to Cooperate to be arranged when necessary. CIL to be adopted Autumn 2017.

4. Duty to KW queried the PAS support? Has funding run its course? Cooperate VA to speak to David Nelson within her team who was liaising VA with PAS.

DB confirmed invites to SBC SHMA workshop scheduled for 03/05/2016 and a further workshop invite for Employment Land Review scheduled for 17/05/16.

KW confirmed MBC due to review Employment Land Review and present in due course. 5. Tees Valley RT advised RCBC are low on resources to deliver TVAA at the Aggregate minute. Deadline for delivery is December 2016 therefore can Assessment another authority volunteer to take over preparation.

RT to speak with colleague and confirm scale of works involved RT and to be reviewed and discussed next meeting to determine lead authority.

6. Tees Estuary SBC nominated to attend meetings and DB confirmed colleague Partnership Jane Palmer due to attend.

DB to circulate minutes. DB 7. Tees Valley VA queried officer taking the lead on combined authority works. Combined Authority DB confirmed Martin Waters has been leading on a piece of work that relates to a Tees Valley Land Register and a stakeholder session was held a few weeks ago between TV LA’s (minutes have been circulated.) TVLR will focus on public sector assets and brownfield land across the TV.

8. Any other RT queried invite to Tees Valley Nature Partnership (emailed). business Suggested that Rachel Murtagh be invited to next meeting. KW to action. KW

TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 6th June 2016 at 2.00pm Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Alex Conti (AC) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Valerie Adams (VA) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Jessica Bell (JB) - Middlesbrough Council Rachel Murtagh (RM) – Tees Valley Nature Partnership (TVNP)

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies Matthew King – Hartlepool Borough Council 2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed and deemed correct. Previous meeting TVDPOS and NEIGHBOURS MATTERS 3. Local Plan and The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were CIL Progress given.

Middlesbrough – KW confirmed permission was granted 10/05/16 to begin a full review of the Local Plan, excluding minerals and waste. Commissioning of consultants has begun to support evidence base, assessments will include SHMAA, ELR, landscape and gypsy and travellers. An indicative timetable is included which predicts adoption in September 2018. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Stockton –DB confirmed an intention to review full Local Plan, excluding minerals and waste. Decision is to be made at cabinet 29/06/16; timetable to follow. Evidence is underway including SHMA, ELR, OSA & retail study. CIL discussions to follow adoption of Local Plan.

Redcar & Cleveland – AC confirmed draft Local Plan was agreed 24/05/16, Consultations due to commence 27/06/16 – 08/08/16. CIL discussions will follow adoption of Local Plan.

Darlington – VA confirmed Issues and Scoping Report is open to consultation, closing date is confirmed as 15/08/16. CIL is at early discussions stage.

4.Darlington VA explained DBC Issues and Scoping Report, identifying key Local Plan issues. Confirmed public consultation open and date for final

comments 15/08/16.

VA suggested if any cross boundaries issues were identified could DPO team contact DBC before deadline.

All – Confirmation that LA’s will respond accordingly.

5. Duty to VA queried the usefulness of a ‘member to member’ contact. cooperate KW to refresh duty to cooperate – cross boundary issues KW schedule.

6. Tees Valley TVNP aims and objectives Nature RM explained nature of TVNP. Confirmed review of TVNP aims Partnership and objectives scheduled for 30/06/2016.

KW suggested that LA’s should have representation and AC advised after 30/06/2016 event RM/TVNP should deliver briefing to DOP’s.

RM identified the need for TVNP to be involved in Local Plan RM preparations and timetables, RM to provide Strategic Plans

Engagement Programme for LA’s to complete.

JB to provide RM minutes of future DPO meetings to allow RM JB to update table as above.

TVNP mapping exercise RM provided each LA with mapping exercise. RM to provide RM examples of other LA’s that have incorporated ecosystem mapping portal as part of their evidence base.

7. Tees Valley KW confirmed MBC will provide LAA 2016 on the basis that Aggregate rotation follows on a yearly basis in line with the DPO meeting Assessment arrangement already in place.

All present agreed - HBC to agree upon receipt of minutes.

8. Tees Valley VA to attend a meeting 08/06/16 to discuss TVHS does anyone Housing Strategy have any comments?

KW confirmed a final draft of TVHS was due 06/06/16

8. Any other N/A business

TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 14th November 2016 at 3.00pm Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Alex Conti (AC) – Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (MBC) David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Matthew Clifford (MC) – Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) Graeme Smith (GS) – Durham County Council (DCC) David Hand (DH) – Scarborough Council (SC) Paul Fellows – North York Moors National Park Caroline Skelly – Hambleton District Council Rob Smith – North York County Council Jessica Bell (JB) - Middlesbrough Council

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies John Hiles – Richmondshire County Council

2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed and deemed Previous meeting correct.

TVDPOS and NEIGHBOURS MATTERS 3. Minerals & Waste RS confirmed the publishing of the Mineral and Waste Joint joint plan for North Plan with consultation to end 21/12/16. Key points include: Yorkshire/York and • Aggregate supply North York Moors • Waste –self-sufficient & maximisation

• Necessary cross boundary movements • Robust policies on potential of fracking (following public interest at initial consultation stages.) Feedback would be much appreciated. 4. Local Plan and CIL The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were Progress given.

Middlesbrough – KW confirmed MBC are undertaking a full review of the LP (excluding minerals and waste.) Issues

report open for consultation 5th December for 8 weeks (to

allow for the Christmas period) with preferred options expected May/June next year. The Consultation also includes a ‘call for sites’. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Stockton –DB confirmed review of LP to replace Core

Strategy and allocations (excluding minerals and waste.) st Reg18 consultation to be consulted for 9 weeks from 21 Nov ’16 to 20 Jan ’17. Publication to be expected Jun/July ’17. CIL discussions to follow adoption of Local Plan.

Redcar & Cleveland - No update available

Darlington –SP confirmed strategic issues and options report to go to Cabinet end of November. Land allocations due in 2017 with consultations to follow. CIL is to be reviewed.

Hartlepool – Preferred Options consultation closed.

Publication of draft LP scheduled for for 8wk consultation to begin 09/12/16 to 03/02/17. Adoption of LP expected Feb 2018. CIL discussions will follow adopted Local Plan.

Scarborough – DH confirmed examination dates for LP have taken place. Examiner findings included:

• Housing numbers justified • Affordable housing provisions modified and accepted • 5 year supply to be modified and re-examined • Education related issues in relation to potential pupil

increases.

Should it be needed there is provision for further 1 day examination. Adoption is expected 31/3/17 at full council. Not proceeding with CIL at present. DH highlighted review of CIL in white paper expected 23/11/16.

North Yorkshire- RS confirmed LP at post publication stage with expected submission of April 17. Durham – GS confirmed issues and options consultation very successful in terms of representations. Preferred Options to go to cabinet 14/12/16 with draft LP end of Dec/early Jan 17. GS explained LP is to have time span of 2016-2033.

North York Moors – PF confirmed Reg 18 consultation is underway and ends 18.11.16. Call for sites and green spaces is underway with not much response received to date. Issues and Options is expected Spring ’17. CIL not being considered at the moment.

Hambleton District Council – CS confirmed preferred options consultation is underway until 12/12/16. Adoption of LP expected 2018. CIL adopted April 2015 and to be reviewed with LP.

Richmondshire District Council – JH confirmed (via email)

• OAN update study in progress • SPD on Open Space and Development Management underway • Review of LP Core Strategy to begin Jan ’17, starting with OAN updates. CIL preliminary draft charging schedule out for consultation until 02/12/2016.

JH further added other news: • Confirmation Mod intention to extend Catterick Garrison – implementation plans to follow • Scotch Corner Designer Outlet awaits SoS decision. 5. Tees Valley Nature JB confirmed discussion with Rachel Murtagh for the Partnership Local requirement for all LA’s to confirm leading PO dealing with Plan Assessment assessment ASAP; also re-iterating Rachel will be happy to help if anyone needs further clarification.

PF confirmed he has received feedback from Rachel PF actioned following completion of the TVNP LA assessment which he 14/11/16 will circulate.

6. Any other business PF highlighted the new regulations for Self-build & Custom Housebuilding Act that came into force 31st October 2016.

CS raised concerns with potential ‘double counting’ of registered persons

AC further queried if we can we share information between authorities.

PF to circulate new regulations. PF actioned Next meeting to be confirmed 14/11/16

TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Tuesday 24th January 2017 Middlesbrough Council, Civic Offices, Middlesbrough

Attendance Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Alex Conti (AC) –Middlesbrough Council (MBC) David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Matthew King (MK) – Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) David Nelson (DN) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Roger Tait (RT) – Redcar and Cleveland Council (RCBC)

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Apologies None

2. Minutes from Minutes from previous meeting reviewed and deemed Previous meeting correct.

Duty to Cooperate Matters 3. Planning Managers The next Planning Managers meeting will be arranged to discuss the TV Land Commission and TV Brownfield Register. Consultants Arup will be invited to provide a presentation to the group. MBC 4. NHS Sustainability The NHS are consulting on a draft ST Plan. Given the and Transformation importance of this for planning, it was agreed to add an item Plan on this to the next Planning Managers agenda and ask the NHS to attend and take us through the proposals. MBC 5. Planning and It is likely that the publication of the White Paper will be Housing White Paper delayed until February although it is possible that the policy in relation to OAN could come out earlier than this. It is thought that the OAN policy could consist of set housing numbers for each authority or a standard methodology for calculating OAN. 6. Housing Market Both Middlesbrough and Stockton SHMA’s have concluded Areas that Middlesbrough/Stockton/Redcar and Cleveland are part of a wider HMA. Redcar and Cleveland are happy to proceed with their SHMA as it is. It was agreed that Middlesbrough and Stockton would have a further discussion with ORS on the HMA after the Middlesbrough SHMA presentation. MBC/SBC 7. TVSEP housing The TV-CA have produced housing numbers of 22000 to numbers align with the TVSEP. They have achieved this total by adding up figures from each authority. There was some concern that they have not used the same base for the figures for each authority. 8. Self-Build register The regulations in respect of the self-build register have been updated. There are now two parts to the register and there is a requirement to grant planning permission for self- build dwellings. It was agreed to add an item on this to the next Planning Managers agenda. MBC 9. Tees Estuary The TEP are intending to submit to Government the Partnership and MoU required information for the SPA extension by the end of January with further consultation intended in the Spring. An additional area of land north of the River Tees has been added to the proposed SPA. DB asked that the group feedback any comments on the MoU to him. DB 4. Local Plan and CIL The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were Progress given.

Middlesbrough – Consultation on the LP Issues Paper th finishes on the 30 January with Preferred Options expected May/June 2017. The consultation also includes a ‘call for sites’. Work is ongoing on the preparation of the evidence base including SHMA, EDNA and GTAA. Not proceeding with CIL at the present time.

Stockton – Consultation on Reg18 document finished on 20

Jan 2017. Publication expected Jun/July 2017 with submission Autumn 2017. They have completed a number of pieces of evidence including OAN, SHLAA, Town Centre Study and Green Wedges. CIL discussions to follow adoption of Local Plan.

Redcar & Cleveland- The consultation on the Publication st document will finish on the 31 January with Submission st expected 31 March 2017. RT confirmed that they are expecting the examination to take place in June 2017.

Darlington –A revised timetable has been prepared for the

Local Plan. Topic specific groups have been established

and they will continue the engagement process until August 2017. CIL is to be reviewed.

Hartlepool –Consultation on the publication of draft LP finishes on 3rd February 2017. They are expecting to submit

in May. Adoption of LP expected Feb 2018.

CIL discussions will follow adopted Local Plan.

6. Any other business It was agreed that the TV authorities should prepare a joint response to the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Plan confirming support for the document. AC agreed that Middlesbrough would prepare this response and circulated MBC for comment. actioned February 2017

TEES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Monday 26th June 2017 Town Hall, Stockton on Tees Borough Council, Stockton

Attendance David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Joanne Hutchcraft (JH) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Katherine Whitwell (KW) – Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Alex Conti (AC) –Middlesbrough Council (MBC) Matthew Clifford (MC) – Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) David Hand (DH) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Neil Cole (NC) – Redcar and Cleveland Council (RCBC) Steve Wilson (SW) – Scarborough Borough Council (SCBC) Caroline Skelly (CS) – Hambleton District Council (HDC) Graeme Smith (GS) – Durham County Council (DCC) Rachel Pillar (RP) – North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC)

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Introductions and All introduced themselves and gave job titles and authority Apologies for in which they worked. Absence Three apologies have been given for the meeting. One from Matthew King from Hartlepool Borough Council, Matthew Clifford in attendance as a substitute. Paul Fellows from North Yorkshire Moors National Park and Matthew Usher from Richmondshire District Council. 2. Tees Valley DB briefed the group on the minutes, which are to be Planning Managers circulated and agreed. Minutes DB informed the team that in regards to the TEP and SPA extension, discussions have been carried out with Natural England (NE). NE is proposing to go out to formal consultation in October/November 2017 to extend the SPA. However, this date is still uncertain.

All other relevant items were discussed under the main agenda 3. Local Plan and CIL The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were Progress given.

Stockton – CIL is paused and discussions to follow

adoption of the Local Plan. Regulation 18 Consultation of the document finished on 20th January 2017. Publication is expected to be September 2017 with submission in December 2017. A visit was carried out last week from PINS Inspector, Malcolm Rivett, which gave good feedback and useful pointers on the publication version of the draft plan,

particularly in relation to the housing requirement. The

Inspector also stated to plan a year between the examination and the inspectors report. Duty to cooperate meetings have been arranged for July 2017.

Middlesbrough – Preferred Options document is currently being prepared and aiming for consultation in September 2017 and publication in March 2018. The Senior Management Team has requested CIL to be reviewed.

Durham – Local Plan was paused for the publication of the housing white paper and also national and local elections.

The plan is still paused and there is no currently no set timescale for preferred options.

North Yorkshire Moors – Minerals and Waste Publication consultation ended in January 2017. An 8 week consultation period is now hoping to be scheduled for the middle of July on the addendum of proposed changes. It is then expected to be submitted in late November 2017 after Full Council. The LDS is also to be updated to reflect these changes.

Hartlepool – The Examination in Public (EIP) is scheduled to commence the final week in September for 3 weeks.

Officers have been given extra time to complete additional work requested by the Inspector. This includes evidence of duty to cooperate at a Member level and through Tees Valley Combined Authority as well as work on the Sustainability Appraisal, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Strategic Gaps and Whole Plan Viability. SBC have been invited to attend the first day of the EIP at the duty to cooperate session. CIL is also not currently going to be taken forward.

Member Involvement – DBC sent a letter to all relevant portfolio holders of the adjoining local authorities. Report to Planning Managers how member involvement should be managed. Also north and south border issues, which are outside of the Tees Valley area need to be considered.

Although DBC and HBC are progressing member involvement with Duty to Cooperate, RCBC have not carried out any work in relation to the Duty to Cooperate and member involvement.

Darlington – Publication of the document is expected in

Spring 2018 but this is dependent on OAN methodology.

Scarborough – CIL is not being progressed at the current

time. The Local Plan is at Full Council next week to be

adopted.

th Redcar & Cleveland- The Local Plan was submitted on 19 April 2017 and the EIP is scheduled for 5th September 2017. The draft programme has been received from the Inspector and NC is suggesting the programme be cut back. RCBC

have lost the third planning enquiry for residential

development, which included a lot of discussion on the OAN and housing supply as well as economic activity and take up rates predicted wouldn’t materialise. The plan is scheduled for adoption in April 2018.

Hambleton – The consultation on Preferred options of the

plan was carried out in December 2016. A large

employment site has been put forward at Leeming Bar, the feasibility work in relation to this site is expected to be finished in July. A revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) is required, which states publication of the document will be January 2018 and submission of the document in

June 2018.

CIL adopted in 2015, which is to be revised with the Local Plan. The 123 list is very general and the authority is not getting as much out of CIL as originally forecast.

Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – DPO’s are taking forward a position statement to demonstrate that

there are sufficient employment sites for SEP, which will be

taken to TVPMs. A separate meeting with the combined authority will take place.

The creation of 25,000 jobs in the Tees Valley stated in the SEP done by sector and not split up for individual authorities. DBC are getting a piece of work carried out to

look at what sectors Darlington can attract. DH will feedback DH when complete.

All authorities Tees Valley authorities to provide employment land data for next meeting. All 4. Education DH sought the views of the other authorities on their Requirements for opinions and experiences/approaches on dealing with Local Plans educational requirements. (Confidential) SW stated that North Yorkshire County Council as the Local

Eduction Authority (LEA) objected to the Local Plan but

following legal advice it was dropped. The LEA have sufficient powers to CPO land.

CS stated that they have had an objection last week from the LEA to their Local Plan.

GS informed the group that DCC use a cabinet paper to

inform S106 contributions. DB and MC informed the group that SBC and HBC use SPD. JH to circulate notes from DH and all to provide any comments between the group. JH 5. Brownfield It was clarified that the Tees Valley Land Commission Register Brownfield Register and Public Sector land register is separate to the brownfield register required by regulations which links to the Local Authorities Planning Powers. A consistent approach is needed for the land commission and TVPMs. There are still unanswered questions in relation to Part 2 of the register with guidance expected to come out at the end of the Summer 2017. 6. Custom and Self SW requested any details on the Custom and Self Build Build Register Register and how authorities are dealing with the register and who is finding sites. Is it falling solely on the planning department or do you have a more corporate approach?

SCBC currently have 20 people on the register.

MC stated that HBC have approximately 12 people on the register, already met duty.

AC informed the group that MBC have 9 people on the register, already met duty.

DB informed the group that SBC have set up a register and currently granted for planning permissions of self-build plots than necessary and will monitor the situation. There are 12 people on the register. This was discussed at TVPMs which is not considered a priority for Tees Valley approach due to resources. SBC are also considering adding a policy on

including self-build in larger schemes.

CS from HDC stated that there are 40 people on the register and the authority have been proactive in matching land owners with people on the register as well as building societies, registered providers together at an event. A th market stall set up event has been organised for 25 July at

Stokesley Town Hall. This is the second event, the first was held in Northallerton. JH to send invite out to event with minutes. JH 7. Any other business MC suggested inviting the Marine Management Organisation to present an update on the Marine Plan. All agreed that a presentation would be held at next meeting, MC to contact MMO. MC

AC asked if there was anybody from other authorities with the expertise to complete a Sustainability Appraisal for MBC. DB stated P Taylor from environmental policy team at DB / AC/ SBC, however will check if there is capacity. GS also GS highlighted the SA team at DCC also carry out consultancy work, AC to go through GS for further details. MC also stated that North Tyneside Council have had SA training from PAS. NC stated he is doing some research on SA training and will feedback any findings. NC

DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICERS MEETING Tuesday 17th October 2017 at 1.00pm Stockton Borough Council (EGDS1), Municipal Buildings, Stockton

Attendance David Bage (DB) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) - Chair Joanne Hutchcraft (JH) – Stockton Borough Council (SBC) Alex Conti (AC) – Middlesbrough Borough Council (MBC) David Hand (DH) – Darlington Borough Council (DBC) Neil Cole (NC) – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) Matthew King (MK) - Hartlepool Borough Council (HBC) Keith Wilson (KW) – Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA)

Agenda Item Details Action 1. Local Plan The following updates on Local Plan and CIL progress were Updates given.

Redcar & Cleveland – NC confirmed that the Examination in

Public went well and that the modifications which need to be made are currently being finalised. It is then intended to commence a 6 week consultation period on the modifications to the plan in November.

NC also stated that the housing standards methodology was

briefly mentioned but that the transitional arrangements are

clear. DH to circulate a decision which also confirms that to be DH the case.

Hartlepool – MK provided an update on the Local Plan Examination in Public noting that the standardised housing methodology was mentioned but not an issue and that the Inspector is considering issues, including housing supply and hot food takeaways. HBC working through the modifications that need to be made, which has to be taken to planning committee with a 6 week consultation period on the modifications to the plan expected in November.

Stockton –DB confirmed that the Stockton on Tees Borough Council Local Plan Publication Draft is currently out for consultation until Monday 6th November. It is intended that we submit before the end of this year and are currently in the early stages of recruiting a Programme Officer.

Middlesbrough – AC confirmed that preparation for the submission of preferred options is currently underway. However, there have been some issues on key strategic sites, therefore there has been a delay. There is currently no up to date timetable at present.

Darlington –now intend to do a preferred options consultation before publication. DBC will not be using the standardised housing methodology because it uses an incorrect baseline for Darlington. Updating the OAN with a report to Cabinet in January 2018 to agree publication and submission before end of 2018. 2. Responding to All authorities agreed to do a separate response to the All CLG Consultation consultation.

BW stated that the TVCA will provide a high level response on the parts of consultation which are related to the economy. 3. Housing BW stated that there are greater powers and flexibility through Matters the SEP. 25,000 jobs is realistic. AC stated that the problem is ambition isn’t linked back to demographics. In the place and

culture agenda, there was recognition that more analysis is needed. MK stated that HBC Local Plan is aligned with the SEP and would like to do own response to the consultation. If uplifting numbers, need to rely on economy at Tees Valley level.

DB highlighted that ORS produced an extra piece of work on older people’s housing and added this figure to the housing requirement for SBC. DH also stated that DBC also doing the same to deal with older people’s accommodation. In addition, DBC also highlighted that ORS have updated to 2014 baseline.

Savills are doing piece of work on new mayor’s settlement. It was highlighted that releasing more greenfield land could lead to lots of issues for town centres. Housing Market Renewal is needed to keep housing in town centre.

4. Statements of Identifying key strategic cross boundary matters and the Common Ground authorities which are responsible for these. All do work together well but just formalising the process. This would possibly need signing off by members.

5. Other Issues Viability when allocating sites, don’t have the same level of from CLG detail as a planning application. Consultation Planning Fees are proposed to increase by 20%, which is awaiting on parliamentary time. The delivering authority cannot influence this and it has not been decided where it will go, this is part of the consultation. 6. Any Other AC stated that the CLG mentioned at a recent event that there Business will be an announcement on the Community Infrastructure Levy in the budget.

BW stated that assistance would be needed for the terms of reference for piece of work on demographics. Some options are to be scoped out to establish if this work is just for the SEP or for the garden village and South Tees Development Corporation.

BW to also circulate job description for Sarah Cattermole’s replacement in order for all to review. BW

Minutes

TEES VALLEY TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Meeting held at Cavendish House at 10.00am on Wednesday, 22nd June 2016

ATTENDEES Members Councillor Bill Dixon Leader of Darlington Borough Council DBC (Chair) Councillor Nick Wallis Darlington Borough Council DBC Councillor Kevin Cranney Hartlepool Borough Council HBC Councillor Charles Rooney Middlesbrough Council MBC Councillor Dale Quigley Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council R&CBC

Apologies for absence Councillor Nigel Cooke Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council SBC David Robinson LEP Member LEP

Officers Ada Burns Chief Executive of Darlington Borough DBC Council Dave Carter Middlesbrough Council MBC Michael Greene Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council R&CBC Richard McGuckin Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council SBC Peter Bell Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council SBC Sharon Jones Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council SBC Linda Edworthy TVCA TVCA Jonathan Spruce TVCA TVCA

Action INTRODUCTIONS TVTC 1/16 The Chair and all those present gave introductions.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST TVTC 2/16 There were no interests declared.

TVTC PURPOSE / ROLE OF THE TEES VALLEY TRANSPORT

Page 1 of 7

3/16 COMMITTEE

Members were presented with Part 3.2 of the TVCA Constitution that related to the Tees Valley Transport Committee (TVTC). RESOLVED that Part 3.2 of the TVCA Constitution that related to the Tees Valley Transport Committee (TVTC) be noted.

TVTC STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PRIORITIES 4/16 Consideration was given to a report on the strategic transport priorities.

The Tees Valley Devolution Deal with Government set out four strategic transport priorities. A briefing paper was attached to the report and described the rationale behind the four priorities, and the progress with them since the signing of the Devolution Deal.

The Independent Economic Review, commissioned by Transport for the North (TfN), defined three growth scenarios for the north of England. Across the North, the “Transformational” scenario would see a 5% increase in employment, an 8% increase in population, and a 15% increase in GVA. For the Tees Valley, “Transformational” meant 25,000 new jobs, 23,000 new homes and a £1 billion increase in GVA. These numbers were embedded in the refreshed Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), and represented the levels of growth that our future transport network needed to accommodate.

The Tees Valley Devolution Deal, signed in October 2015, included four strategic priorities for transport investment, and these had been reiterated in the refreshed SEP. The four priorities were:

• Darlington station to be HS2 ready, with new platforms and links to adjacent developments; • An additional crossing of the River Tees; • Improved east-west road connectivity from the A1(M) to the international gateway at Teesport; and • Electrification of the Northallerton to Teesport rail line to improve freight to Teesport and passenger services to Middlesbrough.

All of the four priorities offer pan-Northern benefits and delivered better connectivity between the North’s key economic assets. Indeed, the Devolution Deal also included the statement that the Government committed “to facilitate to ensure key strategic infrastructure projects are considered as part of the development of the Northern Transport Strategy”.

Since the signing of the Devolution Deal, TVCA had been working with TfN to understand where the priorities were likely to sit within the development of a Northern Transport Strategy (NTS) by March 2017, and to ensure that the role of the Tees Valley in building the Northern Powerhouse was fully understand and recognised.

TVCA would be playing a full and active part in each of the TfN work programmes over the next nine months leading to the publication of the investment plan that would form the basis of the NTS in March 2017.

Page 2 of 7

The Tees Valley was a city region and could add to the NTS in own right, adding value to the original core city principles set out in the One North report.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. There was national recognition of the good work that was going on in the Tees Valley. 2. A huge amount of work had been put in by the Chair (Councillor Bill Dixon, Ada Burns, businesses, officers and members of the 5 Tees Valley Authorities. 3. Central government had been convinced of the key role the Tees Valley and transport could play in driving forward economic regeneration of the region. 4. There was an immense task ahead to deliver the projects but there was now a clear road map ahead. 5. The four priorities as detailed within the report were good sound priorities. 6. With regard to the Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) Members felt that perhaps the TVTC should be holding Peel to account of what they were doing and the opportunities that had been missed. Another option could be that the TVTC ask the LEP Board to convene a Task and Finish Group that would include some key partners from the private sector. It was agreed that Officers prepare an options paper on how best the TVTC and the LEP should scrutinise the master plan for DTVA.

RESOLVED that:-

1. The report be noted.

2. Officers prepare an options paper on how best the TVTC and the LEP should scrutinise the master plan for DTVA.

TVTC TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP WORK PLAN 5/16 2016-17

Consideration was given to a report on the Transport and Infrastructure Group Work Plan 2016-17.

The report set out the suggested work plan for the Tees Valley Transport and Infrastructure Group (TIG) for 2016-17 following a discussion at its meetings on 15 April and 10 June. Within the constitution of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, TIG acted as the advisory body for the TVTC, and so there was a need to agree and endorse the work plan for the Group on an annual basis.

The Tees Valley Devolution Deal set out four clear strategic transport priorities. Advocacy work had focused on embedding those priorities within the emerging programme for Transport for the North (TfN).

There had also been a significant amount of feasibility and development work being undertaken on three of the priorities to help

Page 3 of 7

make the case for their inclusion in the next round of national road and rail investment programmes, for example:

• Development of a commercial-led growth hub master plan for Darlington station; • Traffic modelling and engineering feasibility work to produce a shortlist of options for an additional strategic road crossing of the River Tees; • Traffic modelling and engineering feasibility work to develop options for improved east-west road connectivity from the A1(M) to the international gateway at Teesport.

At its meetings on 15 April and 10 June 2016, TIG discussed its work plan for 2016-17, with a primary focus to ensure that the strategic priorities were included in the necessary programmes, but also mindful of the need to address the issue of bus franchising that was also mentioned in the Devolution Deal, the preparation of a new Strategic Transport Plan to support the refreshed SEP, as well as continuing to address other infrastructure issues such as broadband.

At the meetings, TIG developed the work plan that was attached to the report, mindful of external deadlines for investment decisions and the planned work within TfN in 2016-17.

Although the 2016-17 work plan was focused around transport, given the need to align with national road and rail funding programmes, there was also a need for TIG to keep a “watching brief” on other elements of economic infrastructure, such as broadband. A review of the Strategic Infrastructure Plan in early 2017 would help define what work on these other elements would be needed in later years.

Progress on the TIG work plan for 2016-17 would be reported to the Committee at subsequent meetings through a dashboard reporting system being developed by TIG. An example of the type of reporting was shown in a table that was attached to the report. The table showed strategic transport priorities and a RAG rating in terms of progress. At present, this was showing a clear need to accelerate work with TfN and Network Rail, as well as private sector partners, to embed the rail priorities within the next five year programme of national rail improvements from 2019 to 2024.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. There was a narrative behind the TIG Work Plan dash board. 2. Members of the TVTC should try and attend at least one meeting of the TIG. 3. The issue of broadband should be continued to be brought to the TVTC.

RESOLVED that the Transport and Infrastructure Group (TIG) Work Plan 2016-17 be endorsed.

TVTC TEES VALLEY STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PLAN FRAMEWORK

Page 4 of 7

6/16 Consideration was given to a report on the Tees Valley Strategic Transport Plan Framework.

The refreshed Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) set out how TVCA would achieve transformational growth of 25,000 new jobs, 23,000 new homes and a £1 billion increase in GVA. All of our growth sectors needed effective and reliable multi-modal transport connections. To support the refreshed SEP, and to recognise the new Tees Valley Combined Authority, a Strategic Transport Plan for the Tees Valley would be prepared over the next nine months.

The Tees Valley lay at an important axis of north-south and east-west transport routes that serve the local, regional, Northern and national economies – the A1 Great North Road, the A19 via the Tyne Tunnel, the A66 trans-Pennine route, the East Coast Main Line and the River Tees itself. Teesport, the third largest port in the UK, acted as a major international gateway, and Durham Tees Valley Airport connected the Tees Valley to its global trading partners.

