Docstoc

3 CITIES _ 3 COUNTIES

Document Sample
3 CITIES _ 3 COUNTIES Powered By Docstoc
					          3 CITIES & 3 COUNTIES
           NEW GROWTH POINT


            DRAFT
    PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH
   PROGRAMME OF DEVELOPMENT

                   2006-2026

(based on the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the
                  East Midlands)

            and indicative
   investment priorities for 2008-2011



                      VERSION 3.0
                    14th August 2007
                DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CLG




                           1
STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT
This draft Programme of Development is an initial statement of the sustainable
growth ambitions of the 3 Cities & 3 Counties Partnership for Growth, based on the
proposals included in the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East
Midlands. It will develop further as the RSS takes final shape, as our response to
the Housing Green Paper emerges, and in the light of further guidance following the
publication of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and
Regeneration.

At the time of drafting, the draft RSS is undergoing its Examination in Public, and the
proposals for housing growth contained in it are being tested.

This Programme of Development is therefore a living document which will change
as more detail emerges, for example the Panel’s report to the Secretary of State on
suggested changes to the draft RSS; which in turn will inform the emerging Local
Development Frameworks.

This Programme shows how local partners will deliver the growth proposed for the 3
Cities Sub-area by the draft RSS and emerging Local Development Frameworks;
responding to the challenges of housing growth and actively planning the
communities of the future.

Our local leaders are united in wanting to help people find the right home, shape our
cities and towns to be places where people want to live and work, and tackle climate
change. New Growth Points funding will provide additional resources to help us
deliver the growth as sustainably as possible.

The Appendices to this document contain the first attempt to codify this growth into a
programme of investment in infrastructure and public intervention to ensure that new
housing comes forward in the numbers and variety required to meet our identified
and expected housing needs.

The final version of this year’s iteration of the 3 Cities & 3 Counties
Programme of Development is to be submitted to CLG on 1st October 2007. It
will concentrate on medium term infrastructure projects for 2008/09 to 2010/11, while
outlining the longer term projects post 2011.


PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS ARE ASKED TO ENSURE THAT
  THEIR FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS ITERATION REACH ME BY
               MONDAY 24TH SEPTEMBER 2007


Guy Wisbey
Project Manager, 3 Cities & 3 Counties Partnership for Growth
guy.wisbey@leicester.gov.uk



                                           2
CONTENTS
                                                                            Page

      Summary                                                               4

      Housing Provision Trajectory                                          5

      Timelines                                                             6

1.    Applying and delivering the principles of sustainable development     7

2.    Delivery mechanisms for economic and housing growth
      in the 3 Cities sub-area                                              15

3.    Rationale and Evidence base                                           22

4.    Related infrastructure requirements                                   29

5.    Summary of investment needs                                           39

6.    3 Cities & Counties Partnership for Growth priorities for 2008-2011   43

Summary of financial support requested for
joint 3 Cities and 3 Counties projects                                      45


Appendices (separate documents)

A1.    The Derby HMA and draft Housing Trajectory


A2.    The Leicester and Leicestershire HMA and draft Housing Trajectory


A3.    The Nottingham Core HMA and draft Housing Trajectory


A4.    Strategic Green Infrastructure




                                            3
Summary
The 3 Cities & 3 Counties is the largest and most complex of the 29 New Growth
Points in England, currently offering some 19% of the expected national total of new
homes. It aims to deliver at least 81,500 new homes in the period 2006-2016, and
the same again in the period 2016-2026.

The breakdown proposed in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the 25
year period 2001-2026, by Housing Market Area (HMA), is:

    Housing Market Area            Average Annual            Total Dwelling      (of which the
                                   Build Rate                Provision           planned PUA
                                                             2001- 2026          share is:)
    Derby HMA                      1,770                     44,250              24,500
    Leicester &                    3,780                     94,500              44,000
    Leicestershire HMA
    Nottingham Core HMA            2,490                     62,2501             46,000
    Total                          8,040                     201,000             114,500


The draft RSS has just undergone its Examination in Public (22nd May to 19th July
2007) and the Panel’s recommendations will shape the Adopted RSS, to be
approved by the Secretary of State in 2008. This is turn will inform the Local
Development Frameworks adopted by each of the 172 Local Planning Authorities
and 3 County Councils.

