APPENDIX 1 Sunderland City Council - Strategic Land Review, Green Belt Review (Stage 1) and Local Plan growth options Policy Context 1. Sunderland City Council is consulting on growth and development options for the emerging Sunderland Local Plan Core Strategy. Three potential growth options have been presented for consultation, setting out the broad implications of for low, medium or higher growth for Sunderland. Consultation responses will be used alongside a range of evidence to inform decisions on an appropriate scale of housing and economic development needs. 2. As part of this process, Sunderland has also carried out a Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Review, which consider the development potential of sites across the borough. 3. The Council shares borders with Sunderland City Council and as such strategic growth priorities guiding future development have potential to affect Gateshead. 4. The current consultation gives the Council the opportunity to provide a formal response on the emerging priorities of the Sunderland Local Plan. The potential for relatively high levels of housing growth in Sunderland (compared to recent trends in household and population change), as set out in the medium and higher growth options could impact on demand for new housebuilding within Gateshead. However, it should be noted that Sunderland is at an early stage in the plan preparation process, therefore the scale of growth to be set out in the Local Plan, and the implications of this growth for other areas are yet to be established. A consultation response from Gateshead highlighting potential issues will be part of ongoing discourse between the Local Authority areas as Sunderland’s Local Plan takes shape. 5. Some evidence regarding economic and housing growth in Sunderland refers to impact analysis studies carried out for the proposed International Advanced Manufacturing Park, to be located on land within South Tyneside and Sunderland, in an area north of the Nissan car manufacturing plant. Gateshead Council has previously indicated that it considers the assessment of the potential impact of this development to underestimate the quantity of new housing that will be required to accommodate potential workers in the area. The need for further assessment of this issue is raised again within this draft consultation response. 6. In terms of potential locations for growth, Sunderland’s Strategic Land Review and Green Belt Review identifies potential locations within Sunderland that may be suitable for housing or economic development. A number of sites are identified in the Washington area, which fall within an inter-district wildlife corridor that is shared with Gateshead; the development of these sites could have a negative impact on ecological value and connectivity within this area, and our draft consultation response highlights this as an issue. A number of sites located within strategic Green Belt gaps are also identified. The development of these sites has potential to merge settlements, and our draft consultation response requests that these sites are omitted from further consideration. 7. The deadline for consultation responses is 1 July 2016. In order to meet this deadline, our comments have been forwarded to Sunderland City Council for information, with an accompanying covering letter stating that our formal consultation response is subject to Cabinet approval on 12 July 2016. Implications of Recommended Option 8. Resources: a) Financial Implications – No financial implications directly arise from this report b) Human Resources Implications – No human resources implications. c) Property Implications - No property implications. 9. Risk Management Implication - No risks associated with the consultation. 10. Equality and Diversity Implications – No equality and diversity implications 11. Crime and Disorder Implications – No crime implications. 12. Health Implications – No health implications. 13. Sustainability Implications – Draft Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessments have been prepared for the documents that have been published. Further updates to these assessments will be produced as proposals are developed. 14. Human Rights Implications - No human rights implications. 15. Area and Ward Implications – The Sunderland Local Plan could potentially have implications for Gateshead, although close cooperation between Councils and adhering to the duty to co-operate should resolve any issues. Annex Sunderland City Council growth options consultation response As neighbouring local authorities, cooperation on strategic cross-boundary issues can positively influence sustainable patterns of development in Gateshead and Sunderland. The assessment of sites within Sunderland that may be able to accommodate development, and the identification of potential growth options for the city are of particular relevance to Gateshead Council, as we continue to implement the Gateshead and Newcastle Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (CSUCP), and prepare other elements of our emerging Local Plan. Growth Options Three potential options for Sunderland’s growth are presented for consultation. In terms of the implications for housing growth in the city, these scenarios set out potential for 515 new homes per year for the low growth scenario, 820 new homes per year for medium growth and 1,055 new homes per year for the higher growth scenario. Sunderland City Council has considered economic (jobs growth) projections alongside demographic projections in identifying potential growth options. Sunderland has seen relatively strong economic growth over recent years, while Census data have revealed a decline in the city’s resident population over the ten years to 2011. Analyses carried out to support Sunderland’s emerging Local Plan suggests that if the city’s economic growth is to be supported into the future (without a significant increase in in-commuting), there is a need to increase the size of Sunderland’s working age population beyond the level that would be delivered through the continuation of current trends. This view is supported by Sunderland’s 2016 Objectively Assessed Need and Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (SHMA), which recommends a housing requirement of 819 new homes per year, taking into account increased population growth to support economic growth in Sunderland. We estimate that the low growth scenario is associated with population growth of roughly 350 residents per year. This scenario seems to be broadly consistent with recent ONS/DCLG population and household projections for Sunderland and can perhaps be considered to represent a ‘baseline’ level of growth. The medium growth scenario seems to be associated with population growth of around 1,000 residents per year. Delivery of the higher growth scenario appears to require population growth of roughly 1,500 residents per year. If Sunderland’s Local Plan is to deliver housing and economic growth that is in line with the medium or higher growth scenarios, consideration needs to be given to how the increased levels of population growth could be delivered, and what impact this would have on other areas. A proportion of the required level of population growth could be achieved by reducing net out-migration from Sunderland to areas outside the North East of England. However, the component of migration that is most likely to be influenced by the Council’s policy interventions is the migration of residents between Sunderland and neighbouring or nearby local authority areas in the North East. Demographic analysis carried out to support Sunderland’s emerging Local Plan reveals that the city experiences an average net loss of around 400 residents per year to County Durham. Although addressing current trends in migration between Sunderland and County Durham (subject to agreement between the two local authorities) may assist in delivering growth in Sunderland, change in migration trends between these two areas alone would not deliver population growth in Sunderland capable of delivering the medium or higher growth scenarios. It therefore seems likely that population growth which is significantly higher than that outlined in the low growth scenario would necessitate a change to recent trends in the migration of residents between Sunderland and more than one other local authority area. ONS data reveals that migration between Gateshead and Sunderland currently results in relatively small net migration between the two local authorities: based on a ten year average up to 2014, net migration results in only around ten residents moving from Sunderland to Gateshead per year. However, the small numbers associated with net migration mask relatively large numbers of migrants each year moving from Sunderland to Gateshead, and vice-versa: a ten year average of ONS migration data indicates an ‘inflow’ of around 530 residents per year from Sunderland to Gateshead, and an ‘outflow’ of around 520 residents per year from Gateshead to Sunderland. Given the sizeable number of residents moving between our areas, and the considerable influence that delivery of the medium or higher growth scenarios would have on migration trends between Sunderland and other areas, it is reasonable to conclude that the pursuit of a policy objective of increasing Sunderland’s population beyond current trends (i.e. the selection of the medium, or higher growth option) has potential to affect net migration flows between Gateshead and Sunderland. This issue is of relevance to Gateshead as we continue to implement