There were ambitious plans to build on the Tees Valley world-class expertise and critical mass sectors such as chemicals, energy, advanced manufacturing (particularly oil and gas, metals and automotive) and logistics, with growing capability in new industries - biologics, subsea, digital / creative and the low carbon economy. The refreshed SEP set out how TVCA would achieve transformational growth of 25,000 new jobs, 23,000 new homes and a £1 billion increase in GVA. All of the growth sectors needed effective and reliable multi-modal transport connections.

Following on from the publication of the refreshed SEP, the intention was for the Tees Valley Combined Authority to develop and publish a framework for a new Strategic Transport Plan to support the SEP. The Plan itself was intended to complement the work being done by Transport for the North to develop an investment plan for transport across the North, in line with the development of the next five year national rail and road programmes. As such, it was recognised that the Plan needed to: • be informed by the National Rail and Road Network connections and use transport as an Engine for Growth; • maximise the opportunities afforded by committed/planned investment in the National Networks; • achieve frequent and reliable multi-modal connections between our Strategic Centres; • enhance connections to our Economic Assets (e.g. Teesport, Durham Tees Valley Airport, Enterprise Zones); • inform the connections from Local Hubs into the Strategic Centres and Economic Assets; and, ultimately, • facilitate “Transformational” growth.

The emerging framework for the Plan, and its relationship in particular to key partners and principal sources of funding, was illustrated in an attached diagram, through five “stepping stones” to success. Members were invited to comment on the framework to inform its development.

Page 5 of 7

The framework would be the subject of a wider consultation exercise in Autumn 2016, with the aim of developing the final Plan for Spring 2017. Members would be provided with an update on the progress of the Plan at regular intervals.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. There had been a huge amount of work that had been put into the SEP by the 5 Tees Valley Authorities, TVCA and the LEP. 2. There were a lot of big plans that would have an important impact on the Tees Valley. 3. As the TVCA was reliant on the money coming through from government some of the plans may not be delivered so the SEP needed to be delivered with some caution. 4. There needed to be a realistic and sensible debate of what plans could happen, what plans might happen and the risks that were involved. 5. It was important to put all the regeneration plans together with the transport plans.

RESOLVED that the report and Members comments be noted.

TVTC EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC 7/16 RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

TVTC LARGE LOCAL MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES FUNDING BIDS 8/16 Consideration was given to a report on the large local major transport schemes funding bids. In the March Budget, the Chancellor announced that he was inviting bids for the £475 million Large Local Major Transport Schemes fund. There were two deadlines for bids – 31 May for scheme development costs in 2016/17 and 21 July for funding in 2017/18 and beyond. In line with the bidding guidance, two bids had been prepared. The details of the bids were detailed within the report. The bids would be presented to the TVCA Board on 19 July 2016 for approval. RESOLVED that the approach to submitting the two bids be endorsed and the feedback on the draft bid for the East-West Connections package of works be noted.

TVTC GROWTH DEAL 3 (LOCAL GROWTH FUND) 9/16 Consideration was given to a report on the Growth Deal 3 (Local Growth Fund). The report presented the draft Transport Programme bid for the Local Growth Fund, which needed to be submitted to Government as part of the overall Programme bid, by the end of July 2016.

Page 6 of 7

The draft Transport Programme bid would be considered as part of the overall Programme bid for LGF by the TVCA Board meeting on 19 July 2016. RESOLVED that the draft Transport Programme bid as detailed within the report be endorsed and forwarded to the joint LEP/TVCA Board for consideration at their meeting to be held on 19 July 2016.

Page 7 of 7 Minutes

TEES VALLEY TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Meeting held at Cavendish House 10.00am on Wednesday, 30th November, 2016

ATTENDEES Members

Councillor Nick Wallis Darlington Borough Council DBC Councillor Kevin Cranney Hartlepool Borough Council HBC Councillor Nigel Cooke Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council SBC David Robinson LEP Member LEP

Apologies for absence

Councillor Bill Dixon Leader of Darlington Borough Council DBC (Chair) Councillor Charles Rooney Middlesbrough Council MBC

Officers Andrew Lewis Managing Director Tees Valley Combined TVCA Authority Jonathan Spruce Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA Sarah Brackenborough Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA Ada Burns Chief Executive of Darlington Borough DBC Council Michael Greene Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council R&CBC Richard McGuckin Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council SBC Sally Henry Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA

Action APOLOGIES TVTC 10/16 As listed above. A Vice Chair had previously not been agreed therefore Cllr Nick Wallis nominated Cllr Kevin Cranney to act as Vice Chair.

Page 1 of 4

RESOLVED that Cllr Kevin Cranney act as Vice Chair until formerly agreed at the next Tees Valley Combined Authority Board Meeting.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST TVTC 11/16 David Robinson declared an interest in the item on Improving the Northallerton to Teesport Rail Line.

TVTC MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22ND JUNE, 2016 12/16

Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd June, 2016 were approved.

TVTC CONNECTING TEES VALLEY – TVCA STRATEGIC TRANSPORT 13/16 PLAN FRAMEWORK Consideration was given to a report on Connecting Tees Valley – TVCA Strategic Transport Plan. The consultation document was tabled.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. The timing of the consultation was questioned as it covers the Christmas period. 2. Is a web-based consultation sufficient? 3. It was suggested that some Member events could be organized for January. 4. Residents’ magazines are an opportunity to engage more actively with the public and TVCA currently have a 2 page spread in each of the magazines which could be utilized. 5. It was suggested Chief Executives discuss a coordinated approach to the programme.

RESOLVED that:-

1. The report be noted and endorsed.

2. The consultation process be noted.

TVTC STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PRIORITIES – STATUS DASHBOARD 14/16

Consideration was given to a report which sets out the current status of the four strategic transport priorities for the Tees Valley with respect to the preferred routes to delivery for each.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

TVTC IMPROVING THE NORTHALLERTON TO TEESPORT RAIL LINE 15/16

Page 2 of 4

Consideration was given to a report which provides an update on the progress with one of the four strategic transport priorities for the Tees Valley. The report also suggested amended means of delivering the outcomes of the priority based on ongoing issues with rail electrification elsewhere in the country and the aim to identify “quick wins” to complement private sector investment proposals.

David Robinson declared an interest in respect of his connections to Tees Port.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. Electrification still needs to be a long-term aim. 2. Revised approach makes sense in order to deliver this priority. 3. As a partner in Transport for the North, representation needs to be made to ensure this priority is achieved.

RESOLVED that this revised proposal be endorsed.

TVTC DARLINGTON STATION MASTERPLAN 16/16 A presentation was provided on the progress made to date on the Darlington Station Masterplan. Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the presentation and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. The importance of Darlington Station was highlighted in Lord Heseltine’s report “Tees Valley: Opportunity Unlimited” 2. The 200th anniversary of the Stockton Darlington Railway is in 2025 and the station should be a key part of the celebrations. 3. As well as regeneration and growth around the town centre, the scheme generates a greater impact on the Tees Valley as a whole.

RESOLVED that presentation be noted.

TVTC DEVELOPING THE TEES VALLEY BUS NETWORK 17/16 Consideration was given to a report on developing the Tees Valley Bus Network. A presentation was provided highlighting the two principal delivery options – an enhanced partnership and franchising. Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the presentation and these could be summarised as follows:- 1. Having access to data on journeys is invaluable in shaping and scoping policy. 2. This is an opportunity for change – an opportunity to have a

Page 3 of 4

connected bus network. 3. The legislation is hugely welcome as it gives options and opportunities. 4. This was part of the devolution deal. 5. The presentation was well received and would be welcomed at each Local Authority Cabinet meeting or as part of the wider Member engagement on the Strategic Transport Plan Framework.

RESOLVED that further work is undertaken on the two principal delivery options, including a discussion with the newly formed Tees Valley Bus Operators’ Association and make a recommendation to the Committee on the preferred way forward at its next meeting in March 2017.

TVTC ENGLISH NATIONAL CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL SCHEME 18/16 (ENCTS) Consideration was given to a report which provides an update on the preparation and intended actions for negotiating reimbursement payments to bus operators participating in the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme and, therefore payments made by each of the authorities for 2017/18. RESOLVED that Members noted the requirements of the Combined Authority, and agreed to the method of negotiation outlined in the report.

TVTC ANY OTHER BUSINESS 19/16 It was agreed to invite a representative from Durham Tees Valley Airport to attend a future meeting.

TVTC DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 20/16 22nd March, 2017

Page 4 of 4 Minutes

TEES VALLEY TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Meeting held at Cavendish House 2pm on Wednesday, 22nd March, 2017

ATTENDEES Members

Councillor Bill Dixon Leader of Darlington Borough Council DBC (Chair) Councillor Nick Wallis Darlington Borough Council DBC Councillor Kevin Cranney Hartlepool Borough Council HBC Councillor Nigel Cooke Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council SBC Councillor Charles Rooney Middlesbrough Council MBC Councillor Dale Quigley Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council R&CBC

Apologies for absence

None

Officers Andrew Lewis Managing Director Tees Valley Combined TVCA Authority Sarah Brackenborough Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA Ada Burns Chief Executive of Darlington Borough DBC Council Richard McGuckin Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council SBC Michael Greene Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council R&CBC Dave Carter Middlesbrough Council MBC Sally Henry Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA Mark Wilson Tees Valley Combined Authority TVCA

Page 1 of 4

Action APOLOGIES TVTC 21/16 None

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST TVTC 22/16 None

TVTC MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30th NOVEMBER, 2016 23/16

Minutes of the meeting held on 30th November, 2016 were approved.

TVTC A66 EAST-WEST CONNECTIONS SCHEME DEVELOPMENT 24/16 Consideration was given to a report on the A66 East-West Connections Scheme Development. Work has been undertaken on the preparation of a Strategic Outline Business Case for a package of schemes along the A66 corridor using development funding from the Combined Authority. Members can obtain the full business case from their Heads of Transport.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. Members were pleased with the work to date and happy that the work considered the full corridor between the A1(M) and Teesport 2. Members were keen to ensure that all pinch-points along the route are looked at;

RESOLVED that:-

1. Members noted the progress on the work to develop a business case and agreed the suggested approach to bringing forward the various elements of the package of works, recognising that elements will be delivered in different ways and potentially at different times.

2. Members agreed to the request to carry over funding identified for the preparation of the Outline Business Case into 2017/18 as a local contribution to the developing funding being provided by the Department for Transport.

TVTC TEES VALLEY STRATEGIC PLAN CONSULTATION 25/16

Consideration was given to a report which provided an update on the

Page 2 of 4

responses to the engagement process and set out some of the key next steps in the preparation of the draft Strategic Transport Plan.

Members were given the opportunity to make comment and ask questions on the report and these could be summarised as follows:-

1. Members enquired whether a breakdown was available of MW consultees by geography. Mark Wilson agreed to investigate and respond. 2. Members enquired how we are going to continue to engage with consultees in the future and were advised that focus groups will be organized, social media utilised and a communications plan will be established.

RESOLVED that members noted the contents of the report and the suggested next steps, particularly the request to carry over funding identified for the preparation of the draft Strategic Transport Plan into 2017/18.

TVTC TEES VALLEY BUS NETWORK – REVIEW OF DELIVERY MODELS 26/16

The Committee considered a report which provided an update on the work undertaken on the review of the delivery models for the Tees Valley Bus Network.

The Transport Committee previously agreed to adopt a “twin track” approach to further investigation of the delivery models for the future Tees Valley Bus Network – working with operators to develop a more far reaching partnership than currently exists, while at the same time undertaking further feasibility work on whether franchising can both deliver better outcomes and be affordable within current financial constraints.

RESOLVED that:-

1. Members agreed to continue with the “twin-track” approach as there is still no clear obvious preferred delivery mechanism to support future requirements. 2. Officers should work to develop an ambitious, standalone Bus Strategy, starting with a Bus Summit in May/June 2017.

TVTC NEW TEES CROSSING – STRATEGIC OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE 27/16 Consideration was given to a report which provides a summary of the Strategic Outline Business Case for a Central Crossing. The draft SOBC contains a strong strategic case for intervention to address existing and future problems on the Tees Viaduct section of the A19. The Committee were provided with a summary of the existing and future transport issues to illustrate. A Task and Finish Group was initially established to look at a range of options for a new crossing. Based on traffic modelling work, four

Page 3 of 4

options were shortlisted and the Committee were provided with these. These options have been evaluated in detail using the DfT’s EAST (Early Assessment Sifting Tool). This process identified 2 options for further development and assessment.

RESOLVED that:-

1. The Committee approved the SOBC prepared for the New Tees Crossing scheme, and, in particular, the proposal to take forward what is called “the most promising option” and “the next best alternative” for the Central Route and to prepare an OBC by November 2017. 2. The Committee approved the allocation of scheme development funding to consider the wider regeneration benefits and funding/financing options of a crossing to the east of the Tees Viaduct section of the A19: the Eastern Route. TVTC ANY OTHER BUSINESS 28/16 1. The Committee were advised that the Secretary of State for Transport has agreed to the request from Transport for the North for it to become a statutory body. A report will be taken to the June 2017 Combined Authority Cabinet recommending that the Combined Authority become a member. SB 2. The Combined Authority’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee will be visiting Darlington where they will be given a tour and will look at the A66 East/West connection and other schemes of interest. The invitation will be extended to the Transport Committee.

TVTC DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 29/16 To Be Confirmed

Page 4 of 4

AGENDA ITEM 4

REPORT TO THE TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

5th SEPTEMBER, 2017

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORT

POSITION STATEMENT FROM LARGE LOCAL MAJORS PROJECTS

SUMMARY

The A66 East-West Connectivity and New Tees Crossing (central option) projects received Large Local Majors funding in Q4 2016 Strategic Outline Business Cases (SOBC) for both schemes have been approved by Transport Committee and TVCA to enable progression of individual Outline Business Cases (OBC) for submission to DfT in December 2017. The Outline Business Cases (OBC) for both projects are following Highways England’s Project Control Framework (PCF) Stage 1 – Option Identification, which ensures technical and financial robustness on major scheme development. This assessment work will also conclude in December 2017. Detailed feasibility and technical reports continue for each project and a public information exercise has been undertaken the results of which will be analysed and built into the OBC. At their last meeting the Transport Committee approved the allocation of scheme development funding to consider the wider regeneration benefits and funding and financing options of a crossing to the east of the Tees Viaduct section of the A19; an Eastern Crossing. A Project Board to investigate the feasibility of an Eastern Crossing has been established, and a brief is in development for work to investigate the potential benefits of the scheme and to explore funding and financing options for it. It is anticipated that specialist advice to assist in this process will be in place by the end of September 2017.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Transport Committee note the content of the report.

Page 1 of 3

DETAIL

1. The New Tees Crossing (central option) and A66 East-West connectivity OBC are approximately 50% through their delivery phase.

2. Both projects are developing technical documents on the route options to help build and inform the OBC. The reports cover elements such as:

• scheme requirements; • programme & Project Plan; • traffic modelling; • environmental scoping; • geotechnical scoping; • financial case; • economic and commercial case; • funding & procurement strategy; • risk management; • communication.

3. The New Tees Crossing (Eastern Option) project is now in a position to commission specialist support to take work forward.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

4. A Tees Valley road improvements launch event was held on 11th July to promote the Tees Crossing (central option) and A66 East-West connectivity projects and engage with key regional public and private organisations and businesses. The event was attended by over 70 delegates and was well received, with clear support for both projects.

5. Five Public Information Exhibitions (PIE) were held, one in each of the five local authority areas, between 12th July and 7th August. Approximately 130 people attended the five PIE events.

6. Questionnaires, banners and information brochures were prepared for the stakeholder engagement events. So far, 285 responses have been received. 7. Separate evening meetings have been held at the request of Brafferton, Whessoe Parish Council and Whinfield Residents Associations. More than 200 people attended these combined events. 8. TVCA are coordinating responses to all stakeholder queries raised via the questionnaires and residents meetings. 9. The public engagement process continues until 1st September 2017. The public information exercise will be summarised in report form. 10. Engagement continues with key statutory stakeholders including Network Rail, The Environment Agency, incumbent utility providers, Autolink (A19 DBFO Concessionaires) and the Planning Inspectorate, on both projects. 11. Stakeholder engagement for the Tees Crossing Eastern Option will be undertaken as the work progresses.

Page 2 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12. All three projects remain within budget and are forecast to be completed within budget. However no contingency exists within current budget allocations for the two OBCs that are due to be complete by December. The Managing Director of the Combined Authority has identified a small contingency pot from the Development Fund in case of any unavoidable overspend or scope change between now and December.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

13. None

RISK ASSESSMENT

14. The work being undertaken on these projects is categorised as low to medium risk. Existing management systems and daily routine activities are sufficient to control and reduce risk.

CONSULTATION

15. A series of public information events has been held, and a consultation questionnaire has been produced and publicised. There has also been engagement with key statutory stakeholders.

Name of Contact Officer: Mark Wilson Post Title: Head of Transport Telephone Number: 01642 524453 Email Address: [email protected]

Page 3 of 3

Notes of Meeting

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

Meeting held at Cavendish House, Stockton at 9:00am on 10 July, 2015

ATTENDEES

Linda Edworthy (LE) - CHAIR Tees Valley Unlimited Dave Winstanley (DW) Darlington Borough Council Richard McGuckin (RMc) Stockton Borough Council Derek Gittins (DGi) Middlesbrough Council Alastair Smith (AS) Hartlepool Borough Council Paul Campbell (PC) Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Gerry Brough (GB) Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Vanessa Gilbert (VG) Highways Agency Jon Bell (JB) Network Rail Ed Dunn (ED) Network Rail Steve Payne (SP) Tees Valley Unlimited

APOLOGIES

David Robinson (DR) PD Ports Daniel Gaunt (DGa) Highways Agency Rory Sherwood-Parkin (RSP) Tees Valley Unlimited

OBSERVERS

Sally Henry Tees Valley Unlimited

Page 1 of 6 SUBJECT ACTIONS

1 INTRODUCTIONS, APOLOGIES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

LE welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as above. No Conflicts of Interest were declared.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING & MATTERS ARISING

Minutes of the TIG meeting held on 17th April, 2015 were agreed as a true record.

Matters Arising:-

TPOG have been developing the Sustainable Transport Programme and projects are being prepared to be taken through the due diligence process. LE requested that the programme be taken to TVU Management Group prior to seeking approval at Investment Panel.

RMc advised that the scoping of plans for transport delivery over the next 10 years has now been superseded by devolution asks.

RSP has met with Northern Powergrid. A joint TVU/Powergrid meeting has been scheduled for 30th July where the investment plan will be presented. Local Authority reps have been invited. List of LA reps will be circulated.

Actions:- • Sustainable Transport Programme to be presented to TVU Management Group prior to seeking Investment Panel approval. SP/LE • List of Local Authority representatives attending the meeting with Northern Powergrid on 30th July to be circulated to the group. TVU

3 TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH

DR, along with Ada Burns, Cllr Dixon and Paul Booth recently attended a meeting with Jon Lamonte (TfGM Chief Executive and Chair of TfN’s Executive Board) & Richard Leese to lobby for Tees Valley.

LE expressed frustration at Tees Valley not being invited to join the main board. RMc recently attended a Leaders meeting in Manchester where the message was that the Governance structure of the board should be a more inclusive approach in line with Rail North. SP recently attended an Officers Update meeting where the message re: Governance was the same. There were interesting presentations from Lancashire and North Yorkshire which SP will circulate to the group. These included economic figures highlighting the value of economies such as Tees Valley as well as the large shires and showed that these were not dissimilar to some of the core cities.

DW confirmed that he will now develop an action plan, for circulation to TIG, based on the discussions and actions arising from Officers meeting.

Page 2 of 6 TVU have recently appointed a Strategic Freight Adviser, subject to the usual HR checks. This post is jointly funded by TVU and PD Ports. It is hoped that a start date of early September can be agreed. This will boost our ability to develop a Tees Valley freight strategy and be better represented on all freight matters including the TfN Freight workstream..

Actions:- • SP to forward presentations from Lancashire & N Yorkshire to the SP group. • DW to circulate note re: an action plan DW

Post meeting note :- TVU have recently been contacted regarding a further meeting currently being arranged on behalf of Jon Lamonte, to brief the LEP members on the work of TfN. The invitation will go to the Chairs of the 12 LEPs across the North of England. DR and Paul Booth from Tees Valley will be invited to attend.

4 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND UPDATE

A19/A174 Scheme largely complete. HE are aware of the wider issues relating to the scheme and these will be reviewed and lessons learned.

A66/A689 Study Scheme is currently running approx. 2 weeks behind but that is not expected to alter the final delivery date of 31 March 2016.

Mouchel will attend the TIG meeting in October to present on the final outcomes of the first stage as well as discussing progress. Mouchel have been asked to consider whether they can extend the scope of the study to include a new Tees Crossing. A19 Norton to Wolviston

Development of the scheme is progressing. The preferred option for widening with narrow lanes through existing structures has been assessed and will be problematic. The BCR of the preferred option is not as high as hoped due to network constraints further south so an extension to the feasibility study to review the issues and propose potential interventions for the Tees flyover in order to unlock the full benefits of interventions is now being considered. HE/TVU to consider the possibility of including the HE/TVU required Tees Crossing work into the Halcrow commission. Work is ongoing with JMP under the Spatial Planning Framework to update the existing transport model in Tees Valley. This will put HE in a good position to support any such feasibility study.

Elton Interchange, A19 Elwick and A174 Greystones The study to deliver these schemes is slightly behind schedule and is due to commence at the end of July. WSP has been appointed to undertake detailed design for the Elton & Greystones scheme. It is aware of the delay and it is built into the programme.

Tees Valley Meso Model Update Data Collection has been undertaken and HE are working with TVU’s modelling team. Model will be converted from Dynameq to Aimsun hopefully

Page 3 of 6 by March 2016.

There was concern that data has been collected during July which is a quiet

month so will result in a low estimate of traffic.

North Transpennine Strategic Study This is a DfT led study. Stakeholders have been asked to attend a coach trip which is taking place on 22nd July to look at routes and highlight known issues. Bill Trewick and Owen Wilson are to represent Tees Valley.

Growth & Housing Fund There have been 2 expressions of interest within Tees Valley:-

• A68/Rotary Way junction in Darlington; and • A66 Elton Interchange in Stockton

Both are potentially strong candidates and DGa will work with both to ensure the submissions are as robust as possible.

Actions:-

• HE/TVU to consider the possibility of including the required Tees HE/TVU Crossing work into the Halcrow commission.

5 NETWORK RAIL UPDATE

Long term planning is now well under way through a number of route studies

which examine long term demand up to 2043. The 2 studies of direct

interest and impact for the Tees Valley are the North East Route Network

Study and the East Coast Route Network Study. TVU is on the Working

Group for each study with the 5 LAs invited to the Regional Groups.

The NE Study is a few weeks ahead of the EC Study and TVU has already

provided updated input and comments on the Conditional Outputs.

JB noted that although the national Electrification study is delayed due to

wider issues relating to rail investment timescales, it is likely that it will

contain some positive conclusions and recommendations regarding

electrification to Middlesbrough.

LE raised the issue of the level crossing at Redcar as it had recently been

raised by NECC because of the concerns of local businesses due to the

numerous road closures.

PC informed the group that Redcar & Cleveland have offered a permanent

solution to the problem to Network Rail following discussions in Jan/Feb

2015 and are still waiting for a response. JB to raise with appropriate JB colleagues at Network Rail.

DGi noted that as part of the original planning application York Potash

proposed to support 4 additional services per day between Middlesbrough

and Whitby. As the scheme was recently approved, further work to deliver

these is now likely. JB confirmed that there is likely to be some capacity

enhancement work required to facilitate the extra services and Network Rail

will now be looking at this in detail.

Actions:-

• JB to raise the issue of Redcar Level Crossing upgrade with

Page 4 of 6 colleagues at Network Rail. JB

6 DARLINGTON STATION MASTERPLAN

ARUP have been appointed and DW circulated the 1st project highlight report (attached with minutes). The programme and priorities have been reviewed and initial meetings have taken place with Network Rail.

Simon Houldsworth has been seconded to Darlington to work on the project 3 days a week (he will remain 2 day per week at ECMA). A regular update DW will be available for each TIG meeting.

7 TVBNI2 RMc tabled a report produced by the Transport Planning Officers Group (TPOG) which provided a review of TVBNI and also provided points for discussion for the development of TVBNI2 (report attached with minutes). TPOG will provide regular updates for TIG. TPOG The report was discussed and noted by the group.

8 TEESPORT BUS PILOT PROJECT

PC informed the group of an on-going, LSTF funded Bus Pilot Project. The scheme provides a bus service from the East Cleveland area over a period of 8 weeks to coincide with the shift patterns of the large employers at Teesport. The scheme still has 2 weeks to run however it is evident that the exceptionally low passenger numbers mean that there is very little demand for this service in its current form and it would not be commercially viable to operate in the future. GB noted that the issue was in the use of anecdotal rather than empirical evidence to develop a solution before the problem was fully understood. It did provide some useful insight for similar issues in the future.

9 PROJECTS/OTHER UPDATES

Key Project Updates:-

The group was provided with the key project updates prior to the meeting and most points were covered throughout the agenda. Eaglescliffe Station will be officially opened by James Wharton on 24th July. DR has been invited to attend.

Final bids for both Northern & TPE franchises have now been submitted. DfT have provided a helpful presentation on the bid evaluation process and advised that they are on track to meet the December announcement. It was suggested that prior to the final decision process commencing, we ensure our “asks” are highlighted again at the appropriate time to key DfT officials. Action:-

• Ensure Tees Valley’s “asks” are highlighted prior to the final Northern/TPE franchise decision process commencing. All

Page 5 of 6

10 AOB

PC advised that a successful Flood Awareness Day had taken place which was attended by 30 suppliers to look at data collection methods and various flood prevention measures. He will draw up a case study for the TIG meeting in October. PC

DGi noted that further to recent TIG discussions, a framework for the next Tees Valley Transport Plan should be brought to the October meeting. TIG

9 DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

Friday 16th October, 2015 Friday 15th January, 2016 Friday 15th April, 2016

Page 6 of 6 Notes of Meeting

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

Meeting held at Cavendish House, Stockton at 11:00am on 16 October, 2015

ATTENDEES

David Robinson (DR) PD Ports Dave Winstanley (DW) Darlington Borough Council Derek Gittins (DGi) Middlesbrough Council Paul Campbell (PC) Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Mike Blair (MB) Hartlepool Borough Council Russell Smith (RS) Stockton Borough Council Vanessa Gilbert (VG) Highways England Daniel Gaunt (DGa) Highways England Steve Payne (SP) Tees Valley Unlimited Fran Manancourt Tees Valley Unlimited Paul Ahdal Highways England Helen Apps Highways England Darren Oldham Mouchel Henrietta Achampong Mouchel

APOLOGIES

Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley Unlimited Alastair Smith (AS) Hartlepool Borough Council Richard McGuckin (RMc) Stockton Borough Council Jon Bell (JB) Network Rail Rory Sherwood-Parkin (RSP) Tees Valley Unlimited Kevin Parkes Middlesbrough Council

OBSERVERS

Sally Henry Tees Valley Unlimited

Page 1 of 4

SUBJECT ACTIONS

1 INTRODUCTIONS, APOLOGIES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

DR welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as above. No Conflicts of Interest were declared.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING & MATTERS ARISING

Minutes of the TIG meeting held on 10th July, 2015 were agreed as a true record.

Matters Arising:- • Sustainable Transport Programme – timescales to be circulated. Will be signed off by TIG and TVU Management Group in November/December. • Rail improvements – information screens will be at all stations by the end of this calendar year. • DR would like to be included in the quarterly circulation of data about rail useage • Local Transport Plan will need re-addressing in light of the Combined Authority Action:- • DR to be included in the circulation of data about rail useage SP

3 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND MAJOR PROJECTS UPDATE

A19 Widening Paul Ahdal from Highways England provided a presentation on the proposed A19 Norton to Wynyard scheme (attached with minutes).

A discussion took place following the presentation. • The A19 is now recognised as a key pan-northern strategic corridor so improvements should be assessed in this context;

• A new Tees Crossing is also a critical part of the A19 upgrade package;

• Paul agreed to forward plans showing which sections of the A19 will

be widened.

• A stakeholder meeting has been planned

• DR asked whether the process could be speeded up using alternative

funding (LGF?)

• It was requested that a TIG member be invited to join the Project Board – Paul agreed to investigate.

• A meeting will take place between HE and TIG in the near future to discuss how resources can be shared. • HE to review some of the assumptions presented, particularly in relation to the benefits of the different options

Actions:- • HE to forward plans showing which sections of the A19 will be HE

Page 2 of 4 widened.

• HE to investigate whether a TIG member can be invited to join HE Project Board

• HE to review assumptions presented in relation to the benefits of the HE different options

4 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND MAJOR STUDY UPDATE

A66 Widening Presentation/Discussion Darren Oldham and Henrietta Achampong from Mouchel provided an update on the issues and constraints associated with the A66 from Teesport to the A1(M) and on the A689 from the A19 to the A1 (M) (presentation attached with minutes).

rd A stakeholder engagement event has been arranged for 23 November where all initial options will be discussed in more detail. DR requested that at the next TIG meeting there is an update on current work which is being undertaken on the Tees Flyover.

DR enquired as to whether there is a review process of the recent pinch point scheme. Have they achieved what they intended to achieve? RS agreed to look in to this and report back.

Action:-

• Update on progress on the Tees Flyover be available at the next TIG TVU meeting • RS to report back on the review process of the pinchpoint schemes RS

5 DEVOLUTION/COMBINED AUTHORITY

Devolution deal has yet to be signed. The deal will reference all agreed transport priorities, with Transport for the North looking like the most likely mechanism for funding these. TIG are currently holding weekly meetings to discuss work relating to the Devolution and Combined Authority.