We intend to deliver our Partnership for Growth with Government in line with the
“Urban Concentration and Regeneration” strategy, and the vision expressed in the
draft sub-regional spatial strategy:

          The Three Cities Sub-area will be an area where the principles of
          sustainability are implemented through new development and
          regeneration. This will involve the significant strengthening of the
          complementary roles of the 3 Principal Urban Areas by providing new
          jobs, homes, services, community facilities and green and
          environmental infrastructure in and around them. The role of Sub-
          Regional Centres will be maintained through appropriate development,
          and the needs of other settlements requiring regeneration will be met in
          a sustainable way. Natural and cultural assets will be protected and
          enhanced.

We are also mindful of Government’s 4 Principles for Partnership for Growth:
  • Early delivery of housing
  • Ensuring sustainable growth
  • Infrastructure and services keeping pace with growth
  • Delivery support


1
    Likely to increase to at least 64,750 – see appendix 3
2
    Nottingham Core HMA includes the 4 Hucknall wards of Ashfield District Council


                                                   4
Housing Provision Trajectory
Based on the proposals in the Draft RSS

The average annual build rate proposed for the 3 Cities sub-area by the draft RSS is
8,040 new homes each year from 2001 to 2026. This is an increase of some 23%
on past proposals, and an even greater proportionate increase on the number of
homes actually constructed in past years.

The average needs to be maintained over the period, but can be monitored and
managed to ensure delivery of the required number of homes.

Whilst the early focus of our New Growth Point – the “quick wins” - is the urban
regeneration of the major settlements and bringing people back to live in vibrant city
centres, we recognise that the market will have to deliver the new homes and that
the demand is for a great deal of choice in housing type, tenure and location.

At a HMA level, a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has
been carried out, funded by CLG, for each of the three Principal Urban Areas
(PUAs). These give a baseline of the potential capacity of each PUA, but require
testing against the market reality of what developers and their backers will invest in,
and where people will choose to live, through the Local Development Frameworks
process.


(combined trajectory tables and graphs to be prepared and inserted)




                                           5
  Timelines
Area of          2006-2008                   2008-2011                  2011-2014              2014-2016              2016-2026
activity
Strategic        Mainly business as          Market continues to        Switch to plan-led     Development is         Growth is self-
                 usual, market led           deliver current            development, use       either in              sustaining to the
intent                                                                  of phased release      masterplanned          highest standards.
                 development on existing     commitment but we
                 allocations.                seek higher standards.     to direct market.      sustainable sites or
                                                                                               urban                  Completion of
                 Public interventions        Much more public           Use of publicly        intensification in     planned growth
                 already taking effect on    intervention to address    funded                 windfall sites – but   locations.
                 successfully delivering     market failure.            infrastructure to      all to the highest
                 URC Masterplan                                         tackle remaining       standards              Public investment
                 objectives, and greatly     Development of plan-led    market failure,                               priorities shift to the
                 improved partnership        core strategies and        bring into public                             retro-fitting of
                 working between public      Masterplans.               ownership if                                  existing housing
                 sector partners.                                       necessary                                     stock to:
Derby HMA                                    Concentrate on             Continue               Derby City sites
                 Where opportunity           delivering further         momentum within        completed and            • achieve zero
                 arises, best practice       strategic brownfield       Derby City but         Amber Valley and           carbon
                 encouraged.                 housing sites, mainly in   invest in Amber        South Derbyshire           standards
                                             Derby Cityscape city       Valley and South       PUA extensions             where possible
                 Begin building financial    centre areas               Derbyshire PUA         taking shape             • tackle problems
                 framework for “shared                                  extensions                                        caused by poor
Leicester        endeavour” and creating     Concentrate on             Ashton Green           Leicester City sites       original design
                 delivery vehicles           delivering further         continues and two      completed and five         or construction
HMA
                                             Leicester City             PUA extensions         growth locations         • achieve higher
                 Starting to set joint       regeneration schemes       start infrastructure   come on stream to          densities by
                 targets across all 17       and starting Ashton        construction, as do    deliver housing at         better land use
                 Local Planning              Green                      three growth           maximum rates            • make better
                 Authorities – for                                      locations outside      (West of Leicester         distinction
                 example the required        Masterplan the 5 new       the PUA                may be post 2016)          between private
                 proportion of affordable    growth locations for an                                                      and public
                 homes                       early start post 2011                                                        realm to design
Nottingham                                   Concentrate on further     Brownfield             Exemplar                   out crime
                 Work starts to plan         delivering Nottingham      opportunities at       sustainable urban
Core HMA         infrastructure              Regeneration Ltd           Gedling Colliery       extensions at sites
                 improvements in             schemes in Waterside,      and Stanton            to be determined,
                 preparation for the new     Eastside and Southside,    Ironworks,             continued
                 growth locations, so that   continue neighbourhood     neighbourhood          neighbourhood
                 they can come on            transformation at          transformation         transformation
                 stream in 2011-2014         Stonebridge
Zero carbon      Seek exemplar               Deliver (with EP)          Enforce Level 4 in    Enforce Level 6         Use technology to
                 schemes, include the        exemplar schemes in all    all new approvals     (zero carbon) in all    further reduce
(Code for                                                                                                             carbon footprint of
                 Code in emerging LDFs       three HMAs. Enforce        where completion      new approvals
Sustainable                                  minimum Level 3 for        date is 2013 or       where completion        all existing stock
Homes)                                       post-2009 completions      after                 is 2016 or after
Sustainable      Develop “big ideas” for     East Midlands Parkway      Nottingham NET        NET 2 trams             Nottingham NET
                 sustainable transport to    station, more Park &       tram Phase 2          running after 2013      tram Phase 3
transport
                 transform behaviour and     Ride schemes               under construction,                           under construction.
                 achieve real modal          implemented,               more light rail                               Transformation of
                 switch                      Derby Mick / Mack          development work                              LTPs with TIF
                                             express busway             2011-16 LTPs to be much more ambitious        investment
                                                                        and seek substantial DfT TIF investment