6 TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH UPDATE/ACTION PLAN

Tees Valley has now taken up the invitation to have two representatives on the TfN Board – Cllr Dixon as LA/political rep and Paul Booth as LEP rep, and a rep on the Exec Group (Ada Burns). There are on-going discussions on how Tees Valley, as one of the new entrants, can catch up and be best represented on all the different TfN workstreams. The full engagement plan should be available for the January TIG meeting. DR keen to ensure that the Tees Valley are part of the decision making process. Suggestions were to include transport operators & the private sectors (e.g. freight operators). The importance of the proposals for the widening of the A19 also needs to feature as the benefits of this scheme spread further than just within the Tees Valley.

Page 3 of 4

7 NETWORK RAIL UPDATE

Apologies received from Network Rail but an update was forwarded and circulated with the meeting papers. This focussed on the North East and East Coast Route Studies. DR suggested that a letter be sent to Patrick McLaughlin as a follow-up to his meeting 2 years ago as a reminder of Tees Valley rail priorities re: electrification and rolling stock.

Steve to draft and forward to DR for signature. Action:-

SP to draft letter to Patrick McLaughlin and forward to DR for signature SP/DR

8 DARLINGTON STATION MASTERPLAN DW presented a report outlining progress with the Darlington Station Masterplan which is currently being developed by ARUP on behalf of DBC, TVU, Network Rail and Virgin Trains East Coast and is still on target for completion in March 2016. Stage 1, which included initial scoping, facilities surveys/audits, infrastructure review, options/investment appraisal, etc, is now largely complete. The next key milestone is Workshop 2 on November 26th at which emerging options will be presented and discussed with the opportunity for stakeholder input and feedback.

9 ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE & STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE

PLAN

Paper circulated prior to the meeting and any comments are to be forwarded to Rory Sherwood-Parkin. DR suggested contacting Northern Powergrid to enquire how the closure of SSI will impact on electricity demand.

Action:- RSP to contact Northern Powergrid re: closure of SSI RSP Post meeting note:- RSP has contacted Northern Powergrid and has been advised that there are no demand implications on the NPG networks as they are supplied direct from the National Grid at 275kv via their own primary S/S and distribution system.

10 AOB DR informed the group that the demise of SSI would lead to an increase in freight on the roads and an increase of freight trains out of Teesport.

DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS Friday 15th January, 2016 Friday 15th April, 2016

Page 4 of 4 Notes of Meeting

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

Meeting held at Cavendish House, Stockton at 9:00am on 29th January, 2016

ATTENDEES

David Robinson (DR) PD Ports Dave Winstanley (DW) Darlington Borough Council Derek Gittins (DGi) Middlesbrough Council Paul Campbell (PC) Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Alastair Smith (AS) Hartlepool Borough Council Russell Smith (RS) Stockton Borough Council Jonathan Spruce Fore Consulting Daniel Gaunt (DGa) Highways England Steve Payne (SP) Tees Valley Unlimited Margaret Jackson (MJ) Department for Transport Simon Emery (SE) Highways England Edward Dunn (ED) Network Rail

APOLOGIES

Linda Edworthy (LE) Tees Valley Unlimited Vanessa Gilbert (VG) Highways England Richard McGuckin (RMc) Stockton Borough Council Kevin Parkes Middlesbrough Council Fran Manancourt Tees Valley Unlimited

OBSERVERS

Sally Henry Tees Valley Unlimited

Page 1 of 4

SUBJECT ACTIONS

1 INTRODUCTIONS, APOLOGIES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

DR welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were noted as above. No Conflicts of Interest were declared.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING & MATTERS ARISING

Minutes of the TIG meeting held on 16th October, 2015 were agreed as a true record.

Matters Arising:- • A19 widening – HE Major Projects Team continue to develop options • Review of pinchpoint schemes likely to take place 12 months after completion of the schemes by Highways England

3 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND STRATEGIC ECONOMIC GROWTH PLAN

Simon Emery provided an overview of Highway England’s Strategic Economic Growth Plan (presentation attached with minutes). DR raised concerns that the Economic Development Priorities do not show the full picture as key sectors have been omitted. Also, key employment and residential sites have been omitted – Darlington, Wilton, James Cook Hospital, universities & colleges.

Simon also updated the group on the Growth & Housing Fund. There are 6 designated funds and LEPs are being asked to identify potential schemes. DW advised that initial bids are currently being worked on by the Tees Valley and include Rotary Way in Darlington and slip-roads onto the A66 at Elton. Potential Tees Valley schemes will be discussed at the next monthly TIG meeting.

4 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND UPDATE

DGa provided an update on the progress, risks and issues surrounding current schemes.

A66/A689 Study

JS enquired whether Mouchel have talked to landowners re: potential alignment of a northern relief road in Darlington. He also advised that Mouchel should speak to Network Rail as realignment options of the East Coast mainline north of Darlington are being considered as part of the TfN NPR work. This could have major implications for the alignment of a new relief road. Action:-

DGa agreed to take these points on board and investigate. DGa

A19 Norton to Wolviston DR asked to be kept appraised on the process and timetable and requested that someone from TIG keep him updated.

Page 2 of 4 SP advised that Richard McGuckin has requested a seat on the project Board, as Tees Valley’s representative, so David will speak to Richard directly.

Action:-

DR to speak to RMc for update on A19 Norton to Wynyard. DR/RMc

Andrew Jones, Road Minister has written to Jim O’Sullivan, the Chief Executive of Highways England setting out the approach to future Route Strategies and re-emphasising their importance.

5 TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH – CURRENT ISSUES

JS briefly ran through the “Tees Valley and Transport for the North” presentation which was used at the “Transport for the North Chair and Chief Executive” visit earlier in the week. The narrative, evidence and key messages outlined in the presentation have also been used in recent briefings to visiting Transport Ministers (Andrew Jones MP and Robert Goodwill MP) and to Lord Hestletine and his team and have formed the basis of Tees Valley input into various TfN workstreams. JS will add some supporting commentary to the slides so that partners can then use it at appropriate meetings, events, etc. The presentation will then be circulated. Action:-

JS to add some supporting commentary to the slides so it can be circulated JS to partners.

6 STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PRIORITIES – WAY FORWARD

JS circulated a supplementary note, to support the presentation, and this is attached to the minutes. The note also summarises the proposed way forward to progress and promote the agreed strategic transport priorities, through the national transport programmes and TfN processes and also highlights the significant economic benefits of these schemes. In the short-term, in order to further promote and position the strategic priorities, it will be important to secure coverage in some of the key processes/documents that will be published soon including the TfN Northern Transport Strategy March 2016, Lord Heseltine’s Report due in April and the TfN Strategic Investment Framework. In turn this will then help to influence the investment programmes of Highways England and Network Rail.

7 NEW TRANSPENNINE & NORTHERN

Paper circulated prior to the meeting and SP ran through the main points. He noted that at this further detail on both franchsies was still awaited with both new Train Service Requirements (TSRs) due to be published in the next few weeks. DGi advised there will be a TPE stakeholder event on 5th February and a similar Northern event on 1st March. There is also a joint Rail North/First/Arriva event being planned for the North East on 11th March.

Page 3 of 4

8 AOB

DR requested that the agenda of future meetings include wider infrastructure TVU items as appropriate. DR requested an update on Broadband. Richard Poundford from Stockton Borough Council is currently leading on this so an update will be obtained TVU and circulated to the group.

DR suggested a colleague from PD Ports could attend a monthly TIG meeting to provide an update on the Northern Gateway – it was suggested PC this was arranged for the March meeting. PC to liaise with PD Ports. The next quarterly TIG meeting is scheduled to take place in April - post- Combined Authority. DR requested a meeting be arranged for March to TVU discuss TIG moving forward. River Tees Crossing - RS advised the group that 3 or 4 potential opportunities are currently being examined. Highways England has agreed to fund feasibility studies. Option papers will be circulated by the end of March.

9 DATES OF NEXT MEETING Friday 15th April, 2016 (TBC)

Page 4 of 4

Transport & Infrastructure Group

Notes of Meeting

Meeting held at Cavendish House, Stockton

At 10am on 15th April, 2016

Attendees

David Robinson PD Ports

Jonathan Spruce Tees Valley Combined Authority/Fore

Steve Payne Tees Valley Combined Authority

Dave Winstanley Darlington Borough Council

Craig Cowley Middlesbrough Council

Mike Blair Hartlepool Borough Council

Chris Renahan Stockton Borough Council

Paul Campbell Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Daniel Gaunt Highways England

Ed Dunn Network Rail

Apologies

Rich Marshall Highways England

Margaret Jackson Department for Transport

Richard McGu ckin Stockton Borough Council

Observers

Sally Henry Tees Valley Combined Authority

1. Chair’s Welcome David welcomed everyone to the meeting and briefly updated the group on the role of the Combined Authority, describing the new structure of the Board, the role and frequency of the Transport Board and how decisions will be made moving forward. First meeting of the Combined Authority included a “Tees Valley Transport Priorities” presentation - attached with minutes.

2. Apologies Apologies noted as above

3. Conflicts of Interest Jonathan expressed a potential Conflict of Interest in agenda item 8 and agreed to leave the meeting if necessary

4. Minutes of Previous Meetings & Matters Arising Minutes of the TIG meeting held on 29th January, 2016 were agreed as an accurate record. Paul advised that this would be his last TIG meeting as his role at Redcar & Cleveland has changed and he will no longer have responsibility for Transport. He will advise on who will be attending future meetings from Redcar & Cleveland. [Post-Meeting Note: Paul has since advised that the RCBC TIG contact will now be Mike Greene - [email protected])].

5. TIG Terms of Reference The TIG Terms of Reference show where TIG sits in the new Combined Authority structure. The contents were agreed by the Group but they will remain in draft form until ratified by the Combined Authority Transport Committee. Terms of Reference for all Combined Authority thematic groups will go to Tees Valley Management Group and looked at for potential cross-over/duplication of functions. TIG Terms of reference can be shared with other transport working groups in draft form.

6. Tees Valley Transport Priorities Advocacy Plan The plan lists the 4 main priorities all of which were discussed by the group. The main issues discussed were:- • North-South Road Connectivity - Tees Crossing – The long list of options has been reduced to 4 following strategic modelling work and the feasibility of these is being assessed. Initial recommendations will then be taken to TIG and then through the CA approvals process. A report will be tabled at the June TIG meeting [ACTION RM]. A strategic outline business case could be RMc developed by November.

• North-South Rail Connectivity - Darlington Station – Most of the work has now been completed by ARUP. An update will be provided to TIG in mid- May [ACTION DW]. A Masterplan document/brochure will be produced DW which can be used for advocacy. It is hoped the Heseltine Report will highlight the Darlington Station work. Bridge over to Central Park EZ site is in the LGF pipeline. TfN work is ongoing looking at intermediate stops for

Northern Powerhouse Rail with Darlington being assessed in combination with York and Durham. • East-West Road Connectivity - A66 – Stage 2 report almost complete. Stage 3 report will be ready by the end of June with the findings to be fed into the TfN Transpennine Study. • East-West Rail Connectivity -Rail Electrification of Northallerton to Teesport – it is hoped this will be a clear recommendation of the Heseltine Report. Scope of work has been drafted but a process for funding needs establishing. While the priority is electrification, to maximise the benefits, improvements need to be made to Middlesbrough Station. Pacers are expected to be replaced by December 2019 with “as-new” rather than new. The Plan was agreed by the Group.

7. Tees Valley Transport Priorities Delivery Routes There was significant overlap between discussion on Items 6 and 7. It was confirmed that Richard will provide the TIG lead on the Highways priorities and Dave on the rail priorities. Jonathan suggested that the RAG update should be provided on a quarterly basis. The Group agreed the current content.

8. TIG Work Plan 2016/17 Jonathan reiterated that he had a potential conflict of interest in this item and would leave the meeting if required. The Work Plan lists specific tasks, procurement options, budgets required and key dates. The group agreed that they were happy with the work plan.

9. DfT Large Local Major Scheme Funding Competition The 2016 Budget announced the launch of a competitive process within the £475m DfT fund for large local transport schemes. Guidance is just emerging but for Tees Valley this means schemes that have a minimum threshold of circa £36m and are in a state of readiness. Bids for fast-track funding for 2016/17 for either development costs to produce an Outline Business Case (OBC) or for final preparation and construction costs for schemes with an OBC, need to be submitted by 31st May. The Group agreed that any potential Tees Valley bid should be limited to the 4 main priorities agreed by the Combined Authority and felt that, given the timescales, the Tees Crossing and Electrification schemes are likely to be the most realistic for the May deadline. Schemes for development beyond 2016/17 need to be submitted by 21st July so Local Authority TIG members agreed to start scoping out potential schemes during their weekly TIG meeting on 22nd April. TIG [ACTION TIG] Jonathan agreed to review guidance further, discuss options with Margaret Jackson and circulate an email to the LA reps advising on the best course of action by the 31st May and 21st July deadlines. [ACTION JS]. JS

10. VTEC Middlesbrough Services A letter of support, signed by both Paul Booth and Sue Jeffrey has been sent to the Office of Road & Rail offering support for the application by Virgin

Trains East Coast (VTEC) to run direct rail services between Middlesbrough

and London Kings Cross by 2020 at the latest. Steve noted that a similar letter of support had been sent to TPE for their proposed new Newcastle- Darlington-Manchester Airport service. This led to a wider discussion about future capacity requirements on the rail network. David advised about the changing format of freight with the significant reduction in the movement of coal by rail and asked how Network Rail was dealing with this in its path ED allocation process. Ed said he would enquire about this and report back to TIG [ACTION ED].

11. Any Other Business Daniel updated the group on Highways England Route Strategies (link below). There will be a series of stakeholder panels at a local level towards the end of May to discuss the future of the networks. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /515812/N160005_-_Route_Strategies_Approach2.pdf

It was agreed to schedule in a further TIG meeting for Friday 10th June.

Notes of meeting

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

DATE TIME AND VENUE Date 29th June 2016 9.00 am – 12.00 noon

Location: Cavendish house Attendees: Mike Blair (HBC) Dave Carter (MBC) Dave Winstanley (DBC) Chris Renahan (SBC) Steve Payne (TVU) Fran Manancourt (TVU) Jayne Davidson (DfT) Jonathon Spruce (Fore Consulting)

Apologies – Daniel Gaunt (HE), Richard McGuckin (SBC), Mike Green (RCBC)

1 Transport for the North Integrated and Smart Travel - an open discussion led by JS Jayne Davidson at TfN updating each other on previous and current work around Smart Ticketing, overview of public transport operators covering Tees Valley, J.S reiterated the desire for a “fare simplification” and benefits of a capping mechanism being in place to encourage greater uptake. TPOG to identify rep to co-ordinate response to Dft’s questionnaire. JS to discuss at their next meeting as well as request a work programme to identify key milestones etc.

2 Tees Valley Bus Network - agreement to the revised scope of work following MG/ comments from TPOG (led by Michael G). Following discussion it was TPOG recommended that this work stream be delegated to TPOG to report back in November and be fed into the quarterly TIG in December. A consensus view was reached that 4 main themes be allocated to TPOG covering ; a) Access Fund Bid, b)Strategic Transport Plan, c) TVBN and d) SMART ticketing 3 TIG work programme, progress reporting dashboard (Jonathan S)- TIG work JS/All programme now approved at Transport Committee on 22nd June 2016. JS to identify list NPR/HS2 of projects for circulation. Work programme to be updated with RAG rating in future. 4 East-West Connections Large Local Majors bid update (Dave W, Daniel G and JS Jonathan S). Bid presented to Transport committee on 22nd June 2016 and will go to next Chief Exec meeting. JS to seek letter of support from North East LEP. Ada Burns preparing letter in response to Heseltine report. 5 HS2/NPR update (Jonathan S) HS2- report being prepared to follow up on “Changing Brittan” report by September (or possibly within next 2 weeks), Darlington to feature in this. NPR – Meeting in Leeds 7th/8th July covering Leeds to Newcastle route. David Brown visit in July 6 Tees Valley Strategic Transport Plan manifesto (Steve P and Jonathan S) All Circulated manifesto to be presented at TPOG next Friday, comments required by

8th July and can then be taken to TV Man Group in August. 7 PiP Allocations (Mike B) CR Agreed, monies in Connect Tees Valley account to be distributed evenly, across the five authorities. CR to confirm arrangements for facilitating this and circulate briefing note in relation to this

8 HM Incentive Fund - future submissions (Mike B/ Dave W) MB Requested that TIG needs to have an overview of where each authority are in relation to incentive fund scoring and analysis of the implications. MB to circulate within HM Group or possible call meeting to discuss and feed back to TIG. DfT offer of assistance to be explored once gap analysis undertaken.

9 Challenge Fund – future submission considerations (Dave W) MB Discussion that the TVCA programme be packaged together in a bid/s e.g Key Strategic Structural points and implications of closures/overcoming barriers to connecting centres Need to clarify any match funding requirements. There is an expectation that there will be a call for new schemes later in the year. Draft brief to identify HME Groups role to be drawn up (Mike B to progress and feedback to TIG). Strategy to develop bids required.

10 LGF Sustainable Access to Employment Programme /Access Fund (Fran M) FM TPOG have revised list of schemes, which will now go to Management Group and Investment Panel. Report needs to re-iterate the comprehensive story for our Sustainable Transport aspirations. Fran M to prepare report in line with discussions by end of week which will embed key messages to chief Exec’s

11 A.O.B.

a) Scheme Development Fund – confirmation of funding available CR required and how funds may be distributed Chris R to circulate details of how funds distributed for his schemes. b) Tees Valley Combined Authority & Devolution Implementation Plan – JS circulated plan for comment asap All c) TVCA collating response to HE’s RIS2 consultation. Focus on growth / reliance on the HE network. All d) Future meetings – Next meeting will be 20th July 9:00, Cavendish House

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

Notes of meeting

Date 20th July 2016: 9.00 am – 12.00 noon Location: Cavendish house Attendees: Mike Blair (HBC) Dave Carter (MBC) Dave Winstanley (DBC) Richard McGuckin (SBC) Steve Payne (TVU) Fran Manancourt (TVU- Part) Mike Green (R&CBC) Jonathon Spruce (Fore Consulting)

Item Topic/ Discussion Action 1 ) Apologies – Daniel Gaunt 2 ) Note of last meeting 3) TIG work programme Brief discussion around Work Plan circulated previously by JS and the need to commence dashboard reporting, followed by separate discussion on items below:

a) HS2/NPR update (Jonathan S) HS2 - Group informed that there appears to be no change in the Secretary of State’s position following recent changes and confirmed that Darlington Station is to be included as part of next brochure in September (8 page and 4 page versions to be produced). Announcement due in 1st week of Nov on Phase 2B. DW to work with ARUP to review reports/ issues. Suitable comms plan required to disseminate information/ publicize Darlington Station. ?? A wider dissemination of master plan was suggested. East Coast Route Study workshops held 8th July Darlington Station one of four named schemes for CP6

Northern Powerhouse Rail – Preferred options appears to be 4 tracking east of Leeds and 4 tracking Skelton to Darlington, Straightening of route D’ton to Newcastle with Leamside slow routing possibility. Key Message was there appears to be workable solutions, Combined Authority need to align our views in August meeting to show wider support that can All feed into Network Rail’s report on options for 8th September. Further consideration is being given to freight improvements along Geneva Cord south of Darlington. The implications of this on the wider electrification along the Northallerton/ Middlesbrough/ Teesport priority route need to be carefully considered and ensure it does not adversely affect proposals. A clearer understanding of the JS/SP overall strategy required

Page 1 of 3

b) New Tees Crossing- Local Major Bid today/ tomorrow Any successful bid will need to commission work, either way meeting of the Task and Finish group required RM

c) East-West Connections Large Local Majors bid update (Dave W/ Jonathan S). Bid was approved by LEP last week; need to look at commissioning further work to progress. This work will need to feed into wider strategies. R McG attended DfT/TfN North Transpennine reference group, which is likely to include A66 as a priority route, A69 may have more issue to resolve. Further costing to be undertaken. TFN Strategic Roads Steering Group to meet monthly with view to developing report leading to strategy, a key focus is Transpennine connectivity. Work to be commissioned to progress this. Pete Molyneux, new TfN Roads Director to visit Tees Valley on 25th July. Tour/meeting JS has been arranged. KEY Road Network (KRN) – have been developed by some authorities through the devolution deal, it was suggested that similar route identification be undertaken across the Tees Valley linking with LGF, large Local Majors etc. item to be included for next DC meeting’s agenda.

d) Tees Valley Bus Network – (MG) Agreed at TPOG to gather information from operators and DfT, seeking quality data on the implications and advantages of Bus Franchising. R McG that there may be different views on franchising models across the Combined Authority area. Essential to understand if there is an overall need to have franchises and what advantages it can deliver to alternatives. Delivery options position statement to be provided for next MG meeting. Enquiry into Bus Services Bill has a call for evidence, a draft position response needed.

e ) Tees Valley Strategic Transport Plan manifesto (Steve P) SP Final version being collated to include comments received, prior to being taken to TVMG on 3rd August. RM to present. Update to be provided at next meeting.

4 ) TfN Transport Strategy (JS) JS briefly went through presentation previously circulated informing the group that TfN will be preparing a Transport Strategy for the North utilizing members of the DfT Strategy Team

5 ) Large Local Major Bid update Still awaiting outcome for this

A.O.B LGF Sustainable Access to Employment Programme /Access Fund (Fran M part) – Item brought forward in agenda to allow Fran to take part. Report did not go to Management Group R McG wanted further work on it to improve linkages to SEP, Local Majors etc, Discussion among group with various minor amendments to consider, Fran (M) to circulate amendments with a view to report going to Management FM Groups next week.

Page 2 of 3

Due to the number of different meeting that representatives of TIG attend, it was suggested that there will be a need to review who attends what in future to avoid All duplication.

Date and Time of Next meeting: 22nd August 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

Page 3 of 3

¨ ©

" © # # $ %

& © ' # ( ) ' ! * ' ! $ %

1 ' ! ¨ 2 0 1 & ! $ ) - %

3 © ¨ 2 4 5 1 1 ( ! 6 $ % 7

8 8

; < = > ? @ ? > A = B C D E F < G D H = I J K L

; N O P J B H Q = B K R J S = B Q J F I = T D ? E U ;

x M

= S V = = I W B J I I ? K X O Y D I H Z [ = I H W J K K = > H ? J K I \ D ] J B ; > Q = ^ = _ ? G I U ;

x P

F I P = H S J B ` T = A ? = S J @ a = E ? A = B b c < H ? J K I \ d

x _

e © / f 1 g 1 4 h . $ / # 4 - # ! % '

2 © / f 1 i ! / ( $ % i (

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ §

¨ 9 © i - / , j $ % i (

¨ ¨ © # / ' ! 4 ) -

¨ © 1 k j

¨ " © ' ! i 9 ¨ 3 : ¨

a D H = I D K G H ? ^ = I J @ K = l H ^ = = H ? K X m I n H J C = > J K @ ? B ^ = G o C F H I F X X = I H

O > p P J A = ^ C = B

x S

O > q U D K F D B b N r s p

x S

O > t \ D B > Q N r s p

x S

¡ ¢ £ § ¥ ¦ §

Notes of meeting

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP

DATE TIME AND VENUE Date 28th September 2016: 2.00 pm – 4.00 pm

Location: Cavendish house

Attendees: D. Carter (Chair), D. Gaunt, J. Spruce (Part), D. Winstanley, A. Mollon, C. Renahan, S. Payne, F. Manancourt (Part), R. Farnham, M.Blair,

Item Topic/ Discussion Action

1 Apologies: R. McGuckin 2 Note of previous meeting: Network Rail presentation to be considered for November meeting Tees Valley Strategic Transport Plan- comments on draft document to be sent All to SP, final copy to be circulated when agreed

3 Key Route Network: Detailed discussion on each Authorities proposals took place. Group agreed to develop template listing roads covered and criteria used. Fran Manancourt to FM progress asap and establish any GIS requirements.

4 Bus Network Review: Update Presentation to be added to next quarterly TIG agenda MG

5 TIG Work Plan 2016/17 Mid-Year Update Highway Maintenance Update: Mike Blair has undertaken analysis of Challenge fund, further work to be done on road Condition and costings. Analysis on implications for Structures may be more difficult, may require a joint study. A strategic paper needs to be drafted for Management Group. MG to progress MB through DW and also identifying risks and Issues.

6 Tees Crossing Update: Note circulated for discussion, clarity needed on

Governance arrangements. Date for next Transport Committee yet to be agreed. Need for papers for various portfolios to be seen.

7 A66 East / West Connection: Note circulated giving update. Study completed, Mouchel have produced final Stage 2 report which shows: Southern option around Darlington A66 East improvement’s covering Teeside Park, Cargo Fleet Lane & Teesport Work packages will need to be identified for various elements looking at phasing, alignments and option appraisals Next Tees Crossing meeting is 10th October

AOB SP circulated details of changes to Transpennine Services Next Rail North Partnership Board to be on 10th October A stakeholder pre- meeting will be held before this

Date and Time of Next meeting (not quarterly one): 30th November 2016, time and location to be confirmed

Transport & Infrastructure Group

Notes of Meeting

Meeting held at Cavendish House, Stockton

At 2pm on 3rd November, 2016

Attendees

David Robinson (Chair) PD Ports

Jonathan Spruce Tees Valley Combined Authority/Fore

Dave Winstanley Darlington Borough Council

Dave Carter Middlesbrough Council

Mike Blair Hartlepool Borough Council

Chris Renahan Stockton Borough Council

Mike Greene Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Chris O’Keefe Darlington Borough Council

Margaret Jackson Department for Transport

Steve Payne Tees Valley Combined Authority

Jon Bell Network Rail

Stephen Hind Network Rail

Daniel Gaunt Highways England

Apologies

Richard McGuckin Stockton Borough Council

Ed Dunn Network Rail

Observers

Sally Henry Tees Valley Combined Authority

1. Welcome & Introductions The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Apologies Apologies noted as above.

3. Conflicts of Interest

The Chair reminded the group of the Conflicts of Interest procedure and that any conflicts be declared.

4. Minutes of Previous Meetings & Matters Arising

Minutes of TIG held on 7th September, 2016 were agreed as an accurate record.

Other matters arising were picked up throughout the course of the meeting.

5. Feedback from Combined Authority Meeting

No transport issues were discussed. Phase 2 proposal for Broadband was agreed.

6. TIG Work Plan 2016/17 Mid-Year Review & Progress Updates.

HS2/Northern Powerhouse Rail

Jonathan circulated the latest HS2 document – “Changing Britain – HS2 Taking

Root” which was published on Monday.

TfN Roads Report

A map showing a draft of the Tees Valley Key Routes Network – Routes of Pan-

Northern Significance was circulated.

Action:-

• TIG members to inform Jonathan Spruce of any omissions by close of play

3rd November, 2016 prior to it being forwarded to TfN

Strategic Transport Plan The format has now been agreed and the web-based consultation will begin shortly. SP circulated copies around the Group. TPOG will now agree the Consultation detail and Stakeholder Management Plan. It is hoped a draft will be ready for the Mayor to input into prior to the launch in Summer 2017.

Bus Network Review of Delivery Options Mike Greene and Chris O’Keefe provided a presentation on the Tees Valley Strategic Bus Review.

Actions:- • A TIG & TPOG session to be arranged to further develop the Tees Valley ask. • A summary of presentation/discussion be prepared for Transport Committee on 30th November to explain the twin track approach – presentation cannot be part of a public meeting. • Network operators to be contacted to seek their views. • Final recommendations to go to Transport Committee in March 2017 • Jonathan Spruce to draft a letter in response to letter from Arriva on behalf of David Robinson.

7. East Coast Route Study

Jon Bell provided a presentation on the East Coast Route Study. Attached with minutes.

8. Darlington Station Masterplan

Dave Winstanley presented an overview on work being undertaken to progress the Darlington Masterplan.

9. Investing in the Northallerton to Teesport Rail Line

Further to the agreed wording change in the Strategic Transport Plan framework, Steve presented a report which provided more detail of the change in focus in the Northallerton to Teesport rail line strategic priority. The emphasis is now on guage clearance and line speed improvements with electrification to follow.

10. Items for Transport Committee on 30 November

• Overview of rail work • Darlington Station Masterplan • Buses Bill/Network Review update • Road studies – a general update • Concessionary fares (Chris Renahan will prepare paper) • Airport Scrutiny (with a view to invite representatives to future TIG meetings to keep them engaged)

11. Any Other Business

TVCA are currently preparing a response to the Network Rail Freight Consultation

Daniel Gaunt:- • Norton to Wynyard Improvement Scheme public consultation complete. • Business engagement commences next week.

• Currently working through options for a second Tees Crossing

Dave Winstanley • Further to completion of the Mouchel study, work on the East to West Connectivity options is moving to the next stage.

• This was David Robinson’s last meeting as Chair of the Transport & Infrastructure Group and he thanked everyone for their work over his tenure as Chair.

12. Meeting Schedule 2016/17

Next monthly TIG Officer meeting scheduled to take place 30th November, 2016.

§ ¨ ©

$ © © % & ' ( ) § & * + , - & .

/ 0 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 ¥ 9 ¥ ¢ : £ ;

< 6 7 = > : ¥ ? @ A ¡ = B £ A C D £ = :; : ¥ ? E ¥ ¢ 7 > > ¡ = F £ G

H 6 I ¥ J J K ? : > L M ¡ : 9 ¡ A > ? £ A ; F : 8

£ > £ A N L £ A ; O P ¥ A > F £ A ? M ¡ : 9

Q 6 @ A ¡ ? ; 8 ¥ A > ¦ ¥ A > F £ P ¥ A > F R 8 G ¡ > £ S N T U V W X £ A Y ¡ 9

6 V > A ¡ > £ ¢ : = @ A ¡ ? ; 8 ¥ A > 9 ¡ ? X £ A Y ¡ 9

[ 6 P ¡ > : ¥ ? ¡ 9 A ¥ G K = > :\ : > L ] ? \ £ ; > J £ ? > ^ K ? G U _ N M I S 7 9 9 W X £ A Y ¡ 9

6 A ¥ a £ = > b ¥ ¡ A G R 8 G ¡ > £ ; c d X £ A Y ¡ 9

[ [ e ¡ ; > d T £ ; > I ¥ ? ? £ = > : ¥ ? ; S D T W

£ £ ; I A ¥ ; ; : ? ¢ S 7 I W

f 6 N ¡ ; > £ A 8 9 ¡ ? R 8 G ¡ > £ ; c d X £ A Y ¡ 9

¡ A 9 : ? ¢ > ¥ ? V > ¡ > : ¥ ? S D T W

:G G 9 £ ; Y A ¥ K ¢ F V > ¡ > : ¥ ? S D I W

g 6 ^ £ £ G Y ¡ = B > ¥ @ £ £ ; X ¡ 9 9 £ L N ¡ ? ¡ ¢ £ J £ ? > h A ¥ K 8 S N T W X £ A Y ¡ 9

5 i 6 ^ ¥ A j ¡ A G 9 ¡ ? 7 > > ¡ = F £ G

5 5 6 7 ? L k > F £ A b K ; : ? £ ; ;

5 < 6 D ¡ > £ ¡ ? G > : J £ ¥ ¦ ? £ l > J £ £ > : ? ¢ ; c d

T £ G ? £ ; G ¡ L < Q m n N ¡ L o < i 5 < 8 J p

T £ G ? £ ; G ¡ L < f m n q K ? £ o < i 5 < 8 J p

T £ G ? £ ; G ¡ L < [ q K 9 L o < i 5 < 8 J

n ` p

T £ G ? £ ; G ¡ L < H r s 7 K ¢ K ; > o < i 5 < 8 J p

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¤

¨ ©

! "

# $ % & ' ( $ ) * + , $ -

. / 0 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 ¥ 8 ¥ ¢ 9 £ :

; 5 6 < = 9 ¥ > ? @ ¡ < A £ @ B C £ < 9 : 9 ¥ > D ¥ ¢ 6 = = ¡ < E £ F

G 5 H = @ ¡ = £ ¢ 9 < ? @ ¡ > : 7 ¥ @ = 8 ¡ > I J K L 6 = = ¡ < E £ F

M 5 ? @ ¡ > : 7 ¥ @ = 8 ¡ > > 9 > ¢ N ¦ ¦ 9 < £ @ : O @ ¥ P 7 Q 7 F ¡ = £ I R J L S £ @ T ¡ 8

5 ? @ ¡ > : 7 ¥ @ = ¦ ¥ @ = E £ V ¥ @ = E Q 7 F ¡ = £ I J K W H L S £ @ T ¡ 8

X 5 D O R Y Z [ 7 @ £ : : 9 ¥ > : ¥ ¦ \ > = £ @ £ : = I J K L S £ @ T ¡ 8

5 H = @ ¡ = £ ¢ 9 < ^ ¥ ¡ F Q 7 F ¡ = £ : I J K L _ ` S £ @ T ¡ 8

]

£ b ^ ¥ P = £ V £ = c ¥ @ A :

N d e

\ R

f 5 @ ¥ g £ < = d ¥ ¡ @ F Q 7 F ¡ = £ : _ ` S £ @ T ¡ 8

X X Z ¡ : = ` K £ : = e ¥ > > £ < = 9 ¥ > : I C K L

£ £ : e @ ¥ : : 9 > ¢ I 6 e L

h 5 i 9 ¢ E c ¡ b : Z > ¢ 8 ¡ > F Q 7 F ¡ = £ Y C ¡ > 9 £ 8 O ¡ P > = S £ @ T ¡ 8

4 j 5 e ¥ > : P 8 = ¡ = 9 ¥ > : _ ` S £ @ T ¡ 8

¥ @ = E £ @ > ? 9 k £ = ¡ T 8 £

Q 6 9 @ H 7 ¡ < £

4 4 5 C ¦ ? S 9 : 9 = I J K W ^ J < L S £ @ T ¡ 8

4 ; 5 d P : H P k k 9 = W d P : K ¥ @ A : E ¥ 7 6 = = ¡ < E £ F

4 G 5 R ¥ @ c ¡ @ F 8 ¡ > 6 = = ¡ < E £ F

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ §

4 M 5 6 > b N = E £ @ d P : 9 > £ : :

4 5 C ¡ = £ ¡ > F = 9 k £ ¥ ¦ > £ [ = k £ £ = 9 > ¢ : _ `

K £ F > £ : F ¡ b ; f l m n P > £ o ; j 4 ; 7 k Y 7 ¡ @ = > £ @ : 9 > q 9 = £ F p

]

K £ F > £ : F ¡ b ; X n P 8 b o ; j 4 ; 7 k

m ] p

¡ ¢ £ § ¥ ¦ §

§ ¨ © ¨ ¨ ¨ ©

- . / 0 1 2

3 4 5 £ 6 7 ¥ 8 £ 9 : ; < = ¥ > ? 7 < @ ¥ ; A B C D ¥ 6 ¥ ¢ @ £ A E @ 7 F ¡ = > G 7 H ? 7 I @ ;

J 4 C 7 < @ ¥ ; K ¥ ¢ L M ¥ = N ¡ = > 6 ¡ ; C < < ¡ 7 F £ >

O 4 P D > ¡ < £ ¦ = ¥ 8 G ¡ @ ; < £ ; ¡ ; 7 £ Q ; ¢ @ ; £ £ = A H = ¥ ? D C < < ¡ 7 F £ >

@ ¢ F N ¡ T A G ¡ @ ; < £ ; ¡ ; 7 £ U F ¡ 6 6 £ ; ¢ £ M ? ; >

V @ 8 M @A I @ ;

R S

W 4 X Y H L Z < = ¡ < £ ¢ @ 7 X = ¡ ; A D ¥ = < 6 ¡ ; ? D > ¡ < £ C < < ¡ 7 F £ >

4 X C H A ? \ ] A < = ? 7 < ? = £ A C < < ¡ 7 F £ >

[

^ 4 _ ¡ < @ ¥ ; ¡ 6 = ¥ > ? 7 < @ ` @ < T : ; ` £ A < 8 £ ; < M ? ; > \ @ > a N ¡ A F ] ? D ¡ ; > ; £ b < A < £ D A c d £ = \ ¡ 6

4 Z < = ¡ < £ ¢ T ? D > ¡ < £

K £ < < £ = ¡ < < ¡ 7 F £ >

¦ X g A X = ¡ ; A D ¥ = < : ; ` £ A < 8 £ ; < Z < = ¡ < £ ¢ T

R f

d £ = \ ¡ 6

¥ ? A @ ; ¢ : ; ¦ = ¡ A < = ? 7 < ? = £ M ? ; >

R S

d £ = \ ¡ 6

X = ¡ ; A D ¥ = < ¦ ¥ = < F £ _ ¥ = < F ? D > ¡ < £

h 4 Q b D = £ A A @ ¥ ; A ¥ ¦ : ; < £ = £ A < < ¥ < F £ U C Z @ ; ¢ 6 £ U ¡ D @ < ¡ 6 ¥ < L _ : M A £ < < 6 £ 8 £ ; < d £ = \ ¡ 6

6 £ < < £ = A i ]

P D > ¡ < £ ¥ ; ¡ D D = ¥ ¡ 7 F

j 4 K ¡ = ¢ £ K ¥ 7 ¡ 6 G ¡ k ¥ = Z 7 F £ 8 £ A d £ = \ ¡ 6

P D > ¡ < £ ¦ = ¥ 8 = ¥ k £ 7 < l ¥ ¡ = > A

3 m 4 Z < ¡ < @ ¥ ; G ¡ A < £ = D 6 ¡ ; ? D > ¡ < £ A d £ = \ ¡ 6

3 3 4 @ ¢ F N ¡ T A Q ; ¢ 6 ¡ ; > ? D > ¡ < £ ¡ ; @ £ 6 H ¡ ? ; <

S f

d £ = \ ¡ 6

3 J 4 C ; T Y < F £ = l ? A @ ; £ A A

3 O 4 ¡ < £ ¡ ; > < @ 8 £ ¥ ¦ ; £ b < 8 £ £ < @ ; ¢ A i ]

J O n o C ? ¢ ? A < 9 J m 3 J D 8 p

x e

J Z £ D < £ 8 \ £ = 9 J m 3 J D 8 a @ ; 7 6 ? > £ A D ¡ = < ; £ = A c

q r e p

x e

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¤

§ ¨ © ¨ ¨ ¨ ©

. / 0 1 2 3

4 5 6 £ 7 8 ¥ 9 £ : ; < = > ¥ ? @ 8 = A ¥ ? H 8 I @ 8 J A <

K 5 D L L D A > M @ ¡ 7 A = N ; B B @ £ B > £ B £ < = ¡ = A ¥ <

H ¡ > = A < O 7 7 AB P Q O R F D S B T Q ¦ U S B V ¥ A < = D A > M @ ¡ 7 A = N W < A = X

Y 5 Z = > ¡ = £ ¢ A 8 U > ¡ = 7 ¡ < Q > ¡ ¦ = ¡ = = ¡ 8 G £ ?

R ¥ > 9 ¡ = ¦ ¥ > \ ¥ > J B G ¥ E ¥ < = G £ K ] ^ ¥ ¦ _ ¥ ` £ 9 a £ >

[

¥ ¥ 8 £ B B c E > £ 7 A 9 A < ¡ > N ? AB 8 @ B B A ¥ <

[ b

d 5 e @ B f AB A ¥ < g D = = ¡ 8 G £ ?

[

D E E > ¥ ¡ 8 G = ¥ ¦ ¥ > 9 @ 7 ¡ = A ¥ < ¥ ¦ ¡ e @ B £ B e ¥ ¡ > ? ¡ < ? ¡ B B ¥ 8 A¡ = £ ? A P B X

5 R @ < ? A < ¢ a A? @ E ? ¡ = £ B g f £ > a ¡ 7

[

; R

x _

¥ @ B A < ¢ ; < ¦ > ¡ B = > @ 8 = @ > £ R @ < ?

x i

L 5 U ¦ _ W E ? ¡ = £ f £ > a ¡ 7

5 H ¡ k ¥ > > ¥ k £ 8 = B W E ? ¡ = £ f £ > a ¡ 7

_ £ \ U £ £ B > ¥ B B A < ¢

x b

¡ > 7 A < ¢ = ¥ < _ ¥ > = G £ > < e N E ¡ B B

x Q

¡ > 7 A < ¢ = ¥ < Z = ¡ = A ¥ <

x Q

A? ? 7 £ B a > ¥ @ ¢ G Z = ¡ = A ¥ <

x H

l 5 W E ? ¡ = £ ¦ > ¥ 9 U m I f £ > a ¡ 7

n 5 D < N m = G £ > e @ B A < £ B B

4 o 5 Q ¡ = £ ¡ < ? = A 9 £ ¥ ¦ < £ p = 9 £ £ = A < ¢ B g

[

K K ] ^ _ ¥ ` £ 9 a £ > : K o 4 K E 9 q

x j

4 Y r s Q £ 8 £ 9 a £ > : K o 4 K E 9 P A < 8 7 @ ? £ B E ¡ > = < £ > B X q

x j

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¤

§ ¨ © ¨ ¨ ¨ ©

, - . / 0 1

2 3 4 £ 5 6 ¥ 7 £ 8 9 : ; < ¥ = > 6 ; ? ¥ : @ A B C ¥ 5 ¥ ¢ ? £ @ D ? 6 E ¡ < = F 6 G > 6 H ? :

I 3 B 6 ; ? ¥ : J < ¡ 6 H £ < B ; ; ¡ 6 E £ =

K 3 L ¥ : 6 £ @ @ ? ¥ : ¡ < M N ¡ < £ @ B ; ; ¡ 6 E £ =

O 3 P ; < ¡ ; £ ¢ ? 6 J < ¡ : @ C ¥ < ; 5 ¡ :

< ¥ ¢ < £ @ @

£ 6 £ 7 R £ < 4 ¥ < H @ E ¥ C

> @ 4 ¥ < H @ ; < £ ¡ 7 T C = ¡ ; £

3 P 6 E £ 7 £ ? C £ 5 ? : £

V 3 D ¡ ? 5 P £ < W ? 6 £ @ 4 ¥ < H T C = ¡ ; £

X L D ¡ ? 5 L ¥ 7 7 ?@ @ ? ¥ :

¡ < ; 5 £ C ¥ ¥ 5 @ ; ¡ ; ? ¥ :

F ¡ [ ¥ < < ¥ [ £ 6 ; @ T C = ¡ ; £ 3

£ ] J £ £ @ L < ¥ @ @ ? : ¢

¡ < 5 ? : ¢ ; ¥ : ¥ < ; E £ < : M C ¡ @ @

\ S

¡ < 5 ? : ¢ ; ¥ : P ; ¡ ; ? ¥ :

? = = 5 £ @ R < ¥ > ¢ E P ; ¡ ; ? ¥ :

^ 3 T C = ¡ ; £ ¦ < ¥ 7 J _ G B ; ; ¡ 6 E £ =

? ¢ E ] ¡ M @ a : ¢ 5 ¡ : = T C = ¡ ; £ ` 3 P > : : M B 5 ?

2 b 3 J < ¡ : @ C ¥ < ; ¦ ¥ < ; E £ ¥ < ; E T C = ¡ ; £

? ¢ E ] ¡ M @ F ¡ ? : ; £ : ¡ : 6 £ L E ¡ 5 5 £ : ¢ £ N > : = < ¥ C ¥ @ ¡ 5 T C = ¡ ; £ 2 2 3

2 I 3 B : M _ ; E £ < > @ ? : £ @ @

2 K 3 ¡ ; £ ¡ : = ; ? 7 £ ¥ ¦ : £ c ; 7 £ £ ; ? : ¢ d e

2 K f g £ 6 £ 7 R £ < 8 I b 2 I C 7 i ? : 6 5 > = £ @ C ¡ < ; : £ < @ j

Z h

¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ ¤ Section 2 – Local Authority Meetings

Contains individual Local Plan meetings with:

• Darlington Borough Council

• Durham County Council

• Hambleton District Council

• Hartlepool Borough Council

• Middlesbrough Council

• North Yorkshire County Council

• Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

• Wynyard Duty to Cooperate Timeline

Duty to Co-operate

2.00pm, Monday, 5th May 2015. First Floor Committee Room, Town Hall, Stockton-on-Tees

Agenda Attendees: CR - Chris Renahan (Economic Growth & Spatial Development, SBC) BT - Bill Trewick (Highways, Transport & Environment, SBC) MC - Matthew Clifford (Economic Growth & Spatial Development, SBC) DB - David Bage (Economic Growth & Spatial Development, SBC) AC - Andrew Carter (Planning, HBC) MK - Matthew King (Planning Policy, HBC) MB - Mike Blair (Highways & Transport, HBC) PF - Peter Frost (Highways & Transport, HBC)

Item Discussion 1 Agreed to discuss divide the meeting in to two parts: • Second A19 access, the 400 safeguarded dwellings and the 9 questions previously provided by Hartlepool Borough Council. • Remaining issues in Hartlepool representation letter. 2 A19 Second Wynyard Access and 400 Safeguarded Dwellings

BT explained the history of the 2nd access and explained that it is likely that any distributor road would now have to follow a more southerly alignment through the Wynyard Two site aligned close to a gas main.

AC explained that the previous HBC Local Plan included an allocation for employment land at North Burn along with a second access to the A19. The Inspector sought to modify the plan to remove the allocation and the 2nd access. The HBC Employment Land Review suggests that North Burn should not be allocated.

AC also expressed concerns that a new junction at Wynyard could threaten a new grade separated junction at Elwick.

BT explained the A19 Expressway scheme which will be delivered in 5 – 10 years. This will result in the closure of gaps in the A19 central reservation and re-route current unsafe accesses to one or two new grade separated junctions. It is possible that the development of the Elwick junction re-inforces the need for a 2nd junction at Wynyard.

MK identified that there is a significant gap in the funding for the 2nd access to Wynyard and any scheme is likely to require a development consent order.

BT identified that the access has been placed on the TVU priority list, agreed by the TVU Leadership Board, which will be used to lobby Highways England for funding to deliver the scheme.

AC and MK also raised concerns about the site for 400 dwellings at Wynyard Park which is safeguarded in the SBC publication Local Plan. MK considered that this part of the plan is not deliverable and that the Inspector would remove it from the plan.

MC explained that the Council acknowledges that the delivery of 400 dwellings at the site is not assured because additional highways capacity would need to be created. However, the Council remains supportive of the principle of residential development on the site. The site has is therefore safeguarded rather than allocated, and the number of dwellings is not counted towards the housing supply.

AC queried how highway capacity should be attributed to the site.?

MC explained that the policy is a safeguarding policy rather than an allocation and no highway capacity should be attributed to it.

AC explained that HBC cannot withdraw the objection to the 2nd access and safeguarding of 400 houses as things stand.

CR agreed that the issue could not be resolved today and SBC officers will give further consideration to the matter taking in to consideration the information raised in the discussion. Actions: • Map the route of revised road layout. BT / DB • Further consideration safeguarding 400 dwellings at CR / MC / DB Wynyard Park. 3 Review of other issues in Objection letter MK advised that remaining issues in the representation were mainly advisory comments on issues rather than objections. Issues are summarised below. Policy SP2 HBC still concerned about the spatial strategy relating to Wynyard but comments are advisory rather than objection. MC advised that SBC are re-affirming a commitment rather than allocating a new site. MK raised the Wynyard Neighbourhood Plan and a recent consultation where two issues were constantly raised, these were overdevelopment and broadband connection. Is this something which could be put in to the policy? DB suggested that broadband provision could be a utility that developers would seek in order to make their proposals attractive to the market rather than a specific policy requirement. Bus link SBC confirmed that the planning permission included provision for a new bus link to Wynyard Park and Wynyard village. HBC confirmed that this was an advisory point. Retail Policies DB confirmed that provision has been made for a small store to meet convenience needs of residents north of the A689. Wider needs are expected to be met in facilities in Wynyard Village. MK noted that this is an advisory point but queried whether facilities in the village will be accessible to residents at Wynyard Park. Demolitions MC identified that the low demolitions figure reflects the fact that there are no planned or envisaged programmes of demolition following the current Victoria scheme. Presentation of housing requirement MC explained that the 600 figure queried in the representation is a presentational issue which will be corrected in the next draft of the document. 4 Environmental Issues All parties agreed to cover the environmental issues in the representation separately from the meeting with SBC contacting HBC to discuss the issue. Actions SBC to contact HBC to clarify these issues.

Duty to Cooperate Meeting with Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 7th March 2016

Attendees Rosemary Young – Spatial Planning Manager - Stockton John Dixon – Planning Officer - Stockton Andrew Carter – Planning Services Manager – Hartlepool Matthew King – Planning Policy Team Leader - Hartlepool Fiona Stanforth – Planning Policy Officer – Hartlepool

1) Introductory Discussion - Wynyard • Discussion regarding the director level meeting about Wynyard planned for April. • Priority regarding Wynyard is the progression of highways issues which are currently impacting upon the determination of planning applications. • RY – Stockton are being led by a Director level on decisions relating to Wynyard Planning applications. • AC – Key concern for Hartlepool is the impact on local road network as a result of the strategic network. • MK and AC attending meeting in April. RY is not attending.

2) Stockton’s Plan Position • Stockton are currently reviewing their evidence base, this will be completed by mid June. Details of the timetable have been sent to consultees (including Hartlepool). Following this evidence base review, decisions will be made on how to progress the plan and consultations will take place including with neighbourhing authorities. • Aiming to undertake 2nd consultation in September 2016 followed by submission in January 2017.

3) Hartlepool’s Plan Position • Recognising pressure that the Housing and Planning Bill and potential changes to the New Homes Bonus will have on LPA. • AC – Rebecca Pointon from DCLG is visiting Hartlepool on 9th March 2016 following identification of timeline in Hartlepool’s Local Development Scheme being close to target deadline. Hartlepool’s 2006 Plan was developed under the old system. MK has updated DCLG of the position of strategic planning in Hartlepool in advance of this meeting. The meeting with DCLG is at officer level. Suggestion is that DCLG will be offering support however currently unsure of what this will entail. Clearer position will be known following the meeting. • MK went through the draft policies list, detailing new bespoke policies. The plan will be a single document apart from the separate Minerals and Waste DPD. RY raised the issue of the age of the M&W plan and requirements of the evidence base to ensure compliance with the Housing and Planning Bill. Action – MK to discuss this issue with DCLG. • MK discussed the detail and background of the proposed housing policies: o Discrepancies in the estimates for the amount of new housing required. The SHMA outlines a need of 300-325. Taking into account demolitions and backlogs the target for the 15year plan period is 6000 new houses. This figure is 33% over the baseline. o There are a number of planning permissions approved including the South West Extension. Due to a small amount of urban sites available the focus has been development on the western edge of the urban area. High Tunstall is the strategic priority. However there are highway infrastructure issues as there are only two main routes into the town, this has implications for increased congestion through town centre, creating potential issues for the attraction of businesses due to congestion between the local and strategic network. o Proposed approach is a bypass and grade separated junction (GSJ) onto the A19 around Elwick village. An LGF bid has been submitted, unsure of notification timescales for success, however following initial indications regarding funding availability from the Growing Place fund to cover some of the initial costs. Initial contact with landowners affected has also been made. AC details that deliverability of the scheme is achievable through S106 contributions and therefore the LGF loan can be repaid. Stockton reported similar issues at their Harrogate Lane development. o The safety risk level at the junction decreasing from Highways England’s perspective which impacts upon their approach to commenting on planning applications as quantifying this safety risk is difficult. There is some capacity within the current junctions, however as developments come forward this capacity will reduce necessitating the need for the junction. o MK discussed the proposed sites within the villages, in the rural area the Rural Neighbourhood Plan is looking to identify the same sites acknowledging the need for limited development in the villages and recognising the associated community benefits. • Wynyard o MK - there has been a change in the approach to Wynyard since the last draft plan (2013). There are a number of planning applications for Wynyard and a number of recent approvals. Thus the new draft plan will have proposed sites in Wynyard. There is an issue with applicants subdividing sites; this can create an issue with securing planning obligations fortunately Hartlepool’s Planning Obligations SPD covers this issue. o Hartlepool is looking to retain an element of employment at Wynyard as this is the prestigious employment land within the borough. o RY – noted that there are a number of planning applications that have been approved at Wynyard and a number of planning applications yet to be determined. There is a need to ensure that future development is dealt with comprehensively to ensure necessary infrastructure is delivered. o AC – there is concern about the highway issues in relation to the 400 application (H/2015/0332), a joint Traffic Assessment with Stockton is due to be undertaken. o In last examination all Wynyard sites were removed by the Inspector due to sustainability and deliverability. However given the lack of executive locations within the borough, the current view is that allocations need to be made in this location to address this need. North Burn Electronics Park was also removed within the withdrawn plan for reasons to do with the deliverability due to the need for £20million investment in a necessary junction. o When compared against the 2006 Local Plan, the majority of the employment sites at Wynyard are now housing sites. In addition the HCA are intending to come forward with an application for the North Burn site shortly, this would be for circa 1500 houses and mixed use development. The cost of the junction, which is expected to be £20million. Following the evidence of the Employment Land Review 2015, the Council are proposing to de-allocate North Burn as an employment site as part of the proposals for the new Local Plan. AC – the intention of the HCA is to put in the infrastructure and sell serviced plots to housing developers. Implications for the plan at this stage continue to be proposed de-allocation, allocation would only be acceptable in two scenarios both of which would have a severe impact on the current strategy of the local plan: 1) The site receives planning permission – although suggested approach would not be to allocate on prematurity grounds. 2) New evidence is provided to suggest the site is sustainable.

4) Draft Local Plan Issues • AC – there are a number of site specific issues which are likely to create an overprovision of housing sites dependent on the outcome of appeal and planning decisions. • Discussions with members have taken place. • Approach taken will be to justify the allocations on a range of sites being provided to ensure sites are brought forward. The alternative option is to extend the plan period to 20years although this is not ideal given the requirement to update the evidence base to ensure compliance. MK discussed changes the inspector had made on the 2013 plan to address under delivery issues. • MK – explained infrastructure delivery plan. Main issues are the Elwick Bypass and GSJ and the highways issues at Wynyard. o Bid in for Elwick Bypass, whilst in initial stages will need to prove deliverability, which is can be achieved through developer contributions from developments in this area of Hartlepool. There are potential issues with the viability of the schemes and loss of other social infrastructure. o Problematic junction in the urban area which is at / close to capacity (Wooler Road / Elwick Road / Park Road) which requires resolving. o Wynyard modelling issues, issues with addressing and access to modelling services provided to by TVU. This needs resolving as a priority. o Action – MK to discuss this with DCLG.

5) Other Ongoing Strategic Planning Issues • Planning applications at High Tunstall and Quarry Farm 2 – ongoing issues with highway capacity. Joint transport assessment is being undertaken. Holding recommendations until June/July. Confirmed that the developers are Storeys / self- build on the first element of the High Tunstall site and Ed Yuill on the Quarry Farm 2 site. Unsure of house-builder. • AC – Wynyard issue regarding modelling is a stalling point for development. • Discussion regarding the education capacity in relation to primary school provision. MK has a meeting with education on a Tees Valley basis. Need to resolve the issue regarding primary school capacity as there is a recurring issue with developers when it comes to securing planning obligations. There is a need for a clear approach on this issue. MK – an alternative is a land allocation for a further school at Wynyard. • MK discussed the Employment Land Review and the proposed de-allocation of employment land following detailed over provision in the ELR. The new proposals map will show availability of employment land to give a clearer picture of where there is capacity. There is an issue of suitability of certain uses in areas of the borough and this prohibits other uses, such as housing. Ongoing interest from the HCA regarding the sites which they own which is currently employment land; queries have been received about housing. • MK confirmed that the ELR recognises the importance of employment land at Wynyard as a prestigious employment site. The difficulty is how to retain this. • Other land allocations include safeguarded land for the nuclear power station and an increase in allocations for protected green space. • Retail – the proposed plan will have a slight shrinkage of the town centre and then a hierarchical approach to retail. Proposing that there is no need to apply a sequential test for local centres. • No change to the conservation areas although the local plan will include positive policies for heritage assets as there are a number of conservation areas considered to be at risk.

AC / MK – A Duty to Cooperate meeting will also take place with Durham.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Darlington Borough Council

Meeting Location: Darlington Town Hall Date: 23 March 2016

Attendees: SBC DBC Rosemary Young Isabel Nicholls David Bage John Dixon

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan RY provided overview of Stockton’s Cabinet resolutions and timescales Timetable & for plan preparation which have been published on the Council website Evidence Base ahead of a revised LDS. Review IN advised that Darlington will be taking a report to cabinet in April to withdrawn the plan, provide an interim policy position and provide a timetable for a new Local Plan. The timescales for the new plan will be 2 years to submission with a further year for examination and adoption. The will be an extended I&O consultation allowing for significant stakeholder engagement and liaison with developer partners; this will lead into masterplanning work on sites with developers and other stakeholdersahead of a Publication Draft plan (noted that Preferred Options will not form a stage of plan preparation in accordance with regulations). 2. Evidence DB provided an overview of the evidence base documents being Base Review undertaken which include SHMA (including OAN and other matters), ELR, Town Centre Uses and Open Space Assessment. Highlighted that a Duty to Cooperate meeting will be scheduled with adjoining authorities regarding these studies.

IN noted that the housing requirement for Darlington has significantly increased following their OAN. 3. Durham Tees IN highlighted that the I&O consultation will identify potential housing Valley Airport growth at Middleton St George (diagrammatical). IN & DB identified that it was anticipated the policies in emerging plans would continue to reference the masterplan for DTVA (identified link to Stockton’s emerging ELR). 4. Housing Site JD identified that West Stockton is progressing with an inspectors Selection decision expected on Harrowgate Lane within a month and a planning application expected to be submitted for Yarm Back Lane with the next few months.

Noted that the evidence base review might necessitate the need to identify additional sites.

IN noted that Darlington are exploring significant development to the north east of Darlington; this being linked to the potential A66 relief Road being explored by Highways England. 5. Strategic and As item 4 local capacity of the highway network 6. AOB IN highlighted that they had recently been to visit PINS (inspector and Stephen Carnaby). Highlighted the benefit of this meeting and that it gave them a clear indication regarding the need to start a new Local Plan to replace the Core Strategy.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Middlesbrough Borough Council

Meeting Location: Middlesbrough Civic Centre Date: 5 April 2016

Attendees: SBC MBC David Bage Katherine Whitwell John Dixon Martin Colclough

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided overview of Cabinet resolutions and timescales for plan Timetable & preparation which have been published on the Council website ahead Evidence Base of a revised LDS. Review KW advised that MBC were considering the need to review the Local Plan but that at this stage no corporate management discussions had been held. 2. Evidence DB provided an overview of the evidence base documents being Base Review undertaken which include SHMA (including OAN and other matters), ELR, Town Centre Uses and Open Space Assessment. Highlighted that a Duty to Cooperate stakeholder meeting will be scheduled with adjoining authorities regarding these studies.

Discussion ensured regarding the meeting held on the SBC SHMA with DB adjoining authorities on 4 April 2016. Identified that it would be useful as part to the Duty to Cooperate to agree the housing market area to be used in the study. DB to investigate this and circulate wording/recommendation on the housing market area to be used in the SHMA.