Capacity to      Beginning to improve        Local partnerships
                 working with the private    extended and built up,
deliver
                 sector to raise standards   use of shared posts to
                 and capacity to deliver     spread skills. Housing &
                 sustainable construction    Planning Delivery Grant
                                             begins.
Eco-             Prepare Ashton Green        Begin delivery of Ashton   Ashton Green and       ? depending on
                 and Ozone eco-              Green and Ozone;           Ozone at peak          whether new Eco-
communities
                 community schemes,          feasibility studies and    construction, other    Town settlement
/ Eco-Towns      examine other               Masterplanning for other   sites begin            location comes
                 possibilities               potential sites            infrastructure work    forward
Green            Map supply and              Finalise mapping and       Delivery of phase 2    Delivery of phase 3    Continued
                 demand, and plan for        planning, delivery phase   – the strategic GI     – the local GI         investment to
Infrastructure
                 delivery                    1 – the known GI needs     needs of the newly     needs of growth        improve strategic
                                             on sites already           allocated growth       locations              links and
                                             identified                 locations                                     biodiversity




                                                               6
Applying and delivering the principles of sustainable
development throughout the 3 Cities sub-area
1.1   Our long term vision out to 2026

1.1.1 The 3 Cities & 3 Counties collaboration is unique in the UK. With no one East
      Midlands city dominant within the region, three of the largest 15 cities in
      England have come together with their hinterlands to offer strategic
      connectivity at the centre of the UK, 90 minutes from London and only 4 hours
      from Paris.

1.1.2 Our Business Case has already been presented to Ministers, and is being
      refreshed in the light of the Local Government White Paper, to demonstrate
      how we offer scope for autonomy and subsidiarity from the ground up. We
      also welcome recent national policy initiatives which chime well with our
      ambitions and vision, such as the Sub-National Review and Housing Green
      Paper; and which will help us take control of our destiny in the national
      interest. We welcome and support the “Shared Endeavour” concept.