DB provided a status update on the ELR and Town Centre Use evidence base documents. KW advised that MBC are part way through a retail study. Identified need to share evidence and align studies. 3. Housing Site DB and JD provided a status update regarding the following housing Selection schemes/locations and identified that the necessity to identify additional sites will be dependent upon the outputs of the evidence base review: • West Stockton- proposed allocation of 2150 units (capped until highways interventions occur) approval of an inquiry expected in a few weeks for up to 340 units. Anticipated other applications will follow shortly. • Ingleby Barwick- approval (350+70) and pending decisions with Secretary of State (550+200) • Yarm- Morley Carr Farm is currently being built out and reserved matters has been agreed on Land South of Greens Lane • Wynyard 4. Strategic and Noted that the pinch point scheme has improved the situation at the local capacity of A174. Acknowledged that there is the requirement to replace the A19 the highway flyover and it will be necessary to keep informed on developments network regarding this. DB identified the Portrack Relief Road and how this relates to the potential SPA expansion. 5. AOB KW advised that MBC are hosting DPO. DB to forward appropriate DB attendees contacts to KW.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Hartlepool Borough Council

Meeting Location: Hartlepool Civic Centre Date: 13 April 2016

Attendees: SBC HBC David Bage Matthew King John Dixon Andrew Carter

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure at SBC and identified and Timetable & timescales for plan preparation which have been published on the Evidence Base Council website ahead of a revised LDS. Review 2. Evidence DB identified what assessments the evidence base review contains and Base Review that they will be completed in June. Discussions revolved around the following matters: • SHMA- noted that there are potential options for the housing market area. However, Hartlepool is considered to be a separate market area. SHMA Duty to Cooperate meeting will be to discuss the emerging outputs of the report; including OAN. • ELR- DB identified the need to link this with the outputs of the SHMA. A separate Duty to Cooperate meeting will be held to share the outputs of this study (alongside TCU) • TCU- noted that there are limited issues regarding this matter and the scope of the TCU is predominantly a retail assessment but expanded to cover needs for other town centre uses. 3. Housing Site DB discussed the meeting held on 6th April regarding Wynyard and the Selection HCA suggestion that an SPD or AAP be prepared. Agreed that neither was appropriate but it would be appropriate to prepare a Delivery Framework Document for the area. Noted that key to this project would be a well-structured series of meetings/working groups with relevant interested parties and disciplines. Noted the need for planning lead within each authority.

Necessity to ensure this work is undertaken in a timely manner to support policy development and does not jeopardise either local authorities Local Plan.

JD to forward Harrowgate Lane and Yarm Back Lane Masterplan. AC JD/AC suggested that he would consider an appropriate course of action regarding a structure of meetings for further discussion. 4. Strategic and Discussion regarding historic route which would have linked the North DB local capacity of Tees Cluster (Seal Sands) with South Tees (Wilton). DB to discuss with the highway highways colleagues to ascertain need for future scheme and also network mention this to Redcar & Cleveland at Duty to Cooperate meeting. 5. AOB MK provided an overview of developments with the Local Plan process at County Durham following a recent Duty to Cooperate meeting

Duty to cooperate meeting with Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Meeting Location: Municipal Buildings Stockton Date: 13 April 2016

Attendees: SBC R&CBC David Bage Alex Conti John Dixon Roger Kay

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure at SBC and identified Timetable SBC timescales for plan preparation which have been published on the & R&CBC Council website ahead of a revised LDS.

AC identified that a Draft Local Plan (i.e. Preferred Options) is going to Cabinet in May with consultation to follow the EU referendum. This will lead to a publication in November and Submission in March. 2. Evidence DB identified what assessments the evidence base review contains and Base Review that they will be completed in June. Discussions revolved around the following matters: • ELR- DB identified the need to link this with the outputs of the SHMA. A Duty to Cooperate meeting will be held to share the outputs of this study (alongside TCU) • Town Centre Uses- noted that there are limited issues regarding this matter and the scope of the TCU is predominantly a retail capacity assessment but expanded to cover needs for other town centre uses. • Open Space Assessment- being undertaken by consultants

SHMA covered under item 5 3. Housing Site DB provided an overview of sites across the Borough highlighting that Selection the need to allocate additional sites will be dependent upon outputs of the SHMA/OAN. 4. Strategic and No specific issues. Brief discussion regarding historic route which would local capacity of have linked the North Tees Cluster (Seal Sands) with South Tees the highway (Wilton); identified need to a consistent approach between relevant network authorities. 5. AOB AC provided an overview of the extensive evidence base review which forms the basis on the emerging Local Plan. Noted that Redcar has prepared an OAN based on their Housing Market Area and the emerging Local Plan seeks to deliver in addition to this. AC identified that further modelling and sensitivity testing is being undertaken by Oxford Economics (based on employment forecasts) to reinforce the evidence base.

AC expressed concern regarding the emerging SBC SHMA which will likely have a housing market area which includes Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar. Noted that there will be a need to continue dialogue and ensure reports do not undermine each other. DB to liaise DB with consultants to circulate wording/recommendation on the housing market area in the SHMA report so that it can be reviewed. AC requested that emerging outputs of SHMA be shared.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Durham County Council

Meeting Location: County Hall Date: 15 April 2016

Attendees: SBC DCC David Bage Graeme Smith John Dixon James Cook

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure at SBC and identified Timetable & timescales for plan preparation which have been published on the Evidence Base Council website ahead of a revised LDS. Review 2. Durham Local GS identified that inspectors interim report on the Local Plan has been Plan Update quashed and the Local Plan withdrawn. Cabinet approval has been sought to progress a revised Local Plan with I&O consultation scheduled for June/July; dates for subsequent stages are as thus: • Preferred Options- November/December • Submission- July August • Examination- Feb 2018 • Adoption- Late 2018

Noted that much of the evidence base is being updated. 3. Evidence DB identified what assessments the evidence base review contains and Base Review that they will be completed in June. Discussions revolved around the following matters: • SHMA- discussion regarding the housing market area and stakeholder workshop scheduled for the 3rd May • ELR- DB identified the need to link this with the outputs of the SHMA. A Duty to Cooperate meeting will be held to share the outputs of this study (alongside TCU) • Town Centre Uses- noted that there are limited issues regarding this matter and the scope of the TCU is predominantly a retail capacity assessment but expanded to cover needs for other town centre uses. • Open Space Assessment- being undertaken by consultants

Noted that there are limited cross boundary issues regarding the evidence base review given the largely unrelated relationship in terms of journey to work areas etc. 4. Housing Site DB provided an overview of sites across the Borough highlighting that Selection- the need to allocate additional sites will be dependent upon outputs of Wynyard the SHMA/OAN. Noted that many sites proposed now have permission and the only sites remaining are at West Stockton Strategic Urban Extension and Wynyard.

Discussion regarding the proposals and live applications at Wynyard. Noted that there are highways issues at the A19/A689 junction and there is an evolving situation at Sedgefield where there is significant developer interest.

Identified need to continue discussions as plans progress and engage meaningfully with Highways England. GS highlighted some worked undertaken to support Durham CC Local Plan regarding the ability for the strategic highway network (A1) being able to support proposed growth at both Darlington and Durham. Suggested that a similar approach could be taken with Highways England at the A19/A689. GS GS to forward copy of this report to colleagues at SBC 5. Strategic and See item 4 local capacity of the highway network 6. AOB No matters discussed

Duty to cooperate meeting with North Yorkshire County Council

Meeting Location: County Hall Date: 14 April 2016

Attendees: SBC R&CBC David Bage Rachel Wigginton John Dixon

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure at SBC and identified Timetable & timescales for plan preparation which have been published on the Evidence Base Council website ahead of a revised LDS. Review RW detailed the role the County Council will play as part of the devolution agenda and interaction with the plan making process. 2. Evidence DB provided an overview of the evidence base documents being Base Review undertaken which include SHMA (including OAN and other matters), ELR, Town Centre Uses and Open Space Assessment. Highlighted that a Duty to Cooperate stakeholder meeting will be scheduled with adjoining authorities regarding these studies. 3. Housing Site DB provided an overview of sites across the Borough highlighting that Selection the need to allocate additional sites will be dependent upon outputs of the SHMA/OAN.

Noted that the Council are anticipating decisions on two applications at Low Lane Ingleby (550 dwellings following a High Court decision and 200 which has recently been the subject of a public inquiry) also noted that there is a live application at Kirklevington for 145 dwellings. 4. Strategic and RW noted that it would be interesting to have a map of housing sites to JD local capacity of add context and allow highways colleagues to review. the highway network 5. AOB Discussion ensued regarding the current public inquiry regarding retail development at Scotch Corner

Agreed that future Duty to Cooperate matters can be conducted via e- mail unless circumstances require a meeting.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Hambleton District Council

Meeting Location: Civic Centre, Hambleton Date: 18 April 2016

Attendees: SBC DCC David Bage Hannah Langler John Dixon

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure at SBC and identified Timetable & timescales for plan preparation which have been published on the Evidence Base Council website ahead of a revised LDS. Review 2. Hambleton HL noted that Issues &Options has been out to consultation with Local Plan Preferred Options scheduled got September. Noted that much of the update evidence base is being updated. An OAN has been prepared via the SHMA (identified need of 274) and ELR/Town Centre Use studies are on-going. Discussion ensued regarding the alignment of job creation with housing requirement. 3. Evidence DB identified what assessments the evidence base review contains and Base Review that they will be completed in June. Discussions revolved around the following matters: • SHMA- discussion regarding the housing market area and stakeholder workshop scheduled for the 3rd May • ELR- DB identified the need to link this with the outputs of the SHMA. A Duty to Cooperate meeting will be held to share the outputs of this study (alongside TCU) • Town Centre Uses- noted that there are limited cross boundary issues regarding this matter and the scope of the TCU is predominantly a retail capacity assessment but expanded to cover needs for other town centre uses. • Open Space Assessment- being undertaken by consultants 4. Housing Site DB provided an overview of sites across the Borough highlighting that Selection the need to allocate additional sites will be dependent upon outputs of the SHMA/OAN. Noted that many sites proposed now have permission and the only sites remaining are at West Stockton Strategic Urban Extension and Wynyard.

HL provided some context regarding sites submitted to the local plan process during the call for sites identifying that work is on-going to assess these. 5. Strategic and No issues identified. HL noted that a main priority for Hambleton is to local capacity of promote/improve east-west movement. the highway network 6. AOB HL noted that Hambleton have achieved a 5 year supply against the SHMA requirement. This has been used as the basis to refuse 8 planning applications.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Stockton Borough Council

Meeting Location: Stockton Municipal Buildings Date: 25 January 2017

Attendees: SBC: Ian Robinson, David Bage, Jane Palmer, John Dixon, Peter Shovlin. HBC: Andrew Carter, Matthew King, Matthew Clifford.

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan Hartlepool. Consultation on the Publication document closes on 3rd Timetables February. The submission document will be reported to Full Council on 16th March. Submission is scheduled for 23rd March. Signed a service level agreement with PINS. Stockton. Regulation 18 consultation has closed. There was discussion about the possible timing of the Housing White Paper and the possible implications for both authorities. 2. Locational Hartlepool’s locational strategy: The main strategic housing site is strategy and High Tunstall (an urban extension). The aim is that the developers will objectively contribute towards a new junction onto the A19 and a new bypass to assessed the north of Elwick Village which will be a significant improvement in a housing need highway safety context. HBC is paying the costs of the consultants who are representing the landowners whose cooperation is required for this project to be implemented. Discussions are ongoing as to how to make it work in operational terms. It was originally hoped that Local Growth Funding would be secured to pay for the works with the developer repaying the LGF through legal agreements but now other options for funding are also being investigated including the Homes and Communities Agency and the Council underwriting the costs with repayment in the same way. It should be noted that the latter is the least favoured option. Hartlepool’s objectively assessed housing need (OAN): HBC commissioned an addendum to the SHMA. The addendum looked at the scenario behind the SHMA. It reduced the OAN. HBC looked back at the backlog (underperformance against the annual housing target) since the 2006 Local Plan and added it to the OAN. The OAN total requirement is about 4300 dwellings. For the purpose of translating the OAN into a housing requirement, HBC responded positively to a representation from the Home Builders Federation in response to the consultation on the Preferred Options document which contended that the housing requirement should include a buffer of 20% for flexibility. In addition, allowance has also been made for replacement of demolitions. The emerging housing requirement is now about 6,100 dwellings of which about 4,000 already have planning permission so about 2,100 are new allocations. Stockton’s locational strategy and OAN: The locational strategy includes a strategic urban extension to the west of Stockton. Stockton SHMA reaffirmed Hartlepool SHMA that the boroughs are separate in a housing market area context. The OAN is about 11,060 dwellings. This has still to be translated into a housing requirement. One of the topics covered by the Local Plan consultation document is how the OAN should be translated into a housing requirement and how this should be phased. 3. Wynyard

3a - Proposed There was discussion regarding the sharing of highway mitigation costs, sharing of as proposed in the HBC response to the consultation on the Stockton highway Local Plan and this overlapped with discussion about a memorandum of mitigation costs understanding and a Masterplan.

The cost of the projected improvements to the A689/A19 junction was discussed. PS commented that it had been projected at £3.8 million. AC stated that it is likely to approach £5 million.

IR stated that we need to find a feasible solution to the challenges presented by development at Wynyard, leading to a Masterplan. AC stated that it would be appreciated if the Stockton Local Plan could include a categorical expression of support for development in Wynyard on the Hartlepool side of the boundary.

PS stated that Wynyard Park Ltd has said that they are doing a Masterplan and that this will be available in February. However a wider Masterplan is also required.

AC asked what infrastructure is SBC intending to bring forward to support their Wynyard allocations. JD responded that it is too early to be definitive about this - the Local Plan consultation document states that there is a need for a Masterplan. At this stage it needs to be kept flexible.

DB commented that representations have been received from Wynyard DB Park Ltd and Highways England and that SBC would share these with HBC.

MK stated that Wynyard Residents Association have stated that an additional access onto the A689 to the west of the existing roundabout to alleviate concerns around congestion once the primary school opens. MK asked if this had been considered in the highway modelling. PS responded that this has not been illustrated as being necessary in highway modelling that has occurred to date.

2nd junction is not currently supported by HBC Highway officers because of concerns that it would be too close to an existing junction. Consideration should be given to including this in the modelling to assess the impact a new junction would have on traffic flows. PS responded that the modelling is already comprehensive.

AC commented that the North Burn site was included in the 2006 Local Plan as an employment allocation. The Homes and Communities Agency is the landowner and have promoted the site for housing development. It is not part of the HBC plan strategy and the sites that HBC has proposed as allocations are sequentially preferable. It has not been allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan as HBC officers do not consider it to be deliverable within the context of the cost of the highway mitigation works that would be required. However, there is concern that this situation could change if one of the Wynyard Park housing sites within the Stockton boundary decided to pursue a second access and there is co-operation between landowners.

HBC officers raised the issue of how an agreement to share highway mitigation costs could work in practice and whether if a practical working agreement could be reached, this could be formalised.

AC commented that both authorities have about 800 dwellings left at Wynyard that have not gone through the planning application process and suggested that if this works in the context of highway modelling, then there is a basis for agreement to work together on the assumption of pro-rata highway costs.

JD responded that one the lessons from the West Stockton Strategic Urban extension is that the key consideration is how the payments for community infrastructure are triggered.

PS commented that SBC are working towards a memorandum of understanding with Wynyard Park Ltd and HBC. This will be extended into a formal Masterplan. Agreement on sharing highway costs can be formalised as part of this process. The Masterplan needs to be looked at as part of a larger exercise which will include consideration of whether a spine road is needed. It is essential to determine this now rather than risk it having to be retrofitted. This needs to be tested in the model with full capacity.

AC commented that Wynyard Park Ltd have agreed to the provision of community facilities at the area designated INF4 on the emerging Hartlepool Local Plan Proposals Map. The spine road envisaged to serve the housing and employment allocations on the Hartlepool side of the boundary could link to INF4.

DB stated that SBC would provide a formal response to the written DB comments from HBC on the Stockton Local Plan consultation document. 3b - Protection Hartlepool: MK commented that some employment land at Wynyard of employment has been de-allocated but other than that it remains as it was in the land 2006 Local Plan. Wynyard Park Ltd wish to de-allocate employment land but this is being resisted as it is a crucial part of developing a sustainable community.

Stockton: DB commented that Northumberland Estates have an interest in the Wynyard One site. They have submitted a representation to the Local Plan consultation requesting that it remains in commercial use so the land use should remain constant. 3c - Education DB stated that SBC have had a representation from Jomast for the release of additional land for housing at Wynyard. The land covers that previously identified for the re-location of a private school (the ‘Redhouse’ site) currently situated at Norton but which does not now appear to be intending to re-locate. The site will be considered through the SHLAA process.

AC stated that HBC invited all head teachers to a meeting to inform them about potential new schools at Wynyard asked if they would support bringing forward a secondary school at the Redhouse site. HBC are concerned that it would be a destination rather than doorstep provision and that if it happens it would fundamentally alter the dynamic of the A689/A19 junction during peak travelling times. 3d - Sport and MK stated that within the community facilities area at Wynyard, Recreation identified in the Hartlepool Publication Local Plan, a multi use games area and a third generation football pitch is proposed. There was discussion as to the most effective means of funding this, including whether contributions should be on a cross-boundary basis. 3e - Green DB commented that SBC are looking reviewing green wedges as part of Wedge a wider comprehensive review of designations which would include consideration of whether it is appropriate to introduce Green Belt into the Tees Valley.

AC asked if consideration would be given to allocating land to the north of Wynyard Village as green wedge. JD responded that historically the SBC approach to green wedges has been to contain them within development limits. DB added that a discussion specifically about Wynyard will be needed when SBC undertake their strategic review of environmental designations. 3f - The There was discussion about the emerging Wynyard Neighbourhood emerging Development Plan and its relationship to the process of producing the Wynyard Masterplan. Both Councils have offered support to the Wynyard Neighbourhood Neigbourhood Development Forum but the group appear to be Development proceeding independently. Plan 4. Employment MK stated that employment allocations in the emerging Hartlepool Local Plan are focused to the south of the town including safeguarding employment sites in the Southern Business Zone. DB commented that SBC have undertaken an Employment Land Review and expressed the draft Employment Land Portfolio in the draft Local Plan. 5. Transport Regarding development at Wynyard, MK stated that HBC are committed to working with the developers and SBC regarding the delivery of a dedicated north bound lane onto the A19 and a 3rd lane across the roundabout at the A19/A179 junction as well as a pedestrian crossing. The cost has been estimated at circa £5 million.

The proposed new bypass to the north of Elwick Village linking to a new junction and grade separated access onto the A19 needs to be delivered by 2020, prior to Highways England’s widening scheme from Wynyard to Norton. The new grade separated junction and bypass should help to reduce pressure elsewhere.

MK also commented on the A19/A179 junction. This is within Durham County Council’s area but funding for improvements is linked to development within Hartlepool. It is a condition of the consented Upper Warren development, that this will fund the installation of traffic signals for the western (northbound exit) slip road at this interchange. Discussions are also ongoing over the possibility of full signalisation at the junction being funded from other proposed developments in the area. 6. Gypsies and MK stated that this issue had proved very controversial in the context of Travellers the previous draft Hartlepool Local Plan, which was abandoned in 2013. HBC have subsequently updated the evidence base for gypsy and traveller accommodation needs. The new study shows minimal need that it is not considered would materialise into a demand for a site to be built and therefore it was decided that there was no need for a site to be allocated and a criteria based policy would suffice. The change to the definition of travellers has re-affirmed this position.

DB commented that SBC have undertaken a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment as part of the evidence base review. This identified that there is only a small need. The evidence suggests that this can be met on the existing Bowesfield site. 7. Renewable MK stated that HBC have allocated two areas for wind turbine energy development in the emerging Local Plan. One is at High Volts which is an existing site where an increase in the number of turbines would be allowed. The other is at Seaton Carew. There were about 150 objections to this at the Preferred Options stage. Consequently for the Publication document, the number of turbines has been reduced from 6 to 4 with a maximum height of 99m and the site area pulled back so that it is further away from residential areas.

DB stated that SBC have a criteria-based wind energy policy in the emerging Local Plan. 8. Ecology MK stated that both authorities are working together regarding ecology at Wynyard and within the south of the Borough.

DB stated that Natural England has responded to the consultation on the emerging Local Plan. There are significant issue regarding North Tees. SBC are working with HBC through the Tees Estuary Partnership process on this. 9. Retail MK stated that HBC have followed the town centre-first, sequential approach that is in line with national policy. There will be a retail centre at Wynyard but it is intended to be purely local. The town centre manager attended one of the consultation events. His main concern was that some high profile operators such as Next are drawing trade away from the town centre to the retail parks at the Marina.

DB commented that SBC are considering eliminating neighbourhood centres and reviewing local centres in order to make the approach more consistent with the approach taken elsewhere. Teesside Park and Portrack Lane are both identified as out of area locations in the emerging Local Plan. AC expressed support for this. 10. Community MK commented that HBC are not doing a CIL and this position is Infrastructure unlikely to change. HBC are still using Section 106s as the primary tool Levy for mitigating the impact of development.

JP stated that SBC have a draft charging schedule on hold pending possible national policy changes regarding CIL. 11. Any other DB commented that SBC will be supportive of the strategic gap in the business emerging Hartlepool Local Plan to the north of Billingham.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Darlington Borough Council

Meeting Location: Town Hall, Darlington Date: 3 July 2017

Attendees: SBC DBC Iain Robinson David Hand David Bage David Nelson Joanne Hutchcraft

Agenda Item Action 1. Introductions DH welcomed IR, DB, JH. DB provided an overview of the Local Plan & 2. Timetable timetable and the identified strategic cross boundary issues. DH advised that the preferred options stage of the Local Plan for Darlington is planned for Spring 2018. 3. Housing DB provided an overview of the OAN and work undertaken to translate this into a housing requirement. Noted that SBC are proposing to allocate above the draft requirement to provide flexibility.

Further to this DB provided an overview regarding the housing site- selection process and emerging allocations. The group were informed that planning applications have been allowed as rural exception sites. Also JH to send appeal decision for The Stables, Redmarshall to DH JH and DN.

DN asked how SBC are dealing with school provision and catchments in the OAN. DB stated that it is not a big issue at SBC. A Church of England school has been included within the planning application. DBC need to bear in mind school in Bishopton in regards to increase in housing provision nearby. 4. Economic DB provided an overview of the evidence base and emerging Growth allocations with respect to employment land and retail. Discussion ensued regarding the pSPA, Tees Estuary Partnership (TEP) and continued work being undertaken to underpin the Habitat Regulations Assessments.

DB informed the group that in regards to Durham Tees Valley Airport (DVTA), the Local Plan includes a policy which was developed with Darlington Council and is consistent with the position in the DBC Document ‘Making and Growing Places DPD’, the extant planning permission, and the Airport Master plan for the area. This approach was noted by DBC. DN confirmed that there is a local centre included in the master plan for DTVA. 5. Transport and DB provided an overview of emerging policies and main infrastructure Infrastructure requirements to deliver draft Local Plan allocations. DN highlighted the upcoming consultation event being hosted by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, in partnership with the five local Councils and Highways England, on a range of proposals for better transport connections across the area. 6. Environment DB provided an overview of emerging policies. Discussion ensued and Climate regarding the approach Local Planning authorities are taking to Change strategic gap and green wedge.

DB went through the policies map and there is no green infrastructure planned on the boundary with Darlington Borough Council. There is a cycle way from Middleton St George, which DN confirmed that they will look at including in DBC Local Plan.

DB informed the group that SBC Local Plan includes a stand-alone policy in regards to protecting the Stockton Darlington Railway. 7. A.O.B DB raised DBCs representation to the draft Local Plan. In this DBC questioned how SBC are dealing with Gypsy and Traveller Sites. DB confirmed that part 2 of the SHMA identified that there is a need for 7 pitches. The study identified that there were sufficient available pitches to meet this need. However, in order to be clear this issue will be clarified in the publication draft of the plan.

DBC raised the issue of member involvement in Local Plans. DB informed the group that member involvement as part of the duty to cooperate is currently being considered and there will be a need to agree a consistent approach.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Meeting Location: Municipal Buildings Stockton Date: 5 July 2017

Attendees: SBC R&CBC David Bage Neil Cole John Dixon

Agenda Item Action 1. Introductions DB welcomed NC and provided an overview of the Local Plan timetable & 2. Timetable and the identified strategic cross boundary issues. NC advised that the examination on the Local Plan for Redcar & Cleveland is due to begin in September. Discussion ensued regarding the progression of the Local Plan, evidence base and inter-relationship with the cross boundary issues which is detailed below. 3. Housing DB provided an overview of the OAN and work undertaken to translate this into a housing requirement. Noted that SBC are proposing to allocate above the draft requirement to provide flexibility. NC provided an overview regarding challenges to the emerging housing requirement and relationship to recent and anticipated appeal decisions. Owing to the inter-relationship of housing market areas it was agreed that it would be appropriate to consider producing a joint position statement to be prepared between relevant local planning authorities which will provide a high level approach to housing market areas and housing requirements. DB explained that he will raise this issue with Middlesbrough Borough Council in an already scheduled DTC meeting. DB Further to this DB provided an overview regarding the housing site- selection process and emerging allocations; agreed that there were no cross boundary issues emerging from specific sites. 4. Economic DB provided an overview of the evidence base and emerging Growth allocations with respect to employment land and retail. Discussion ensued regarding the pSPA, Tees Estuary Partnership (TEP) and continued work being undertaken to underpin the Habitat Regulations Assessments. Noted that this is a cross boundary issue and continued collaborative working will continue through the TEP. 5. Transport and DB provided an overview of emerging policies and main infrastructure Infrastructure requirements to deliver draft Local Plan allocations. Discussion ensured regarding the emerging Tees Valley AAP and importance this has in providing Highways England with the evidence they need to support Local Plans. NC noted that interim work is being undertaken with TVCA regarding this matter in advance of the local plan examination. DB highlighted the upcoming consultation event being hosted by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, in partnership with the five local Councils and Highways England, on a range of proposals for better transport connections across the area. 6. Environment DB provided an overview of emerging policies. Discussion ensued and Climate regarding the approach Local Planning authorities are taking to Change strategic gap and green wedge. 7. A.O.B No other business discussed.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Middlesbrough Borough Council Meeting Location: Municipal Buildings Stockton Date: 6 July 2017

Attendees: SBC MBC David Bage Alex Conti Joanne Hutchcraft Katherine Whitwell

Agenda Item Action 1. Introductions DB welcomed AC, KW from MBC and provided an overview of the & 2. Timetable Local Plan timetable and the identified strategic cross boundary issues. DB explained that we had a useful and informative visit from PINS at the end of June. JH to send AC contact for PINS. JH

AC asked if any progress had been made in regards to Member Involvement for Duty to Cooperate, DB to feedback from discussion at a DB higher level at SBC. AC advised that the Local Plan preferred options draft for Middlesbrough is planned for September 2017 and examination is then expected to be in summer 2018. 3. Housing DB provided an overview of the OAN and work undertaken to translate this into a housing requirement. Noted that SBC are proposing to allocate above the draft requirement to provide flexibility. DB informed the team that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC) are preparing a statement on the housing market area. This is proposed to be a high level narrative paper. AC agreed that MBC would be willing to consider further cross boundary working especially as a consultation on the OAN Standardised Methodology is expected to commence later this month.

AC stated that MBC will consider adding Tees Marshalling Yard into the plan as an aspiration. AC 4. Economic DB provided an overview of the evidence base and emerging Growth allocations with respect to employment land and retail. Discussion ensued regarding the pSPA, Tees Estuary Partnership (TEP) and continued work being undertaken to underpin the Habitat Regulations Assessments.

DB explained that given the volatility of the retail need evidence SBC are being cautious regarding the comparison retail floor space need figures stated in the plan beyond 2021. AC informed the group that MBC only has a small convenience retail requirement in the south of the borough. 5. Transport and DB provided an overview of emerging policies and main infrastructure Infrastructure requirements to deliver draft Local Plan allocations. DB highlighted the upcoming consultation event being hosted by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, in partnership with the five local Councils and Highways England, on a range of proposals for better transport connections across the area. 6. Environment DB provided an overview of emerging policies. Discussion ensued and Climate regarding the approach Local Planning authorities are taking to Change strategic gap and green wedge. DB stated that SBC will send KW a copy of the green wedge review. SBC 7. A.O.B No other business discussed.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Durham County Council

Meeting Location: County Hall, Durham Date: 10 July 2017

Attendees: SBC DCC John Dixon Mike Allum Joanne Hutchcraft Graeme Smith

Agenda Item Action 1. Introductions GS welcomed JD, JH. JD provided an overview of the Local Plan & 2. Timetable timetable and the identified strategic cross boundary issues. GS advised that DCC are taking a report to Cabinet on Wednesday, which will hopefully mean they are able to start again subject to the OAN Methodology consultation. This is due to start this month.

JD informed the group that SBC had a visit from PINS Inspector Malcolm Rivett, which was extremely useful and informative. 3. Housing JD provided an overview of the OAN and work undertaken to translate this into a housing requirement. Noted that SBC are proposing to allocate above the draft requirement to provide flexibility.

JD also explained how older people’s housing needs are taken into account in the Local Plan. This has been calculated using demographics and additional work from ORS. This figure has been incorporated in to the housing requirement.

GS stated that it has been identified that there are 51 people moving from Stockton to Durham each year and questioned if this has been JD taken into account. JD stated that this will be checked and will feedback. GS also stated that if SBC are changing the commuting ratio and it affects DCC please feedback. 4. Economic JD provided an overview of the evidence base and emerging allocations Growth with respect to employment land and retail.

5. Transport and JD provided an overview of emerging policies and main infrastructure Infrastructure requirements to deliver draft Local Plan allocations. GS asked how SBC are dealing with school provision and catchments in the OAN and is there a secondary school planned at Wynyard? JD advised that there is sufficient secondary provision in Stockton and a Church of England school has been included within the planning application. JD also highlighted the upcoming consultation event being hosted by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, in partnership with the five local Councils and Highways England, on a range of proposals for better transport connections across the area. 6. Environment JD provided an overview of emerging policies. Discussion ensued and Climate regarding the approach Local Planning authorities are taking to Change strategic gap and green wedge. 7. A.O.B GS had a small number of cross boundary issues in which they wanted to discuss.