1.1.3 The draft 3 Cities & 3 Counties Business Case 2007 emphasises:

      •   Our offer to support the overheating / underperforming of London as the
          UK’s World City, by taking growth into established urban centres which
          already have most of the necessary infrastructure
      •   Our pivotal role in the UK as the communications centre – with 90% of the
          UK population within 4 hours by lorry, the Midlands is a critical component
          of the UK
      •   Our common purpose, concerted action and consistent outcomes in
          tackling urban issues
      •   Our richness of diversity and reputation for integrating new communities
      •   Our ambitions for a zero carbon future

1.1.4 There are four key 3 Cities & 3 Counties priorities which are particularly
      applicable to New Growth Points:

      •   Sustainable Growth
      •   Being the effective and dynamic centre of Britain
      •   Optimising ICT infrastructure for the knowledge economy
      •   Maintaining safe communities

(more to come as Business Case develops)


1.2   The added value of the 3 Cities & 3 Counties approach

1.2.1 The 3 Cities and 3 Counties collaboration gives great synergy and
      additionality in:




                                          7
      •   A track record of delivery and achieving transformation, which can swiftly
          accelerate given the new resources being made available
      •   A critical mass offering market aggregation and procurement opportunities
          to drive down costs (especially in energy saving technology and modern
          methods of construction)
      •   Strategic leadership in zero carbon / design quality / place shaping, with
          ambitions to be at the cutting edge of urban development and a flagship
          for cities and towns across the world
      •   Connectivity, rapid communication and sharing of best practice
      •   Flexibility in delivery, spreading the load and managing risk between the
          partnership to smooth out delivery trajectories
      •   Bringing together the experience of three successful Urban Regeneration
          Companies and their local partners
      •   Linking housing growth to the existing joint working on sustainable
          transport and economic development
      •   Working, where appropriate, towards Joint Core Strategies and linked
          Local Area Agreements
      •   Mature, stable and safe communities, with history and soul, deriving
          creativity from new cultural experiences
      •   A genuine choice, between a large number of different offers in thriving
          towns and cities, for households looking for a place to live

1.2.2 Our draft RSS offers growth well above the New Growth Points threshold of
      20% above the RSS8 figure of 2003.

1.2.3 In addition, we are offering:

      •   To maintain the same accelerated rate of growth beyond 2016 to at least
          2026
      •   To bring forward some of the planned post-2016 growth to start dates of
          2011-2012 – i.e. to profile growth much sooner than would have occurred
          without NGP
      •   To get much better at capturing development value to provide
          infrastructure
      •   To join up our spatial planning capacity across the boundaries of 20 local
          authorities, by adopting common aims to secure higher standards of
          design and sustainability, and to improve our ability to harness
          development value to provide infrastructure
      •   To increase and improve provision of green infrastructure for leisure,
          biodiversity, historical, cultural and landscape value
      •   Where appropriate, to pilot and strengthen the City Development
          Company model across administrative boundaries, using robust and
          innovative delivery vehicles which harness private sector expertise and
          investment to democratic leadership and accountability.

1.2.4 Every Local Authority in the East Midlands has signed the Nottingham
      Declaration on Climate Change, and is preparing a Climate Change Strategy.
      Our combined action plans offer Government a step change in improving the
      UK’s performance.


                                          8
1.3   Key themes

1.3.1 The seven key themes of our sustainable development, which run throughout
      our programme, are:

1.3.2 Place Shaping

      o Showing aspirational leadership and vision for the future
      o A joint and effective approach to anticipating and planning infrastructure
      o Addressing market failure in regeneration areas
      o Large new developments will be treated as important components
        of efforts to shape places and communities as a whole
      o Securing improvements to host communities as well as achieving best
        practice in new developments
      o Working with all our partners to deliver better services
      o Tackling the reasons for “city flight”

1.3.3 Tackling climate change

      o Reducing net CO2 emissions from homes towards a zero-carbon standard
      o Reducing net CO2 emissions from transport, by reducing the need to travel
        and by improving access to more sustainable forms of transport
      o Seeking opportunities to stimulate local low carbon markets
      o Using green infrastructure as carbon sinks and controls on flooding,
        erosion and other effects of more extreme weather conditions