First of all, the approach SBC have taken in regards to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation. JD advised that it was identified as part of the SHMA that there was a requirement for 7 pitches. These can be accommodated within existing sites; therefore SBC will not be allocating new sites. This will be clarified in the Local Plan publication draft.

Secondly is the Durham University campus site in Stockton. GS questioned if SBC have considered the economic impact of the students from the Stockton Campus at Durham University. JD advised that this is not an issue at SBC.

Lastly, member involvement in regards to the duty to cooperate. JD advised that this is being discussed at a higher level at SBC with it preferably being through the Tees Valley Combined Authority. MA stated that DCC would welcome a similar approach. JH stated that we would raise this issue about duty to cooperate with DCC and other JH authorities.

SBC Duty to Cooperate Meeting

Agenda

July 2017

1. Introductions

2. Timetable

3. Hartlepool Examination

4. Statement of Common Ground

5. Housing- Wynyard

6. Economic Growth

7. Transport and Infrastructure

8. Environment and Climate Change

9. A.O.B

Local Plan Duty to Co-operate Meeting Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council / Hartlepool Borough Council

Thursday 24th August 2017, 15:00

Municipal Buildings, Stockton-on-Tees

Agenda

1. Update on Local Plan issues

a. EA objection to HBC Plan b. Natural England objection to HBC Plan

2. Key issues raised by Counsel

a. Viability b. Renewable energy c. Wynyard sustainability d. Duty to cooperate

3. SBC role at the Hartlepool Examination

4. Statement of Common Ground and Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

a. Format b. Content c. Timeframe

5. Any other business

Wynyard Duty to Cooperate Timeline Late 2009 Inspector’s Report on Stockton’s Core Strategy states that the Wynyard area and Wynyard Park specifically should be discussed at the regional level. Up to 2010, both local authorities adopted a consistent strategic planning approach based on the boundaries of the original master-plans for the area, a position recognised by the Inspector reviewing the Stockton-on-Tees Core Strategy. March 2010 Stockton Core Strategy adopted. November 2010 Hartlepool Preferred Options consultation proposed 100 executive dwellings in the Wynyard Woods area, but increased to 4 pockets of land (Wynyard Woods West, Pentagon, Forest East and Forest West) and a total of 300 executive homes to be built out at between 10-35 dwellings per annum over a 12 year period 2013 -2026. Wynyard remains a Prestige Employment Site and North Burn becomes a High Quality Employment Site. Stockton responds setting out our position, but do not formally object. April 2011 Hartlepool consults Stockton on outline application for 219 dwellings on land to the west of Wynyard Park, Wynyard (H/2011/0102). This application was subsequently reduced to 200 dwellings in line with the then emerging allocation. Stockton’s response raises a number of concerns including role of Wynyard for housing and employment land and the potential for a future masterplan in the area. June – September 2011 – Stockton consulted on Core Strategy Review Issues and Options (entitled Planning for Housing). Hartlepool responded to the consultation, supporting executive but not market housing at Wynyard, especially on Wynyard Business Park land, due to impact on housing market in Hartlepool and on the Business Park. Support pedestrian bridge across the A689. November 2011 – Duty to Cooperate introduced by the Localism Act to facilitate strategic planning without Regional Spatial Strategies (which were finally revoked in 2013). November 2011 Hartlepool minded to approve outline application for 219 dwellings on land to the west of Wynyard Park, Wynyard (H/2011/0102). However developer never signed s106 - subsequent smaller applications for parcels of the land have been received. January 2012 Hartlepool Publication draft consultation includes Wynyard as site for approximately 300 new executive dwellings with 200 at Wynyard Park (Pentagon Site) and 100 at Wynyard Woods. SBC does not raise any issues of soundness but raises suggestions related to infrastructure impacts. March 2012 - Publication of the National Planning Policy Framework 24 May 2012 SBC officers meet Hartlepool Officers to inform them of the outcome of Planning for Housing Consultation and a proposed change to the Core Strategy Spatial Strategy to include proposed allocation of significant housing at Wynyard. Changes to be taken forward as part of Regeneration and Environment LDD Preferred Options Consultation. May 2012 planning permission granted for Red House School to relocate from the current site at Norton to a location east of Wynyard Village in Stockton. Summer 2012 Stockton Preferred Options Consultation – proposed allocation of employment land adjacent to the A689 and housing further north. Hartlepool Borough Council objected to the Regeneration and Environment LDD preferred options in relation to the number of houses, type of homes, loss of Black Square Plantation, impact on the strategic road network, and public transport and cycling links. June 2012 Hartlepool Submission of Local Plan to PINS No significant changes from publication draft in relation to Wynyard. Stockton responded ‘It is envisaged that the main cross boundary issues relate to the Wynyard area. As you are aware Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has recently published the Regeneration and Environment Local Development Document. This preferred options version of the document identifies housing allocations in the Wynyard area and assesses the requirement to restructure planning consents at the Wynyard Park employment site. It is envisaged that the restructuring of these consents will be an important area of the discussions at the examination in public. However, it is important to recognise that during the preparations of the Regeneration and Environment LDD preferred options document and the Hartlepool Local Plan, Hartlepool Borough Council have engaged with this Council in line with the duty to cooperate’. December 2012/ January 2013 - Following the preferred options version of Stockton’s plan, planning applications were submitted for residential development at Wynyard: · Wynyard Park - SBC Ref: 12/2784/OUT - Originally sought 1,000 dwellings, but was reduced to 400 homes. HBC Ref: H/2013/0043 dealt with elements of the scheme within Hartlepool Borough. · Wynyard Village - SBC Ref: 13/0342/EIS – Originally sought 650 homes, but was reduced to 500 homes. HBC Ref: H/2013/0076 dealt with elements of the scheme within Hartlepool Borough. · Wynyard Park - HBC Ref: H/2013/0033 – Originally sought 600 dwellings, but was reduced to 200 dwellings. Spring 2013 - Atlas engaged by the Local Authorities to assist in determination of planning applications. Collaborative working to progress planning applications involving HBC, SBC and Arup to determine the amount of development which could be taken forward in the Wynyard area, taking into account existing proposals, developer aspirations and committed development. Autumn 2012 to Autumn 2013 – Hartlepool hold Examination in Public, including six month adjournment for further work (not related to Wynyard). October 2013 Hartlepool Local Plan withdrawn by Members post-Examination. Hartlepool begin work on a new Local Plan. April 2014 following amendments to the proposals the applications were presented to the respective planning committees of each authority on 1/4/14 and were recommended for approval. Only Wynyard Village (13/0342/EIS) would be issued with a decision notice (30/01/2017) applications at Wynyard Park (H/2013/0033 and 12/2784/OUT) were minded for approval by members but remain live applications, and are unlikely to have a signed Section106 agreement due to complex legal agreements outwith planning. As a result decision notices for the proposals are unlikely to be issued and the development have progressed through the submission of individual planning applications for parcels within these areas, as detailed below. May 2014 – Hartlepool Issues and Options Consultation on new Local Plan. SBC do not raise objections but comment that additional detail could also be provided on the strategic role of the Wynyard area, which cuts across local authority boundaries. An agreed approach between the Councils will set the context for development plan policies and will allow future decisions to be made in a consistent manner. Other comments related to the amount and type of emplyoment land at Wynyard Park, and the road network. October & November 2014 – Stockton-on-Tees RELP Publication finalised following internal consultation and begins democratic process for external consultation in February 2015. Includes housing and employment allocations at Wynyard Park and a ‘safeguarded’ housing allocation to be supported if infrastructure becomes available. Also safeguards land for link road to a future second A19 junction, on the basis of the Local Growth Fund bid, subsequent addition to the Tees Valley Strategic Priorities List and Wynyard: Unlocking the Development Potential Briefing Note received from Tech Services. November 2014 - Full planning application for 240 homes submitted by Bett homes (14/2993/EIS). The site boundary fell within the area identified for housing in planning application 12/2784/OUT which was reduced to 400 homes. Permission granted 21.08.2015. At the time of writing the remainder of the developable land in 14/2993/EIS / 160 homes have not been subject to a planning application. January 2015 – Hartlepool Employment Land Review reported to Hartlepool Borough Cabinet, in January 2015 seeking land supply reductions totalling 151.8 ha. With regard to Wynyard they propose: North Burn - Development of B-Class employment uses here is considered unlikely given access constraints. It is recommended that this site be de-allocated unless there is clear evidence that funds will be available during the plan period to address the infrastructural issues associated with developing this site. Stockton received notification that the ELR was being undertaken, but were not involved in the evidence gathering process or inputting into the conclusions of the report. Wynyard Park - Development will be for a mix of uses (subject to signing of a Section 106) comprising, at present at least, 31.5 ha of B-Class uses, 22.7 ha for a hospital (which can be considered as employment land until the hospital development is realised) and 17.4 ha for housing and local services. Another 22.7 ha in the north is considered undevelopable hence should be de- allocated and become white land. The employment allocation should be amended to reflect this. 22 January 2015 – Development Plans Officers Meeting hosted by Stockton with attendees from all Tees Valley and adjacent authorities includes short introduction to the Plan and display of the draft Publication Proposals Map. February 2015 – RELP Publication Consultation begins. Hartlepool provided a detailed response to this consultation supporting certain policies, but also raising concerns related to policies and issues which link to North Burn and a proposed second junction on the A19. This junction had historically been identified as a second access to the original Samsung development and an employment allocation in Hartlepool Borough known as North Burn. The emerging Hartlepool Local Plan did not include the junction nor the allocation at North Burn which was recommended for de-allocation by the Hartlepool Employment Land Review. The response also raised issues with the designation of Wynyard as a new sustainable settlement. May 2015 - Planning application 14/3308/FUL submitted by Barratt David Wilson North East. This application was on land outside of the area identified in application 12/2784/OUT. The proposal was permitted on 08/12/2016 and increased the number of homes where the principle of housing had been accepted on the part of Wynyard Park in Stockton-on-Tees Borough to 500. September 2015 - Application submitted by Mauve Ltd for 200 dwellings at Wynyard Park (15/2164/OUT). This proposal was also in addition to the 400 homes where the principle was established by application 12/2784/OUT. At the time of writing this proposal has not been determined. If permitted it would raise the number of homes where the principle of housing had been accepted on the part of Wynyard Park in Stockton-on-Tees Borough to 700. December 2015 - SBC begin Local Plan Evidence base review concentrating on Housing OAN, Employment Land Review and Town Centre Use Needs commenced following report to SBC Cabinet. March 2016 - Duty to Cooperate meeting between SBC and HBC. Key points included: - There are a number of planning applications for Wynyard and a number of recent approvals. Thus the new draft plan will have proposed sites in Wynyard. - In the examination of the HBC withdrawn Local Plan all Wynyard sites were removed by the Inspector due to sustainability and deliverability. However given the lack of executive locations within the borough, the current view is that allocations need to be made in this location to address this need. North Burn Electronics Park was also removed within the withdrawn plan for reasons to do with the deliverability due to the need for £20million investment in a necessary junction. April 2016 - Director level meeting including Highways England to discuss future collaborative approach at Wynyard. April 2016 - Officer level DTC meeting to discuss Local Plans and outcome of Director level meeting. Agreed that SPD / AAP was not appropriate but it would be appropriate to prepare a Delivery Framework Document for the area (similar to West Stockton DFD). Noted that key to this project would be a well-structured series of meetings/working groups with relevant interested parties and disciplines. Noted the need for planning lead within each authority. May 2016 - Hartlepool Borough Council publish Local Plan Preferred Options document for consultation (27th May to 22nd July). June 2016 - SBC cease work on RELP and begin new Stockton-on-Tees Local Plan which will replace the adopted Core Strategy. November 2016 - SBC Consult on Draft Local Plan (Reg 18). Draft policy H3 identifes that a masterplan approach will be undertaken to deliver a sustainable settlement and that the policy would be further developed as the plan and masterplanning progresses. The document recognises planning permissions at Wynyard Village and sets out an allocation for 1,100 homes at Wynyard Park (including sites where planning applications had been submitted and minded for approval). The Plan did not include a second access to the A19 to serve Wynyard park and North Burn. December 2016 - Hartlepool Council Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation (9th December 2016 to 3rd February 2017). January 2017 - Hartlepool Borough Council respond to SBC Local Plan. Meeting to discuss representations and emerging Local Plans. March 2017 - Meeting to discuss Wynyard Masterplan (un-minuted). Agreed that highway modelling is required to inform any masterplan and also to determine live planning applications in both Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees Borough. Formal masterplanning to be undertaking following receipt of modelling. - Hartlepool Local Plan Submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. - SBC response to Local Plan on the 31st March, outside the consultation period. Not classified as a duly made representation but given the significance of Stockton as a neighbouring authority and the cross-boundary Wynyard location it was accepted as part of the evidence library. June 2017 - Planning application 17/1542/FUL submitted by Barratt David Wilson North East. This sought revisions to application 14/3308/FUL which resulted in a net increase of +10 dwellings. If permitted it would raise the number of homes where the principle of housing had been accepted on the part of Wynyard Park in Stockton-on-Tees Borough to 510, potentially 710 if 15/2164/OUT is permitted. July 2017 - Duty to Cooperate meeting between SBC and HBC to discuss SBC Publciation Local Plan and latest Hartlepool position leading in to examination in public. August 2017 Discussions between SBC and HBC on preparation of Statement of Common Ground to support Hartlepool Local Plan Examination in Public and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Publication Draft Local Plan. September 2017 - Consultation on Stockton-on-Tees Borough Local Plan Publication Draft. - Hartlepool Borough Local Plan scheduled with SBC invited to attend session on Legal and Procedural Matters.

Section 3 – Other Partner Meetings

Contains individual Local Plan meetings with:

• Environment Agency

• Historic England

• Natural England

• Correspondence with the TVNP

• CCG Meeting

• Summary of cooperation between Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited and Natural England (2009 to 2015) Regeneration and Environment Local Plan Publication Draft Natural England Representation

29 April 2015, 11.00 am

Conference Room 2, Municipal Buildings, Stockton-on-Tees

Minutes

Attendees:

SBC – Chris Renahan, Peter Shovlin, Bill Trewick, Rosemary Young, Jane Palmer, David Bage, Rebecca Wren.

Natural England – Mike Leakey, Alastair Welch, John King, Brad Tooze, Hannah Campbell.

Item Notes Actions Policy T3 BTrewick provide a briefing on the history of the Portrack Relief Road (PRR) and its importance. PS explained the difficulties with providing an alternative route and the potential mitigation for the scheme that had already been discussed with the Tees Valley Wildlife Trust. JL stated that, while NE have no objections in principle to the PRR scheme, it is necessary for the SA to include all reasonable options and justification of the proposed route for the PRR should be included within the SA. Policy T2 PS and ML explained the Greatham creek footpath proposals and the involvement of Natural England in the scheme. The group was advised that no HRA had been completed but that this could not be done without an agreed alignment for the HRA.

BTooze stated that there should be recognition of the aspirational nature of the potential scheme.

JK to review advice in relation to this policy. JK

Policy EMP2 DB and RY outlined the previous work in relation to industrial development and strategic mitigation. Discussion of the issues followed.

BTooze stated that Natural England requires strategic mitigation but suggested options to progress the plan:

Option 1 – The provision of compensation for Sabic for the use of their land - It was suggested that Tees Valley Unlimited, as the LEP, could purchase the land and be paid back from developer contributions. RY explained that this option had been considered and dismissed and CR stated that there were other priorities for the Local Growth Fund. Discussion around the potential for CIL funding to be used occurred and JP stated that CIL could not be relied upon to fund the mitigation.

Option 2 – Alternative sites for strategic mitigation – 2 potential options were identified by ML. Site 1 – Land to the south of Impetus’s landfill (reference 10 in the bird study) was discussed. BTooze stated that strategic mitigation needs to be secure and deliverable but could be delivered gradually as the impacts are as a result of in combination effects. It was stated that mitigation on the Impetus land could be delivered over time as the over burden is removed from the site.

DB to revisit the original permission for the landfill site and to DB check on the restoration agreements. SBC to consider making an approach to impetus. RY

Site 2 – Land owned by the Tees Environmental Trust (TET) and leased to RSPB (north of Saltholme reserve). The potential of this site to provide for mitigation was discussed. The potential for an East Billingham Transport Corridor was noted but it was considered that sufficient land would remain if the scheme did go ahead.

It was agreed that SBC should approach TET and the RSPB and RY set up a meeting that also includes Natural England. Contacts for the meeting should be John Mann (TET), Dave Braithwaite (RSPB) and ML

The group then considered how to proceed if the 2 potential options could not be achieved. ML stated that it could be possible to look further afield for mitigation sites but that no further options had been identified. Removing all reference to Seal Sands from the plan was discussed but it was stated that this would not be an ideal solution for Natural England.

JK to reconsider advice on this issue. JK

HRA RW expressed concerns over the lack of consistency with Natural England advice and Natural England concerns over the terminology and structure of the HRA were discussed.

JK considered that the reporting of the screening of Likely Significant Effects could be streamlined and the HRA made clearer. It was agreed that no further evidence was required to inform the HRA and that the significant issue related to policies relating to Seal Sands. SA No significant issues were raised with the SA provided additional information is included on PRR.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Environment Agency to discuss comments received to the RELP publication draft.

Meeting Location: Conference 3 Municipal Buildings Date: 14 May 2015

Attendees: SBC- Matthew Clifford John Dixon EA- Lucy Mo Cameron Sked

Policy Ref/ Action Topic Heading MC welcomed attendees to the meeting and noted that we would seek to cover the general comments covered by the EA rep prior to progression onto covering the policy/site specific comments. General • LM highlighted that many comments throughout the response were Comments informative/advisory in nature (included potential environmental improvements associated with or within the vicinity of sites) rather than objections to the soundness of policies. • MC/JD highlighted that, especially at this stage in the plan preparation process, it would be more beneficial to distinguish between those comments that are advisory and those that are necessary to make the plan sound. Flood risk LM highlighted that this was a general informative comment and there were no specific concerns raised by the approach taken by the Council. Sewerage LM highlighted that this was an advisory comment given the findings of the capacity Tees Valley Water Cycle Study. JD noted that there have been no objections to the plan from NWL. MC highlighted that the majority of development is committed; therefore, the only sites where phasing in relation to infrastructure upgrades could be a concern is around allocated MC sites. MC highlighted that it might be worth re-contacting NWL to confirm that there are no specific concerns regarding phasing. Land JD noted that this is covered by Core Strategy policy CS10(10) contamination Green Requested that the term ‘green infrastructure’ be replaced by the term infrastructure ‘blue and green infrastructure’. JD did not concur given the terminology used in the NPPF which is generally understood to cover ‘blue’ elements of GI. CS did not raise and concerns. De-culverting MC/JD concurred that where appropriate de-culverting would be included within policies. Sustainability JD highlighted that no concerns had been expressed to the points appraisal highlighted and relevant officer would give consideration Infrastructure JD highlighted that these appeared to be minor amendments which would strategy be picked up by the relevant officer CIL JD highlighted that these comments would be considered by the relevant officer RELP policies SP3 Locating • JD highlighted that commentary regarding the protection of ‘riparian development corridors’ could be better suited within policy ENV1. This was supported by LM/CS • JD noted that the Councils approach to directing development to low flood risk areas was enshrined within CS10(9) • Minor amendment suggested to para 2.19 has been incorporated. T2 Widening Noted that this is an advisory comment which can be incorporated within transport supporting text. choice SL1 LM highlighted that this was an advisory point and changes to the policy Development are not necessarily required to make it sound. and amenity SL2 • JD highlighted that the natural environment is a standard term used Renewable throughout the document and no amendments were considered energy necessary. Point accepted by CS. generation • JD highlighted that access to facilities would be considered as part of the decision making process in accordance with other policies. Therefore, no amendments were considered necessary. • JD highlighted that the Councils approach to flood risk is within CS10 (9) and it was not considered necessary to make amendments to this policy. EMP1 JD highlighted that the relevant officer was considering the minor Employment amendment suggested. Land Portfolio EMP2 North Consideration to be given to including reference to the potential to de- Tees and culvert Holme Fleet. Billingham Clarification sought regarding ‘creation of the estuary’ and whether the LM/CS comments made to port and river based sites were as relevant to the wider estuary. JD highlighted the potential to include a more generic reference within the ENV2. LM/CS to consider most appropriate location for reference and wording which can be fed back to the Council. EMP3 • JD highlighted that a Phase 1 habitat assessment was being undertaken Important bird at this location. However, it was considered that existing policies are populations satisfactorily to cover biodiversity at this location. Unless there are specific habitats and species present the Council support development in this location for the uses identified as it forms an important part of the employment land portfolio. • Consideration is being given to highlighting Vopak Foreshore on the policies map. EMP4 Durham JD noted that it would be preferable for the allocation to drain into its own Tees Valley catchment towards the Tees rather than to Lustrum Beck. Officers have Airport highlighted issues regarding the associated costs and limiting effect of existing permissions. This will be further considered by the relevant officer. PF2 Civic JD to consider including reference to improving surface water drainage. space However, noted that this comment was advisory and no objection is raised without the inclusion of this. PF3 JD to consider reference to non-native invasive species (floating Community pennywort) within justification. However, noted that this comment is facilities advisory and no objection is raised without the inclusion of this. H3 Boathouse MC to consider amending policy to: Lane • Directing developers to the recommendations outlined within the level 2 SFRA within supporting text • Reference to non-native invasive species (floating pennywort) • Inclusion of an ecological buffer/strip along the river frontage. CS/LM suggested ‘Design for the river frontage should consider ecological design options for a natural river edge in order to create new habitats’. H4 Queens JD highlighted that the sequential text identifies the development should Park North be directed away from areas at risk from flooding; agreed that consideration should be given to incorporating within policy as per EA comments.

MC to consider the incorporation of other points highlighted within representation. Noted that the culverted section of the site might not be within the allocation boundary, further investigation needed. H5 Swainby MC noted that development on this site has now commenced. Road H10 Yarm MC/JD acknowledged contamination issues associated with the site. Road Considered that the comment advisory and noted that CS10(10) covers this matter. H14 MC stated that the adjacent wetlands were created as part of the Bowesfield approved scheme consistent with as masterplan and are now managed by Riverside Tees Valley Wildlife Trust. It is not considered that it is realistic to expect developers to further enhance this area. MC stated that he will consider the comments regarding the SFRA. MC questioned whether a criterion requiring an ecological buffer was necessary given that there is a significant distance between the site and the river edge. H15 North of MC reiterated his comments to the previous policy. Kingfisher Way H18a/H18b • JD noted that the de-culverting of the tributary of Rosedale Beck was Harrowgate covered within policy. Lane • JD considered that points raised regarding flood-risk were covered by the NPPF which requires development not to increase flood risk elsewhere. CS reviewed comments and suggested that the site has the potential to improve flood risk downstream by reducing run-off; agreed that this would be incorporated into policy. • Regarding sewerage infrastructure JD noted that NWL had attended a meeting of the Core Project Group (who are preparing a Development Framework Document for the site) and confirmed that site could connect to the network in numerous locations and there is network/treatment work capacity to deal with the proposed development. H19 Yarm Similar comments to site H18 Back Lane H21 Leeholme Identified that comments did not relate to the site. LM to review. LM Road H25 Allens MC noted that this scheme was currently being delivered. West H26 Roundhill MC to consider including relevant points within policy Ave H27 Low Lane MC to consider including relevant points within policy H28 Sandhill MC noted that development on this site has now commenced. H29 MC to consider including reference within policy Meadowbrooks H31 South of MC to consider including in the policy a criterion stating that development Green Lane will safeguard the ecological value of Saltergill Beck H32 Tall Trees Similar comments to H31 H33 Wynyard MC to review comments. Village H37 Morrison Noted that this is an advisory point. The site has received consent. Street ENV1 Green Consideration will be given to including de-culverting within the policy. infrastructure ENV2 Natural JD noted that the plan does, and through amendments discussed will, JD environment assist towards achieving the objectives of the WFD. Whilst this document is intended to be predominantly a site allocations documents consideration to including further reference to achieving the objectives of the WFD within environmental policies will be given and revised policy wording forwarded to LM for agreement.

Duty to cooperate meeting with Environment Agency

Meeting Location: Conference 1 Municipal Buildings Date: 26 February 2016

Attendees: SBC EA Rosemary Young James Hudson John Dixon Cameron Sked Alex Davies

Agenda Item Action 1. Regeneration JD highlighted that preparation of the Local Plan has been paused and whilst an evidence base review is undertaken. The evidence base Environment review will include an Objective Assessment of Housing Need and Local Plan Employment Land Review. Dependent upon the outcomes of these studies the Council may be required to allocate additional sites. 2. EA JD noted that a previous meeting had been held with EA in May 2015 in Publication relation to comments made to the publication draft of the plan. In Draft response general these were informative/advisory in nature rather than objections to the soundness of policies.

JD asked CS to elaborate on the Tees Estuary Habitat Vision SPD referenced in the response to the publication draft. CS advised that this is not an SPD, rather that it is an emerging vision document to highlight potential habitat improvements in the Esturaty. CS noted that this is linked to the compensatory package of measures associated with the loss of mudflats, at Redcar, to port development for York Potash (a decision is expected on this in April). Some of the compensatory provision proposed would be the formation of intertidal habitat, to be delivered by TVLNP/TVWT at Portrack Marsh through the removal of a flood barrier.

Discussion ensued regarding the Tees Estuary Masterplan which is seeking to resolve the conflict between employment development and need for strategic mitigation. 3. SFRA JD identified that flood extents had improved in many instances but wanted to understand what the EA position was on the current SFRA and whether it was appropriate to support the current plan and potentially emerging allocations as a result of the evidence base review.

CS highlighted that there were a number of considerations into whether it was necessary to undertake a review of the SFRA. It was the consensus of EA representatives that a Level 2 SFRA addendum should be undertaken which would take into account the recently published Climate Change Allowances.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change- allowances

It is noted that an updated Level 2 SFRA would be of benefit to existing sites by informing exception tests and understanding any impacts upon viability. A Level 2 SFRA would be essential for any new sites identified.

Noted that these new Climate Change Allowances needed to be flagged up with Planning Development Services as they would inform the validation process. Likely that EA will object to any new applications that have Flood Risk Assessments not using the new climate change predictions. 4. A.O.B Noted that EA are currently undertaking modelling to review the flood extents in Billingham Beck and Cowbridge Beck. The outputs of this could have implications for any further flood risk assessments.

Stockton Local Plan Update and Notice of Consultation

Minutes of meeting held on 22nd November 2016, 11am at Stockton Council

1. Welcome and Introductions Present were –James Hudson (EA), Eddie Halstead (EA) – David Bage (SBC) and John Dixon (SBC)

2. John and David provided an update on the Local Plan which the EA was consulted on 21 November. We discussed the spatial vision of the Local Plan, including the urban extension to the west of Stockton and key regenerations site around the Tees which could have flood risk implications to resolve.

3. John and David discussed the Boathouse lane site for which permission has lapsed but is a key site for the Local Authority. The lapsed consent sought to incorporate underground storage of water to mitigate against fluvial flooding.

4. Update on the Billingham campus site, which was granted EA funding as part of the Medium Term Plan - the study is currently being undertaken by Arup and commissioned by SBC to assess the feasibility of de-culverting at the site.

5. John and David also discussed the Green Infrastructure Plan with a framework by spring 2017.

6. The EA provide an update on the Tees Estuary Partnership, which SBC is a member. DB explained that Local Authorities work together through the duty to cooperate at a Tees Valley level with a regular meeting held every 6-weeks to discuss relevant issues. (Action for Eddie to arrange a date with the combined authorities)

7. Eddie explored the potential for Portrack Lane to be able to use European Funding (action for Eddie to get further information from SBC and investigate if we can add it to the Medium Term Plan)

8. We discussed the Update to the 2010 SFRA and new guidance including new climate change allowances. It was agreed by SBC that they would undertake a refresh of the level 1. (Action: SBC to draft brief and share with EA; James to provide climate change guidance)

Duty to co-operate meeting with Natural England

Meeting Location: Municipal Buildings, Stockton Date: 16 January 2017

Attendees: SBC Natural England Chris Renahan Brad Tooze Graham Clingan Glyn Bateman David Bage Andy Whitehead Jane Palmer Katie Finkill-Coombs John Dixon Tom Charman

Agenda Item Action 1. Update Teesmouth & Representatives from Natural England provided an update on Cleveland Coast pSPA the pSPA. This included additional areas to be added to the extension and pSPA (Reclamation Pond, land associated with RSPB boundaries Saltholme and other minor additions), timescales and procedures.

Noted that the timescales to formal consultation on the pSPA have been delayed. It is scheduled that the proposal will be submitted to DEFRA at the end of January 2017. Following agreement by DEFRA formal consultation on the pSPA will begin for a period of 12 weeks.

Detailed discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of Reclamation Pond within the pSPA and the implications this could have for the Council and landowners. Identified that the following actions were required: • SBC to review conditions and s106 associated with SBC extant consent • Natural England to prepare briefing paper on NE mitigation provided to date and implications associated with potential designation. • Natural England will contact landowner in advance of NE formal consultation 2. Tees Estuary DB advised that a briefing paper on the MoU has been SBC Partnership- review prepared and circulated to colleagues. This will be discussed progress share views at an upcoming management meeting and comments will be and ideas around the fed back. MoU, Framework, Strategic Detailed discussion ensued regarding the principles and Mitigation/Environmental method of a delivering strategic mitigation. Agreed that in Credit Bank principle this has the potential to be a method that will be beneficial to numerous stakeholders. However, necessity to ensure that proposed mechanisms are compliant with legislation. BT noted that meetings had been held with the TVCA over the emerging proposals. 3. Local Plan and duty to DB identified that the Local Plan consultation ends on the 20th co-operate January 2017 and detailed the emerging policy position in EG4 relating to economic development and the SPA at Seal Sands. Specifically DB noted that this was written based on the position at the time..

DB noted that we would like to work with Natural England to align policy with work emerging as part of the TEP. However, DB noted that the timetable associated with the Local Plan would likely mean that some compromise would likely be required with a future Local Plan incorporating the full outputs of the TEP.

Duty to Co-operate meeting with Historic England

Meeting Location: Municipal Buildings, Stockton Date: 28th February 2017

Attendees: SBC Natural England David Bage Barbara Hooper John Dixon

Agenda Item Action 1. Introductions DB welcomed BH to the meeting and outlined the purpose of the meeting was to review the comments made by Historic England to the draft Local Plan to seek clarification where necessary and ensure the Council took forward matters in accordance with the wishes of Historic England. DB noted that amendments have been made to the plan on many of the matters identified and this meeting was intended to focus on a number of specific issues.

Noted that whilst there is a need to expand policies to ensure a positive strategy is present within the Local Plan it is important to remember that the Local Plan is read as a whole. 2. Positive Strategy BH noted the positive elements of the draft Local Plan and SBC the presence of a Heritage Strategy. Suggested that the Heritage Strategy needs to link more widely through the policies and explanatory text. Necessity to ensure that heritage assets are referenced within policies and justification where appropriate. DB/JD agreed to ensure this was taken forward as relevant. 3. Site Allocations Noted that comments received on the need to ensure site SBC allocations avoid harming the significance of heritage assets and can present opportunities to enhance the historic environment. JD presented examples of previous work on the assessment of site allocations. Identified that there was a need for this work to be revisited and updated to align with Historic England guidance (Advice Note 3). Noted that outputs of this work will need to be reflected within policy. BH to be consulted on draft work as appropriate. 4. SD3- Housing Prioritisation of brownfield land (3b)- noted concern that not SBC/BH Strategy all brownfield land will be appropriate for development. Need to review policy wording which will potentially provide a link with SD8. Enabling development (3,e2)- identified the need to carefully consider policy wording on this matter if it is to remain. Noted that Historic England guidance on enabling development is emerging. BH to provide potential examples of policy wording. 5. SD5- Environment and Re-use and conversion of buildings (1f/g)- noted the need to SBC Climate Change Strategy consider policy wording carefully and potentially elaborate upon what is meant by ‘demonstrate’ and ‘largely’. DB/JD to consider and discuss with colleagues in development management and legal. Potential to provide linkages with SD8 to ensure policies reflect importance of responding positively to heritage assets. 6. Emerging North East Noted that there is a need to reference as appropriate SBC Marine Plan 7. HE2- Conserving and Noted Historic England concerns in respect of point 3. SBC enhancing Stockton’s Potential to include policy wording that links to NPPF as it Heritage Assets would be inappropriate to re-iterate large tracts of NPPF within policy. 8. Wynyard/Strategic Noted that the proposed masterplan is emerging and that SBC Gap development south of the A689 has the benefit of planning permission. Necessity to review context of consents to ensure heritage assets are appropriately safeguarded within policy. The context of the strategic gap policy was discussed and noted that comments made in relation to the policies map are no-longer relevant. A.O.B Following a discussion of the Tees Heritage Park it was JD agreed that JD would forward relevant contact info for the Friends of Tees Heritage Park and River Tees Rediscovered.

BH to forward information on objections raised to policy BH wording which might assist in reviewing policies.

Duty to cooperate meeting between Stockton on Tees Borough Council and the Stockton and Hartlepool Clinical Commissioning Group

Meeting Location: SBC Public Health Office, 16 Church Road, Stockton on Tees. Date: 14th March 2017 Attendees: SBC CCG David Bage Paula Swindale Mandy Mackinnon Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan DB provided an overview of the structure of the Local Plan and Timetable and identified and timescales for plan preparation. Purpose • Initial consultation took place in November / December/ January last year • Further consultation to take place in late summer 2017. • Document will then be submitted for examination in late 2017. • Examination will take place in 2018, and the document will be adopted if successful. • The Local Plan will then be the starting point for determining all planning applications. DB explained that the plan was supported by a significant evidence base including: • Sustainability Appraisal – which appraises the policies in the Local Plan to ensure they deliver a variety of objectives including health provision. • Infrastructure Strategy – which is to be prepared and may require input from the CCG. 2. Local Plan DB set out how the Local Plan provides for allocations for both Content employment, retail and housing development.

DB identified that the requirement for new homes is based on evidence in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which uses population projections to establish future need. DB introduced the strategic allocations in the plan at West

Stockton and Wynyard. A masterplan had already been

undertaken for West Stockton and that a similar process was about to commence at Wynyard. PS had reviewed the Local Plan prior to the meeting and was positive regarding the policies and sites within the plan. PS to PS circulate the Local Plan within the CCG and provide any feedback asap. PS noted the impact an increased population has on GP practices and health care services. PS noted the identification of a ‘Community Hub’ at the West Stockton site and queried whether this was the same sort of provision which the CCG defined as a Community Hub. DB explained that the policy identified that this would provide provision for convenience retail, a community centre and a primary school, although it is expected that the Primary School may have to be relocated. DB explained that the community hub could provide opportunities for health providers but this could not be controlled by the Council. 3. Emerging PS outlined the plans of the CCG in particular the NHS CCG Plans and Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Durham Dales Programmes Easington and Sedgefield, Darlington, Teesside, Hambleton,

Richmondshire & Whitby.

The STP will involve, amongst other things: • The opening of an Urgent Care Centre at North Tees which will reduce pressure on Accident and Emergency Services

• The creation of Primary Care Hubs in Stockton-On-Tees

Borough and Hartlepool. DB queried whether any broad location had been identified for this provision as there could be implications either for the Local PS Plan or other related Council services.PS agreed to find out the latest position. 4. AOB and Next All agreed that they also willing to work together to the benefit of Steps the community, with regard to the Local Plan and other activities.

DB to produce a short note outlining the discussion. Further DB engagement to be undertaken

Natural England (NE)/ Stockton Borough Council: Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast proposed SPA extension update

Agenda

Date 8 May 2017 Start time 11:00 Finish time 13:00

Location Stockton Borough Council, Church Road, Stockton TS18 1LD

Attendees Natural England Stockton BC Brad Tooze (Area Manager) David Bage Elaine Young (Snr Marine Adviser) Elaine Atkinson David Harrison (NE Legal Team) Chris Renahan

Agenda Item Description Owner Time 1 Introductions All 11:00 2 Update on the designation. Elaine

3 Update on discussions with North Tees Ltd Brad/David/Elaine

3 Conditions of Section 106 agreement/potential costs All

4 Review of Consents Process All

6 Next Steps All

7 AOB All

Stockton on Tees Local Plan

HRA and Emerging Issues: Natural England and RSPB

22nd June 2017

Attendees:

Andrew Baker Baker Consultants Courtenay Holden Baker Consultants Andrew Whitehead Natural England David Bage SBC John Dixon SBC Jane Palmer SBC

All to note that as the pSPA is not out to formal consultation.

Actions Introductions ALL Local Plan Progress DB explained that in line with the and Update (DB) Local Development Scheme the Council hopes to consult on the Local Plan towards the end of the summer Specifically September 2017. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the NE representation to the plan and the approach to the Habitats Regulation Assessment. pSPA Update (AW) Draft boundaries are now defined for AW to forward as shape files the pSPA. the draft boundaries. These Reported that work is ongoing to would be passed to Baker identify SSSI status for the area of the Consultants to be used in SPA/pSPA. further assessment of the potential impacts of housing on recreational pressure on coastal designated sites (6km buffer) Natural England Recreational pressure on coastal AB/CH to expand work on Representation designations in relation to housing recreational pressure (Rep No 97) development within a 6km buffer. looking specifically at housing and the 6km buffer. Recreational SBC/AB/CH were of the view that the Pressure pressure arising from Stockton is JP to email PT re carbon somewhat different to that and capture initiatives. experienced by neighbouring authorities. JP to provide contact details for Cirous Asadi re air AB/CH proposed to provide further quality information. AW agreed that this would be useful to clarify matters and help determine whether housing development would give rise to this sort of pressure.

Further discussion around the pSPA related to the likely visitor pressure arising from the potential housing allocation at Tees Marshalling Yard. SBC explained that development of site is somewhat aspirational at this time, one long sought after, and which would be supported in principle.

AB suggested that given the location in the town centre and the current public access (which is mainly permissive) to the pSPA (Portrack Marshes) that the housing on this site would not unduly impact on the pSPA in those terms. AW explained that he could understand and accept that proposition.

Cat Predation Cat predation: AB/CH proposed to AB/CH to expand work on provide further information but that cat predation. there is no scientific evidence to support cat predation. AW agreed further information in the HRA.

New Tees Crossing New Tees Crossing. SBC explained that although feasibility work is ongoing, for a new crossing the final alignment and crossing is not known at the moment. All agreed that this makes it difficult to come to any conclusion around the impact of this project. AA for this project should include air quality and in combination effects. Portrack Relief Portrack Relief Road. AW to provide SBC with a Road and pSPA Queries around the precise shape file of the current draft boundaries of the PRR and the pSPA boundaries of the pSPA. in this location. AA would be required JP/DB to seek the alignment at the project level for this project of the road, and share if should include air quality and in possible. combination effects.

In Combination The HRA screening should include in Note Effects combination effects even though individual projects yield no LSE. Policy EG4 Seal The HRA states that ‘Where allocation AB/CH to review statement. Sands, North Tees does coincide with land that is and Billingham considered to be functional for the SPA, mitigation will be secured through policy EG4’. AB felt that he needed to reflect on that statement.

AW has expressed concern at the AB/CH to clarify thoughts lack of detail and that strategic and AW to review and mitigation has not been identified for consider. loss of functional land. AB/CH suggested that the pSPA identify all functional land and that local plan allocations do not coincide within this. As such AB concludes that the allocation cannot therefore have impact on functional land (cumulative or otherwise) and at Seal Sands have identified the functional land, and so queried the need to identify land for strategic mitigation. Some general agreement around the table that this is the conclusion to draw from the current position. Table 3 Habitat Loss Table 3 lists habitats loss as AB/CH to address. of HRA vulnerability for Castle Eden Dene SAC, but not explained. Air Quality In combination effect should form part SBC and AB/CH to note. of any appropriate assessment at project level for individual planning proposals. Carbon Capture Initiatives JP to explore with Paul Taylor - Environmental Policy Officer (SBC) Sustainability Discussion around whether Consider whether this Appraisal alternatives to the allocation of Seal should be explicit. (SBC) Sands have been considered. DB explained the issue had been debated at 2009 Core Strategy Examination

Timescales for Actions:

• AB/CH confirmed that they are able to respond by the end of July. • AW requires 3 weeks from receipt of documentation to respond. Duty to cooperate meeting with Environment Agency

Meeting Location: Tyneside House Date: 26 October 2017

Attendees: SBC EA John Dixon James Hudson Cameron Sked Jonathan Kellagher Joe Allan

Agenda Item Action 1. Local Plan - SBC gave an update on the Local Plan and advised that SBC will be NA update aiming to submit their Plan before Christmas in accordance with the LDS.

2. SFRA Level 1 - The EA advised that within policy ENV4 SBC should add additional EA text to secure the avoidance of flood zones in accordance with the and recommendations and ‘Council outcome’ within the SFRA appendix for SBC all their sites with the exception of Boathouse Lane and Billingham Riverside. We agreed that within our response to the publication draft we would agree to highlight that this policy is amended so that sites avoid flood zones.

The EA requested clarification on Section 6.1 site screening – climate SBC change allowances. Joe requested that JBA and Stockton amend the text within this section the SFRA to clarify the use of climate change allowances.

- The EA advised that overall they were happy with the level 1 SFRA v1.3 document. 3. SFRA Level 2 - SBC and EA discussed the requirements of the level 2 assessment SBC and in particular the allocation of Boathouse Lane. We discussed prior extant permissions and historic mitigation options. The EA advised on going forward SBC should look at viability options bringing the site forward and how compensatory storage can be achieved in a site specific FRA within the Exceptions test. We discussed that mitigation measures such as offsite compensatory storage options should be investigated further and that if off site compensation is an option it will need to be hydrologically connected to the site and modelled accordingly.

- We all discussed the access and egress arrangements proposed for Boathouse lane

- SBC discussed the Tees Marshalling Yard site and advised that the SBC site has been taken forward in a level 2 assessment to further understand the flood risk. The EA advised that this site should be referenced in Local Plan policy ENV4 to secure the avoidance of flood zones in accordance with the recommendations and ‘Council outcome’ within the SFRA appendix.

- SBC and the EA discussed the Billingham Riverside site allocation and policy. The site will be for Employment and predominantly port and river based uses.

- The EA talked about road infrastructure in and out of the Seal Sands EA and North Tees sites and Cameron advised that he recollected in the and 2010 SFRA had explored elevation of an arterial road. The EA asked if SBC this was still an issue as flood zones have change since the last SFRA. SBC/EA to investigate further within the SFRA.

- SBC advised that the Sequential and Exception Tests are within the EA SA. The EA will look at this information and provide comments as part of the formal response to the Publication Draft of the Local Plan.

-Overall the EA are happy with the level 2 document, however further work needs to be addressed for Boathouse lane.

4. Local Plan - EA advised SBC that we will be finding the Plan Unsound as they Comments require to update their evidence base along with carrying out a ST and ET for the key sites we discussed, in particular Boathouse Lane, which is our biggest concern at this time.

A.O.B SBC and the EA discussed the Tees Estuary Partnership. We discussed work that will come forward from the TEP and explored any hooks that could be included in the plan which you could hang an emerging SPD off should one be prepared. SBC advised that they will consider this point further as appropriate hooks are likely to already be contained within the Local Plan.

Margrove Park Heritage Centre Margrove Park Boosbeck Saltburn TS12 3BZ www.teesvalleynaturepartnership.org [email protected] 01287 636382

Mr Chris Renahan, Head of Planning, 20/02/2017 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council,

Dear Chris Renahan,

Duty to Co-operate first feedback – Stockton local plan

Thank-you for undertaking the Tees Valley Nature Partnership (TVNP) Local Plan Assessment for Nature and Biodiversity.

This is an assessment tool to ensure that nature and biodiversity considerations are included in the local plans at any stage of the policy planning or review. A series of principles to evaluate this have been developed using the NPPF and NPPG that support the priorities and outcomes devised by the TVNP. Full details of the assessment including the 9 guiding principles, the assessment forms and links to all the relevant strategies can be found at: teesvalleynaturepartnership.org.uk/resources/local-plan-assessment-for-nature-biodiversity/

All five Tees Valley planning authorities and the North York Moors National Park authority are undertaking the assessment. It has been agreed that the nature of our co-operation with the planning authorities are to be considered informal comments to use to update the plans and reference under the duty to co-operate statements. As such in line with your proposed plan development we envisage this will be a continuous process until the publication of your local plan for Stockton.

Following completion of the assessment you scored ‘good’ there is still some scope to improve the score and we re-commend a two-point approach: -

1. The following minor amendments to the policy wording in the plan. a. Specifically reference to Tees Estuary Partnership. b. Reference to BOAs Biodiversity Opportunity Areas where identified in the assessment feedback (a paragraph has been supplied). c. Consider amending the wording on SD8 to acknowledge the role of local communities ‘Community involvement should be encouraged from the onset in the design, implementation and management of green infrastructure’

One of 50 local nature partnerships across England designated by the Secretary of State. We link organisations in the Tees Valleys environmental, business and health and well-being sectors to form an influential partnership. We work strategically to conserve and enhance a healthy and robust natural environment, proven to aid our well-being and provide the natural assets vital for a healthy economy.

2. The following items we would like to see progressed across the whole of the Tees Valley and involve initiatives currently in development. Please advise if these can be incorporated into the local plan or through supplementary planning documents if necessary. a. Tees Valley wide biodiversity indicators. b. Clarity on planning mechanisms to support the existing principle that developers are required to mitigate the impacts of development. As suggested in the new white paper ‘The Government will examine the options for reforming the system of developer contributions…’ i. The development of a biodiversity offsetting policy linked to a Tees Valley policy (agreement) including options for cross boundary strategic mitigation where appropriate. ii. The application of Section 106 agreements – the government in the recent housing white paper suggest a ‘standardised open book Section 106 agreements’. iii. A new strategic approach which streamlines the licensing system for protected species such as great crested newts including strategic mitigation at local authority level and potentially across the Tees Valley. c. Future regard of any Tees Valley local guidance for buildings’ sustainability standards’. d. Respond to the proposed amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework to indicate that ‘great weight should be attached to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes’. e. Clearer reference to Local Green Space. Is there time to promote this to communities during this revision of the local plan?

May we commend you so far on your efforts, we were particularly impressed with the references to the opportunity mapping and decentralised energy generation and supply.

Once again thank you for taking the time and effort to undertake the assessment. To complete the process, we would appreciate a written response on how you intend to implement our recommendations. If you have any further queries in the meantime please do get in touch.

We look forward to a continuing positive working relationship with you where we can all work to realise the partnerships vision of ‘A rich and healthy natural environment in the Tees Valley that sustains a vibrant place for people to live work and learn’.

Yours sincerely

Rachel Murtagh TVNP Officer, On behalf of the Tees Valley Nature Partnership

CC Paul Taylor, Principal Environment Officer; John Dixon, Strategic Planning Officer

Although work on the Seal Sands/North Tees Bird Study began before the Localism Act was introduced this statement has been prepared to demonstrate the level of cooperation and consultation that took place between a number of organisations both during the preparation of the study itself, and in trying to find a way forward to implement its recommendations.

Background

An Independent Examination into the Stockton-on-Tees Local Development Framework Core Strategy was held in September/October 2009. Policy CS4 in the Core Strategy identified a requirement for up to 445ha of land for the chemical and steel industries at Seal Sands, North Tees Pools and the River Tees Corridor. This requirement was originally identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (policy 23).

Given the potential for development of this land to adversely affect the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area/Ramsar site – a European site as set out in the Habitats Regulations1 – the Inspector at the Examination concluded that he could only find the Core Strategy ‘sound’ if it included an agreement to the preparation of a study to inform the site allocations at Seal Sands, North Tees Pools, and the River Tees Corridor. The following reference to the study was therefore included in the Core Strategy, which was subsequently adopted in March 2010:

“To inform site allocations in the Seal Sands, North Tees Pools and River Tees Corridor areas in the Regeneration Development Plan Document, the Council has agreed to undertake a study in partnership with Natural England and the RSPB, to assess the potential for development in those areas to adversely affect the integrity of the SPA/Ramsar site. The study will involve a detailed assessment of the usage of these and adjacent areas by SPA and Ramsar site bird species. This will be used to develop a strategic framework for development in these areas by identifying where land can be allocated for development without adverse impact on the SPA/Ramsar site, whilst taking an integrated approach to habitat creation to ensure sufficient mitigation can be delivered. Further studies will investigate the precise extent of site allocations in these areas.”

The Seal Sands/North Tees area already plays a critical role in the economy of the Tees Valley, and the existing industries in the area are important in both a national and international context. These roles will continue to develop and grow in the future. The Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan (Tees Valley Unlimited/Local Enterprise Partnership, April 2014) refers to the area as a well-developed cluster of process manufacturing that has for decades contributed to growth across the UK. The locational strengths of the area include a favourable planning and regulation environment, available land, established infrastructure,

1 The Habitats Regulations 2010 require that a local authority “must give effect to the land use plan only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site”. The implication of this is that a plan cannot be adopted if it would result in an adverse effect. Therefore consideration must be given to ways to overcome any adverse effect. This could be by avoiding the effect, such as finding alternative solutions, taking measures to remove the adverse impact, or reducing the impact so that it is no longer significant. Measures to remove or reduce the adverse effect are usually referred to as ‘mitigation’

1 access to bulk sea movement, and access to technology support and feedstocks. The continued development of the Tees Valley’s global position in the process industries needs to be sustained, maximising the potential of plants on a world scale, and supporting and growing the export economy.

Basis of study preparation

In January 2010 the Industry Nature Conservation Association (INCA)2 was appointed by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and Tees Valley Unlimited to undertake the Seal Sands/North Tees Bird Study. A financial contribution towards the study was secured from One NorthEast (the Regional Development Agency). The contribution form One NorthEast reflected the role that the Seal Sands/North Tees area plays in the economy, not just of Stockton-on-Tees and the Tees Valley, but throughout the North East region and to a large extent nationally and internationally.

From the outset the study was prepared with the aim of seeking a way forward that could secure the allocation of land in the Seal Sands/North Tees area for the chemical and process industries sector, while meeting the obligations required under the European Habitats Directive.

Strategic objectives in the Stockton-on-Tees Local Development Framework adopted Core Strategy (2010) include:

Objective 2 “To encourage economic development and promote a more entrepreneurial culture within the Borough, as a means of diversifying the economic base, in addition to strengthening existing economic clusters such as the chemical processing industries”

Objective 8 “To protect and enhance the Borough’s natural environment and to promote the creation, extension and better management of green infrastructure and biodiversity, taking advantage of the Borough’s special qualities and location at the mouth of the River Tees”.

Core Strategy Policy 10 (CS10) – Environmental Protection and Enhancement – includes the following statement:

“In taking forward development in the plan area, particularly along the river corridor, in the North Tees Pools and Seal Sands areas, proposals will need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site, or other European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans, programmes and projects. Any proposed mitigation measures must meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.”

The outcomes of the study were to:

• Identify the functional importance of areas of land, outside the designated SPA, to the integrity of the SPA • Determine the extent of land that can be allocated for development in the Seal Sands/North Tees area without adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA • Provide robust evidence to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal of the Regeneration DPD

2 Insert short background info on INCA

• Provide some indication of the nature and extent of the mitigation measures required, where necessary, to enable development • Ensure that potential for in-combination impacts of the development on the SPA site can be adequately assessed and mitigated for • Provide an indication of whether strategic mitigation measures could maximise the extent of developable land in the study area • Provide policy guidance on opportunities and constraints for employment development within the Seal Sands/North Tees area of the Borough with regard to the integrity of the European Site to inform emerging policy within Stockton Borough Council’s Regeneration DPD • Provide a strategic framework to inform decision making in the Local Development Frameworks of the affected Tees Valley Authorities and any future planning applications related to the area The study was guided by a working group of representatives from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited, Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

Key stages of study preparation

Although the main input by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council to the study was provided through the planning policy team, it was important to keep other sections of the local authority informed and involved. Before work formally commenced on the study, a meeting was arranged in December 2009 involving the Regeneration, Economic Development and Planning Policy sections of the Borough Council, as well as Tees Valley Unlimited and INCA. The main purpose of the meeting was to inform economic development, investment and regeneration officers of the Borough Council why the study was being undertaken and in particular the implications for future industrial development and investment in the Seal Sands/North Tees area if an appropriate solution could not be found.

Following the formal appointment of INCA to undertake the study the working group met on a regular basis to provide guidance and to discuss and agree emerging results and conclusions. A full list of the dates of these regular working group meetings is provided in annex 1.

As preliminary findings and conclusions began to emerge during the preparation of the study, particularly concerning potential land for strategic mitigation, a number of additional meetings and presentations were held with other key stakeholders to outline progress on the study and present initial conclusions. Key meetings, discussions and dates are summarised below.

30th September 2010

A presentation by Natural England and INCA to senior managers of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council – representing planning policy, economic development, inward investment and regeneration – and Tees Valley Unlimited. The presentation focussed on emerging findings of the survey work, which was indicating significant numbers of SPA birds using (cumulatively) potential industrial land allocations, and possible options for providing strategic mitigation. A representative of Hartlepool Borough Council also attended this meeting. Hartlepool was offered the opportunity to be represented on the study working group and to include parts of the Borough in the study survey work. However the Borough

Council subsequently declined to take up the offer, largely on the grounds that the Council had up to date information on bird use of land within Hartlepool.

4th November 2010

An informal meeting with the Business Development Manager at Tees Valley Unlimited to discuss potential implications of the study for inward investment and explore options for opening discussions with key landowners and occupiers in the North Tees area

23rd March 2011 A meeting between Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited, INCA and PD Ports – a major freehold landowner in the Seal Sands/North Tees area. The emerging findings of the study were presented to PD Ports, demonstrating that a number of parcels of land in their ownership had potential for providing strategic mitigation. PD Ports in turn explained their key role and position:

• As a freehold landowner with some land leased to other occupiers • As a statutory Port Authority with responsibilities for management on behalf of all river users • Their obligations to maintain a working channel • To encourage river use and provide growth opportunities – particularly in the logistics, warehousing & distribution, offshore wind, and renewable energy sectors • Their need to retain large areas of land to provide flexibility for inward investment and expansion of existing users PD Ports initial conclusion was that it was unlikely that they would be able to provide/offer any land in their ownership for strategic mitigation.

18th April 2011

A key working group meeting following the discussion with PD Ports. A number of potential options for moving forward were explored, including the need for discussions with other landowners and occupiers, particularly at senior management level. Potential landowners included SABIC, Vopac, Tata Steel and Impetus. It was also agreed to discuss options with Hartlepool Borough Council on potential sites for strategic mitigation within the Borough.

After this meeting Stockton’s Corporate Directors were made aware of the conclusions reached with INCA and Natural England, and agreed these as a way of moving forward.

23rd May 2011

The working group met with the Environment Agency for an update on the Agency’s work on a managed retreat initiative at Greatham North (in Hartlepool but adjacent to the Hartlepool/Stockton-on-Tees boundary). A representative from Natural England’s Land Use Function also attended the meeting and a range of potential sites for strategic mitigation was also discussed.

Feedback from Natural England (letter to Stockton BC dated 16th June) following this meeting included:

• Use of Environment Agency land at Greatham North as strategic mitigation – there may be some potential to improve the area through reversion of the arable habitats to

pasture. However it is suspected that the current and future potential of the site to support displaced SPA birds is limited owing to the site’s topographic and physical characteristics. Also the amount of land involved is unlikely to be adequate to make provision for the needs of displaced birds • Red and amber plots identified in the study are essential to the functioning of the SPA – they should be maintained and enhanced as habitat and development should not be permitted • A potential option could involve maintaining (as opposed to enhancing) the red plots supported by further habitat creation at Greatham North. However further investigation of bird usage of the green plots at any one time is required

Feedback from RSPB included:

• Any mitigation is secured for the lifetime of the development (effectively in perpetuity). This requires confidence that mitigation land will continue to be available and any necessary mitigation work can be funded over the time span • RSPB, as a charitable organisation, would not be able to use its funds effectively subsidising commercial development and it is up top developers to meet mitigation costs for their development

15th June 2011

Tees Valley Unlimited’s Managing Director held an informal meeting with officers from Hartlepool Borough Council to discuss the potential for providing land for strategic mitigation within the Borough. However this proved to be an impractical way forward and in any event the Council considered it may need to provide land for strategic mitigation arising from development within its own area.

December 2011

Study agreed and completed.

As part of the study an assessment was made of all land in the vicinity of the SPA and the study area for strategic mitigation. While revealing the difficulties in providing ‘off-site’ mitigation in a heavily developed area, a potential opportunity arose on land owned by SABIC around the brine reservoirs just north of the A1185 Seal Sands link road and west of the main Seal Sands/North Tees complex.

The working group agreed that discussions should be opened up with SABIC over possible use of its land for strategic mitigation, along with continuing approaches to other landowners including PD Ports.

September 2012

Formal responses by Natural England and RSPB to the Stockton-on-Tees Regeneration & Environment Local Development Document Preferred Options Draft.

While both organisations expressed the view that the SABIC owned land had potential for providing effective strategic mitigation, both voiced concerns over deliverability until the land is secured and long term management arrangements are in place.

No response to the Preferred Options Draft from PD Ports or other key stakeholders in the Seal Sands/North Tees area?

March 2013

INCA offered some £80,000 of landfill tax credits towards the enhancement of the SABIC owned land for strategic mitigation. Some negotiations had taken place between RSPB and SABIC regarding future ownership/management of the land. Enhancement would be required to satisfy Natural England/RSPB mitigation requirements. Ten per cent of the £80,000 would be needed as a third party contribution – both Stockton Council and Tees Valley Unlimited agreed to provide this contribution.

May/June 2013

A short report was forwarded by Tees Valley Unlimited (supported by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council) to Natural England and RSPB on 1st May 2013. The report outlined the conclusions and recommendations from the study and then focussed on potential opportunity for providing strategic mitigation on the SABIC owned land and the financial arrangements for securing enhancement and management.

Natural England responded to this report on 7th June 2013. Although unable to provide a formal response in the absence of a completed Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) the organisation did provide informal views:

• The SABIC land may be sufficient to mitigate against the adverse impacts on the SPA/Ramsar site likely to arise from allocations in the Regeneration & Environment LDD

• Regeneration & Environment policy EMP5 should make a clear distinction between measures to avoid in combination effects resulting from the loss of function land (green plots within the study) and those agreed to mitigate the loss of the red plots 4 and 22

RSPB responded on 19th June 2013, largely re-iterating previous points:

• Need to secure any mitigation in perpetuity, and

• Ensuring that developers meet the ongoing costs of mitigation

RSPB however also confirmed that they were confident that the SABIC land could, with appropriate enhancement, provide the necessary conditions for potentially displaced species.

During June INCA made a formal approach to SABIC, bringing them up to date on the study and in particular the opportunity for undertaking enhancement works using Landfill Tax monies. A response from SABIC (15th June 2013 from SABIC’s Teesside Estates Manager) acknowledged that explanatory talks had taken place with RSPB and INCA but the go-ahead within SABIC had not been sought beyond a very local level concerning the principle. SABIC undertook however to clarify its position as soon as possible.

20th August 2013

A round table discussion between representatives from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited, RSPB, INCA, and Natural England – the latter including key land use

6 advisors from Newcastle and Leeds offices. The purpose of the meeting was to bring all parities up to date with the current situation and make all aware of the various elements that need to come together to provide a solution. This included issues concerning providing land in perpetuity and the Habitats Regulation Assessment. It was agreed to seek a response from SABIC as a matter of urgency and again open up discussions with PD Ports.

October 2013

Further clarification from SABIC was received on 7th October 2013. This again acknowledged previous discussions with RSPB when SABIC was happy to investigate the potential transfer of the land for nature conservation purposes. However since then SABIC had undergone significant local issues and restructuring. While there remained within SABIC a commitment to support local environmental improvements especially regarding nature conservation, it was not possible for them to commit at that point to any change in the future ownership or use of the land. As such SABIC wished to maintain the ‘status quo’.

19th December 2013

Tees Valley Unlimited’s Director of Business Investment met with SABIC’s UK President to discuss the land mitigation issues. SABIC’s President explained that any decision on the future of the land in question could not be made by any of the Teesside management team and would have to come from the parent company in Saudi Arabia. SABIC also explained that it was doubtful that the company would wish to release the land because of unknown developments that may require its use in future. SABIC’s President did however state that he would raise the issue with managers in Saudi.

February 2014

Tees Valley Unlimited’s Director of Business Investment approached PD Ports Group Chief Executive to seek further clarification on the potential use of land (plot 1 in the study) for strategic mitigation. An email response was received on 25th February 2014 stating that PD Ports did not want this area of land to be allocated for strategic mitigation as it remains an important part of their wider portfolio to bring into play as the organisation moves forward. However PD Ports did offer the opportunity for a wider discussion.

19th May 2014

Following the responses from SABIC and PD Ports and further discussions between Stockton BC, Tees Valley Unlimited, INCA and Natural England it was agreed that a meeting should be held at a senior level with PD Ports. A meeting took place on 19th May 2014 and was attended by PD Ports Group Chief Executive, Property Director and their planning consultant, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council’s Director of Regeneration and Planning Manager, and Tees Valley Unlimited’s Managing Director, Director of Policy & Strategy and Director of Business Investment.

The meeting provided an opportunity to explain to PD Ports the timescales for the preparation of the Regeneration & Environment LDD and the potential implications for future growth and investment if suitable mitigation measures could not be identified. PD Ports agreed consider the issue further including looking at other potential sites within their ownership, as well as seeking clarification on the legal aspects of the Habitats Regulations.

It was also agreed that a discussion with other landowners/occupiers in the Seal Sands/North Tees area could be useful to appraise them of the current situation.

24th July 2014

A meeting between Stockton-on-Tees BC, Tees Valley Unlimited and Natural England to:

• Appraise Natural England of the current situation and LDD timescales

• Discuss potential mechanisms for providing compensation to landowners for a strategic mitigation site

• Discuss the feasibility/deliverability of the PD Ports site

Natural England agreed to investigate further possible compensation methods, including drawing on experiences from elsewhere in the country. Natural England also supported the suggestion raised at the PD Ports meeting for a wider presentation and discussion with other landowners and occupiers.

26th August 2014

Meeting between Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited and INCA. This discussion concluded that it was necessary to engage with land owners and industrialists to seek private sector input on the delivery of strategic mitigation.

15th October 2014

A meeting was held with landowners, occupiers, and industrialists at Wynyard. At the meeting Stockton Borough Council, INCA and Tees Valley Unlimited explained the issues surrounding the study and the requirement for strategic mitigation at Seal Sands. Public sector officers asked for assistance from the private sector to assist in finding sites for strategic mitigation. Delegates were asked to consider the issues and if possible volunteer or suggest sites for strategic mitigation.

During the meeting delegates were also informed that Natural England had begun survey work which would provide the evidence to designate ‘high tide roosts’ as part of the SPA and Ramsar site. It was understood that these sites included red plots reviewed in the birds study.

13th November 2014

A follow up meeting was held between Tees Valley Unlimited, Stockton Borough Council and INCA. The discussion reviewed the meeting on the 15th October 2014, against the context of the pressing deadline for the emerging local plan. As strategic mitigation could not be identified, it was considered that the plan could not meet the legal requirement of the Habitat Regulation Assessment. It was therefore decided that the development plan should proceed without allocations in the Seal Sands area.

19th November 2014

An article is published in the Northern Echo3 publicising the transfer of 6 hectares of land owned by Sembcorp to RSPB. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council ask INCA to investigate this matter on the Council’s behalf.

2nd February 2015

The Council publishes the Regeneration and Environment Local Plan document for the ‘publication’ consultation. Policies EMP2 and EMP3 do not include site allocations in the Seal Sands area because of issues surrounding strategic mitigation. However, the site remains within defined development limits.

4th February 2015

Stockton Council Corporate Director of Development and Neighbourhood Services wrote to a number of businesses in the Seal Sands area identifying the issues with allocating land in the area, and seeking views on the Regeneration and Environment Local Plan.

13th February 2015

INCA report back to the Council regarding a site visit to the land to be transferred from Sembcorp to RSPB. INCA note that

“The area is relatively small and would require considerable “enhancement” to enable it to support sufficient birds to meet the needs for the purposes of mitigation. Sadly underground services constrain any such enhancement such as lowering the ground level to create or extending the standing water on the site. The proximity of the road and logistics prevent raising the water level to achieve the same outcomes. There is also an overhead power line with the associated wayleave which is a hazard to birds and a further constraint to increasing the suitability of the site.”

This site is not considered to be appropriate strategic mitigation.

16th March 2015

Consultation ends on the Regeneration and Environment Local Plan. Objections received from Natural England and RSPB regarding policy EMP2 and EMP3 regarding the lack of strategic mitigation in the plan.

29th April 2015

Meeting between Stockton Council and Natural England officers to discuss Natural England’s consultation response to the Regeneration and Environment Local Plan. During the meeting Natural England identified a preference for allocating employment sites in the plan and seeking strategic mitigation. Two suggestions were identified as potential sites, these were:

3 http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/teesvalley/11611255.RSPB_Saltholme_set_to_expand_tha nks_to_Sembcorp/?ref=twtrec, published 19th November 2014

• Land owned by Teesside Environmental Trust, which is under an agricultural tenancy expected to expire in 2016. Following this the land will revert to RSPB control. • Land within Cowpen land fill site. However, further work was required to understand whether the land was already identified as mitigation. Both parties agreed to set up a meeting with RSPB to understand whether the site they are expected to take control of could be identified as strategic mitigation. In addition, Stockton Council agreed to review the planning consent for the Cowpen land fill site.

20th May 2015

The Council and NE previously agreed, amongst other things, to continue to consider future options for strategic mitigation. NE contacted RSPB and a meeting was arranged (20-05- 2015) to discuss the potential of the RSPB land.

In summary:

• RSPB have a 99 year lease on a 100 hectare site owned by Teesside Environmental Trust, this is sufficient for NE to consider any mitigation on the site to be ‘in- perpetuity’. • The site is sub-let to a farmer who has an agricultural tenancy, this will end in early 2016. • RSPB’s plan was to pursue a scheme to improve biodiversity in the area, it was originally envisaged that this would have very little benefit to birds of the SPA. • However, following NE’s call RSPB are willing to consider the site as strategic mitigation and both NE and RSPB agree that the site could be suitable for this use. • Only 10 hectares of this land would be required to accommodate the level of strategic mitigation required. • Key issue is that a pot of money would be required to deliver the scheme. This is capital costs required to introduce ponds and wetlands on the site. In addition maintenance costs would also be required. This could amount to £100 - £250k. RSPB officers indicated that it is unlikely that the organisation would be willing to deliver strategic mitigation which effectively subsidises the environmental responsibilities of developers. However, RSPB have indicated that they would enquire whether this would be possible.

NE and RSPB again requested that consideration be given to funding for the strategic mitigation being sought from TVU or local growth fund.

Further consideration is to be given to the plan strategy and any amendments which will be required to get the plan adopted. This matter will be debated at the examination with both SBC and NE committed to finding an appropriate solution.

1st July 2015

Natural England publish paper called ‘A possible extension to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area’. The Council informs various partners and businesses across the Tees Valley of the consultation.

This consultation marked a transition in the approach to this area. Soon after the consultation was announced, the Tees Estuary Partnership (TEP) was formed which sought to understand the implications of new evidence and the potential for extensions to the SPA.

The TEP sought to agree a proactive way forward which balanced nature conservation and economic growth aspirations in a deliverable masterplan.

Conclusion

This statement demonstrates the considerable efforts made by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, Tees Valley Unlimited and others including INCA and RSPB to try to identify an appropriate and deliverable solution in the Seal Sands/North Tees area.

Annex 1: Working group meeting dates 2010 22nd February, 23rd March, 25th May, 8th July, 5th August, and 20th October 2011 6th January, 1st February, 18th April, 29th June,6th July, and 5th October 2013 20th August, 1st October, 23rd October, and 19th December 2014 24th March, 24th July, 26th August, and 13th November

Section 4 – Specific Project Meetings

Contains individual meetings regarding:

• Evidence Base Stakeholder Sessions

• Tees Estuary Partnership

• Wynyard Highways Memorandum of Understanding 12/13/2017

www.ors.org.uk

Stockton on Tees Borough Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Nigel Moore Opinion Research Services

Government Policy and Advice

» To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area , as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period » National Planning Policy Framework, para 47 (added emphasis)

1 12/13/2017

Objectively Assessed Needs Method

Housing market area

Household projections

Market signals

Objectively Assessed Need

www.ors.org.uk

HOUSING MARKET AREAS

The ‘first relevant building block in the evidence for identifying objectively assessed needs’ BANES Inspector

2 12/13/2017

NHPAU Study 2010

ONS Travel to Work 2015

3 12/13/2017

BRMA Areas

Commuting Self-containment Census 2011

Reside and work in Reside in area Work in area area

56,611 87,329 86,629 Stockton-on-Tees 32,993 54,678 63,077 Middlesbrough 33,291 56,616 46,104 Redcar and Cleveland

Residents Workers

64.8% 65.3% Stockton-on-Tees 60.3% 52.3% Middlesbrough 58.8% 72.2% Redcar and Cleveland

4 12/13/2017

Migration Self-containment Census 2011

All All Moves to Moved within LA moves LA from LA

Stockton-on-Tees 12,557 18,546 18,308

Middlesbrough 10,015 15,222 14,990

Redcar and Cleveland 8,456 11,224 12,017

Moves Moves to LA from LA

Stockton-on-Tees 67.7% 68.6%

Middlesbrough 65.8% 66.8%

Redcar and Cleveland 75.3% 70.4%

Self Containment for Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees Combined

Reside and work in Reside in area Work in area area

167,282 198,623 195,810

Combined area 84.2% 85.4%

Moved within LA All Moves to LA All moves from LA

35,885 44,992 45,315

Combined area 79.8% 79.2%

5 12/13/2017

Possible HMAs in Teesside

A range of options possible » 5 separate HMAs » Darlington HMA plus a combined Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees HMA » Darlington HMA, Hartlepool HMA and a combined Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees HMA

Consequences

NPPF » …planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area , as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework In practical terms » OAN assessment do not necessarily have to be undertaken together » The risks are issues of inconsistency in the evidence bases around areas like migration, economic activity rates and jobs forecasts

6 12/13/2017

www.ors.org.uk

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING Any Comments or Questions?

7 Duty to co-operate and Housing Market Area 10. 30 a.m. Monday, 4th April 2016 Conference Room 2, Municipal Buildings Minutes

Attendees Apologies Matthew Clifford (SBC) Isabel Nicholls (DBC) David Bage (SBC) Sue Walters-Thompson.(HBC) Beverley Bearne (SBC) Caroline Skelly (HBC) Malcolm Steele (HBC) Martin Coleclough (MBC) Katherine Whitwell (MBC) Alex Conti (R&CBC) Roger Kay (R&CBC) Graeme Smith (DCC) Nigel Moore (Opinion Research Services (ORS))

Introduction

1. M. Clifford welcomed attendees and stated that the context for the meeting is emerging findings from the Stockton-on-Tees Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) incorporating an on objective assessment of population and housing change and that specifically the focus is on the definition of the Housing Market Area (HMA).

Emerging findings - HMA

2. N. Moore presented the findings. The objectively assessed needs method is HMA – household projections – market signals – objectively assessed need. To assess the HMA, ORS had analysed various datasets including the Census 2011 regarding both commuting and migration self-containment, ONS travel to work 2015 and data on broad rental market areas. ORS had concluded that there are 3 options regarding how the HMA is defined:

• 5 separate HMAs • Darlington plus a combined Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees HMA • Darlington HMA, Hartlepool HMA and a combined Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees HMA.

Discussion

Redcar and Cleveland 3. A. Conti stated that R&CBC have recently published a SHMA which concluded that their borough is an independent HMA. N. Moore asked to be provided with a link to the R&CBC SHMA and stated that ORS would take this into account.

Middlesbrough 4. K. Whitwell stated that Middlesbrough have an adopted Local Plan. Should they come to review the document they will consider the HMA as part of this process.

Hartlepool 5. M. Steele stated that Hartlepool have recently had a SHMA published which considers their borough to be self-contained as a HMA.

Darlington 6. N. Moore stated that ORS had undertaken the Darlington SHMA and had found Darlington to be a self-contained HMA.

Hambleton 7. N. Moore stated that when undertaking the Darlington SHMA, ORS had concluded that the main links Hambleton has in a HMA context are with Richmond.

Durham 8. G. Smith stated that DCC have had a SHMA published which considers the county to be self-contained as a HMA.

Next steps

• A. Conti stated that he would circulate a link for the recently published R&CBC SHMA.

• M. Clifford stated that he would circulate the ORS presentation.

• D. Bage highlighted that there will be a duty to co-operate / stakeholder event regarding the Stockton-on-Tees evidence base review and that invitations would be sent out to the other authorities.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment Meeting Stockton Baptist Tabernacle Date: 3/5/2016

Attendees

Stakeholder John Whitaker (North Star) Paul Barrow (Thirteen Group) Martin Hawthorne (Thirteen Group) Katie Rumble (Hellens Group) Ben Stephenson (Persimmon Homes) Mark Fletcher (Taylor Wimpey) James Reid (Barratt Homes) Phil Jones (Lichfields) Lee Small (Isos Housing) Sarah Webster (TVCA) Greame Smith (Durham County Council) Malcolm Steele (Hartlepool Borough Council) Martin Coleclough (Middlesbrough Borough Council) Alex Conti (Redcar & Cleveland)

Employment Land Review and Town Centre Uses Meeting Stockton Baptist Tabernacle 10/06/2016

Attendees

Stakeholder S Brown (Dodds Brown) Tom Ballantyne (Conocophillips Tony Keville (Tomlinson Hall and C1A) Richard Hunter (TVCA) Darren Hurst (Interserve) Mark Coleman (FSB) Paddy Kitching (North Tees Limited) Joanathan Simpson (CPNE) Katherine Whitwell (Middlesbrough Borough Council)* Alex Conti (Redcar & Cleveland)*

* Denotes those who viewed presentations on ELR and Town Centre Uses, rather than just ELR. 12/13/2017

www.ors.org.uk

Stockton on Tees Borough Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Trevor Baker and Nigel Moore Opinion Research Services

Government Policy and Advice

1 12/13/2017

Objectively Assessed Needs Method

Housing market area

Household projections

Market signals

Objectively Assessed Need

www.ors.org.uk

HOUSING MARKET AREAS

The ‘first relevant building block in the evidence for identifying objectively assessed needs’

BANES Inspector September 2013 Core Strategy Examination Doc ID/39

2 12/13/2017

NHPAU Study 2010

ONS Travel to Work 2011

3 12/13/2017

BRMA Areas

Process for establishing a Housing Number for the HMA

Starting Point Household Projections Estimate produced by CLG Demographic issues Are there any known problems with local data? Do we need to take account of any anomalies? Has housing delivery suppressed formation rates? What period should be used for population trends? Adjusted Household Projections Estimate based on local circumstances Implications of the household projections Will there be enough workers for planned jobs? Do market signals show worsening trends? Can the affordable housing needed be delivered? Policy Off Objectively Housing Need Assessed Need Duty to Cooperate discussions What are the planning constraints? Can needs be met within the HMA? Will other LPAs help address any unmet needs? Are there any unmet needs from other HMAs? Policy On Housing Housing Target Requirement

4 12/13/2017

www.ors.org.uk

HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS

Role of CLG Household Projections

» Household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need. » The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions.

» Planning Practice Guidance (CLG, March 2014), para 011

5 12/13/2017

CLG Household Projections

10-year period 25-year period

CLG Household Projections Total Annual Total Annual Period Period Change Average Change Average

2004-based (revised) 2006-16 10,000 1,000 2004-29 21,000 840

2006-based 2006-16 10,000 1,000 2006-31 23,000 920

2008-based 2008-18 8,000 800 2008-33 18,000 720

Interim 2011-based 2011-21 7,000 700 - - -

2012 based 2012-22 6,280 630 2012-37 13,210 530

Population Trends: ONS Mid-Year Estimates

Census MYE (current) MYE (superseded)

200,000

190,000

Total population Total 180,000

170,000 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

6 12/13/2017

Projected Population: ONS Sub-National Projections

MYE (current) MYE (superceded) SNPP: 2012-based 2010-based 2008-based

220,000

215,000

210,000

205,000

200,000

195,000 Total population Total 190,000

185,000

180,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037

Key Issues: Migration

» 2001 Census under-estimated the population of Stockton on Tees, but this was corrected in 2001 mid-year estimates » Trend growth has been relatively stable in Stockton on Tees, so baseline demographics are less sensitive to the time period used for migration trends than in other area. » SNPP uses 5 year trends which are prone to short-term variation » Key assumption in considering an adjusted estimate: “What period should be used for population trends?” » ORS favour a 10-year migration trends – Likely to capture both highs and lows without rolling-forward short-term trends that are too high or too low – Not dependent on “historic” trends that may be unlikely to be repeated – More appropriate for providing a robust basis for long-term planning

7 12/13/2017

www.ors.org.uk

MARKET SIGNALS

Affordability OAN Workers and Jobs Affordable Housing

National Planning Policy Guidance

» Planning Practice Guidance identifies housing market signals that should be considered, including: – Land prices and house prices; – Rents and affordability; – Rate of development; and – Overcrowding » Appropriate comparisons of indicators should be made. This includes comparison with longer term trends (both in absolute levels and rates of change) in the: housing market area; similar demographic and economic areas; and nationally.

» Planning Policy Guidance (CLG, March 2014), para 020

8 12/13/2017

Approach to Comparator Areas

» We compare range of other LA’s to the study authorit(ies) using a number of data sources/characteristics: • 2011 Population size • ONS 2001 Area Classifications (incorporating 42 Census variables) • IMD 2010 (individual domains) and • DEFRA Geography » Allows us to create a measure of correlation: • how closely matched each of our possible comparator areas is to the study area based on these characteristics. » Then we pick the areas with the highest scores to form a comparator group. » The results for Stockton on Tees are Rotherham, Chesterfield, Wigan and Barnsley

Overcrowding, Concealed and Sharing Households

(see NPPG Para 019-020) » Overcrowded and sharing households are counted within the household projections – so do not add to the total number » Concealed households are not counted in household projections and must be considered • The 2011 Census reports that Concealed Families have increased from 488 to 806; so the needs of these 318 extra households must be considered » However… o There are more people in the area, therefore we would expect more concealed families o Some of the increase is older families = probably choosing to live as extended families due to health/care or culture o Much of the increase is young families, = likely to demonstrate un-met need for housing » Therefore, a small uplift is still needed for this group

9 12/13/2017

Household and Dwelling Growth

» 10 year migration trend 2001-2011 shows a projected growth of population of 17,000 from 2017-32 and a household growth of 8,850 » 10 year migration trend 2004-2014 shows a projected growth of population of 16,100 from 2017-32 and a household growth of 8,500 » Feedback from PINS has been to use more recent data if MYE doesn’t contain errors so the central model uses 2004-14 • This represent a need for 8,500 households from 2017-2032 or 567 per annum » It is also necessary to add concealed and homeless households and also to allow for the impact of vacant and second homes • 273 concealed and homeless households • 349 dwellings added to allow for vacant and second homes (4%) » This gives a dwelling figure of 9,130 from 2017-32, or 609 per annum • Also necessary to consider uplifts to this figure for wider market signals, worker shortfalls and affordable housing provision • Demographics are baselined at 2014 and this resets the clock on backlog of need. It is still necessary to add any backlog from 2014-17. • Much of the increase is young families, likely to demonstrate un-met need for affordable housing

ORS EAR Projections Based on OBR Model

2017 2032 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75+ 75+ 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 Male Females

10 12/13/2017

Possible Scenarios for Changes in Economic Activity

2032 10 Year Migration Age M F Total

Aged 16-19 2,570 2,430 5,000 Aged 20-24 5,420 4,640 10,060 Aged 25-29 5,720 4,780 10,500 Aged 30-34 5,840 5,120 10,960 Aged 35-39 6,320 5,950 12,270 Aged 40-44 6,380 6,230 12,610 Aged 45-49 5,700 5,950 11,650 Aged 50-54 4,950 4,940 9,890 Aged 55-59 4,000 3,730 7,740 Aged 60-64 3,310 2,990 6,290 Aged 65-69 1,260 1,170 2,420 Aged 70-74 440 410 850 Aged 75+ 210 140 350 Total 52,110 48,490 100,600 Total Change +719 +1,897 +2,617 2017-2032

Jobs and Workers

» Important to have consistency between projected jobs growth and assumption about available workers » Also important to factor in issues such as double jobbing and unemployment changes • Unemployment in Stockton on Tees has fallen by 3,500 in the past 3 years • Still 4,000 unemployed, but unlikely this will keep falling indefinitely. » Jobs and workers should balance within the HMA, so it is at this point that the HMA definition matters • Middlesbrough’s Local Plan contains an uplifted housing target to seek to retain workers who would have otherwise left

11 12/13/2017

Affordable Housing: Key Issues

» Satnam Millennium v Warrington BC has placed this at the centre of consideration • Warrington OAN was 500 dpa • Warrington SHMA said affordable housing needs were 477 pa • Warrington made no attempt to meet their affordable housing need. » Affordable housing for Stockton on Tees identified as 3,550 over 15 years • This represents 237 per annum • 38.8% of the OAN • Similar to the figures for Darlington.

www.ors.org.uk

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING Any Comments or Questions?

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Employment Land Review

Stakeholder Workshop

Ross Lillico, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 10 June, 2016

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Programme and timing

• 10.00-10.05 Introduction

• 10.05-10.50 Presentation of emerging findings

• 10.50-11.00 Refreshment break

• 11.00-11.45 Group discussion

• 11.45-11.55 Discussion group feedback

• 11.55-12.00 Next steps and close

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Aims of today

• Share emerging findings of review of baseline evidence – and test our understanding of the local context

• Explore the outputs of the various demand forecasting techniques

• Frame discussions around: • What do the evidence and employment growth forecasts tell us about alternative future growth trajectories for Stockton-on-Tees? • How well does each align with the local authority’s strengths and opportunities?

• Which forecasts provide the most appropriate basis upon which to plan for future employment needs?

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Economic Baseline

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Assessing the FEMA for Stockton-on-Tees identifies strong linkages with Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland • 29,906 (34.2%) of working residents in Stockton-on-Tees travel outside of the Borough for employment • Key flows to Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland • 30,018 workers commute into Stockton-on- Tees for work • Key flows from Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland and County Durham • Inflows and outflows broadly in alignment • Labour market area defined as: Stockton- on-Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland: • Workplace for 82.3% of residents in Stockton-on-Tees; and • Residence for 78.8% of workers in Stockton-on-Tees

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Workforce jobs in the Borough increased by 8,500 between 1997 and 2015. Performance of the B class sectors has varied considerably by use

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Employment traditionally focussed in Stockton and Billingham, with Wynyard establishing itself as an important employment destination more recently

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Key employment sectors include health, retail, manufacturing and professional & technical activities

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Strong representation and competitive advantage in key SEP growth sectors

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Employment in ‘key sectors’ is greatest in lifesciences, professional business services and advanced manufacturing.

Absolute Employment Total Number of Businesses

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Positive indicators regarding growth of the business base and levels of entrepreneurialism

• Stockton-on-Tees is home to 5,705 active enterprises • Comparable business size profile to regional and national average • Fewer businesses and business start ups relative to national average but higher than NE • Higher rate of business growth and start-up rates over period 2009-2014 than regional AND national average • AND – business closures declining at higher rate than regional average Start ups per Total 10,000 businesses per residents 10,000 residents

Stockton-on-Tees 73 463 North East 58 413 UK 85 622

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review High skilled occupational profile relative to North East average

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Higher proportion of residents with NVQ Level 4+ and higher resident wages than regional average

• Stockton residents earn £11.70 more per week than workers • Stockton residents earn £17.70 per week more than regional average • Wages of workers in Stockton- on-Tees broadly in alignment with regional average

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Understanding Business Needs

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review TVU business engagement exercise used as a ‘temperature test’ of local sentiment and growth ambitions

• Survey issued summer 2015

• 117 responses from Stockton Businesses

• Good cross section of business size and sector focus

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Strong overall response rate in relation to investment plans. One third of participants considering land/premises investment over the short term

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review …BUT – business accommodation not viewed as a key strength of the Borough’s offer at present

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Market Signals

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Stockton-on-Tees plays an important role in the Tees Valley economy

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Office market dominated by business parks, with continuing oversupply

• Large amount of business park development up to 2008.

• 40% vacancy rates amongst offices of 1000-2000 sq m. Also oversupply amongst smaller size bands

• Rents too low to allow viable speculative development.

• Future development activity dependent on bespoke requirements, pre-lets & public sector provision.

• Market for smallest and largest unit sizes is stronger

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Good balance between demand and supply of industrial properties

• Overall vacancy rate of 9%

• Some shortages amongst larger units

• Manufacturing space rather than warehousing

• Speculative development only viable with funding. But Stockton market relatively strong

• Capacity for sectors with major land requirements around mouth of Tees

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Two-tier land and premises market with distinct general and specialist use employment areas

General Specialist Use

• Offices • Process industries

• Factories • Airport

• Warehouses • Marine / offshore

• Waste processing

• Energy generation

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review More than half of all available land is for general employment use

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Supply of general employment land in Stockton is more than adequate in quantitative terms

• Currently Available: 240ha

• Average Take-Up: 7.13ha p.a

• Implied Supply: 33 years

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Supply of restricted use sites

Billingham

• Currently Available: 147ha

• Average Take-Up: 10.4ha p.a. / 4.05ha p.a.

• Implied Supply: 14 years / 36 years

• Expansion Land: 88ha

Airport

• No take-up of land within Stockton

• Peel marketing for airport-related uses

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Issues for discussion (1)

• Does the analysis presented align with your own experience of local conditions?

• FEMA / Economy / Commercial Market

• What are Stockton’s key economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?

• How important will the SEP growth sectors be in driving future demand for space?

• What are the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in commercial market terms?

• In light of the Duty to Co-operate, do the plans and strategies of the surrounding authorities present any specific opportunities or challenges for Stockton?

• Does Stockton suffer from a shortage of housing – will this influence growth prospects?

• Would Stockton benefit from increased provision of particular housing types/tenures?

• Do high housing costs/lack of affordability impact upon staff recruitment/retention?

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Projecting Future Requirements

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Four scenarios of future employment space needs based on the three approaches contained in PPG

Forecast of job growth by 1 Labour Demand (Baseline) sector

Linear projection of historic job 2 Labour Demand (Past Trends) change by sector

Net annual completions of 3 Past Take-Up industrial and office land

Gross annual completions of 4 Past Take-Up industrial and office land

Demographic and economic 5 Labour Supply activity assumptions consistent with emerging SHMA

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review The input assumptions of the scenarios have a bearing on the differing land requirements generated

Baseline Job Forecasts

• Baseline, policy neutral forecast. Takes no account of local policy or investment priorities

• Past sector performance in Stockton – adjusted to reflect macro-economic influences

Past Trend Job Forecasts

• Reflects demonstrable capacity for job growth and established/emerging sector strengths

• Predicated on a continuation of past trends

Past Take-Up

• Reflects historical development – 16 years of data should ‘smooth out’ peaks and troughs

Labour Supply

• Underlying assumptions (economic activity, commuting etc.) consistent with SHMA

• Top-down disaggregation reflecting economic structure projected by Experian

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Note of Caution - forecasts deal with ‘general’ employment use requirements only

• Simple linear projection of gross take-up identifies a need for 265ha of land

• BUT - impractical / inappropriate to formally model need for specialist use sites through standard ELR approach

• Focussing solely on ‘general’ employment land identifies more modest requirements…

• B1 = 32.3ha

• B2 = 41.9ha

• B8 = 32.9ha

• BUT - ELR does not neglect need for specialist use sites

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Experian forecast 6,200 new jobs in Stockton by 2032 – driven by non-B class growth

• Total workforce jobs forecast to increase by 6,200 to 94,400 by 2032

• B class sectors to contract by 465 jobs

• Driven by contraction of manufacturing

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Experian forecast an improvement in B class job change. Manufacturing job losses will stabilise and growth in office and warehousing sectors will slow.

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Continuation of past trends would result in stronger office and warehousing demand, but significant contraction in manufacturing employment

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review ‘General’ land requirements range from 72-107ha

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Issues for discussion (2)

• Which future demand scenario(s) do you consider to be the most realistic/appropriate?

• Do the labour demand scenarios reflect business sentiment and SBC/TVU growth aspirations?

• Could a stabilisation of manufacturing job losses see demand increase beyond past take-up levels?

• How should the portfolio of employment land respond to anticipated demand?

• Is oversupply harmful?

• Candidate sites/locations for de-allocation?

• Do gaps in the supply of land exist?

• How should the ELR deal with the Borough’s specialist use sites?

Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Stockton-on-Tees Employment Land Review Issues for discussion (1)