1.3.4 Sustainable transport

      o Connectivity
      o Improving accessibility and delivering modal shift – “big ideas” and bold
        ambition to encourage people to change behaviour
      o Managing travel demand to reduce the growth in traffic through
        behavioural change programmes
      o Managing and developing the transport network to improve internal
        connectivity and connectivity to national and international gateways
      o Enhancing public transport networks to provide a real alternative to car
        use
      o Improving the opportunities for all to access jobs, services and leisure
        facilities
      o Encouraging development where it can be easily accessed by public
        transport, cycling and walking
      o Ensuring delivery of necessary transport infrastructure in parallel with
        development

      (see section 3.3 below)




                                         9
1.3.5 Safeguarding and enhancing the natural environment

      o To use NGP funding proactively to enhance the landscape of the sub-area
        and improve public access to the natural environment and historic features
      o Reducing the need to build on greenfield sites by prioritising the re-use of
        brownfield land and increasing the density of development where
        appropriate
      o Providing more green infrastructure to enhance biodiversity, provide better
        access to green space for leisure, plant more trees to absorb pollution and
        soften the landscape, make better use of our strategic river corridors
      o Reducing per-capita consumption of natural resources – e.g. setting
        exemplary standards for water efficiency and waste reduction, and
        encouraging the adoption of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)
        to help protect water quality
      o Respecting the scale, character and distinctiveness of landscapes and
        settlements in selecting the most sustainable sites for development

1.3.6 Improving and enhancing the built environment

      o Plan-led development where the required quality is stated from the outset
      o Creating quality environments that will be attractive to investors, and bring
        developers forward for those sites where there has been market failure
      o Achieving the best quality design of new developments to ensure that they
        are safe, healthy and desirable places to live; and well integrated with
        existing settlements
      o Integrating community facilities and places of employment within housing
        areas to ensure daytime vibrancy and activity
      o Making and taking opportunities to redress past design mistakes, and
        respect the best of existing architecture; so that all our communities are
        raised to the standards of the best

1.3.7 Linking physical, economic and social regeneration with growth

      o Ensuring the types of homes being brought forward meet the identified and
        evidenced housing needs of each HMA – e.g. prioritising affordable, social
        rented, family housing
      o Ensuring that our growth provides new resources for housing and caring
        for our ageing population, in turn helping to bring family housing back on to
        the market
      o Creating further quality employment opportunities within and close to
        housing
      o Using the economic opportunities of growth to help tackle worklessness
        and poor levels of skills
      o Increasing the supply of attractive affordable homes to meet future
        demand, without increasing house price inflation
      o Requiring large new developments to integrate mixed use functions; which
        includes provision for employment, education, health & social care,
        convenience shopping, and sports, culture & leisure; from the beginning
      o Seeking to retro-fit current monocultural housing estates with the
        community, social and green infrastructure they need


                                         10
      o Ensuring neighbourhood management initiatives tackle regeneration and
        improved service priorities
      o Enhancing the role of existing town and city centres, to meet the needs of
        their communities, and to stimulate further investment in employment and
        leisure opportunities in locations which favour sustainable transport modes
      o Using growth to help deliver the objectives of our Regional Economic
        Strategy, “A Flourishing Region” – and conversely, actively seeking
        economic opportunities presented by growth

1.3.8 Promoting community engagement and involvement

      o Ensuring that the people who live, or who will live, in our communities
        have a genuine opportunity to shape their development
      o Seeking opportunities for the voluntary and community sector to be part of
        delivering even better public services
      o To establish and manage a Green Infrastructure small grant scheme fund
        that will help support a wide variety of grass roots community and
        voluntary projects, that will improve the quality of life for local people
      o Implementing neighbourhood management where it delivers the best
        solution for local service delivery
      o Integrating the agreed priorities of our Local Strategic Partnerships, as
        expressed in our refreshed Sustainable Community Strategies, in all our
        growth and infrastructure plans
      o Using innovative methods, such as consultation on public art, to help build
        new communities and give people a stake in their neighbourhood


1.4   The Government’s Eco-Towns scheme

1.4.1 We have no obvious contenders to fit the current Eco-Towns criteria of
      brownfield sites capable of delivering 5-20,000 sustainable homes. The sites
      we do have with potential to become new settlements also have major
      constraints in terms of sustainable transport and landscape / Green Belt.

1.4.2 Our draft RSS does not propose any new settlements. It has promoted an
      arguably more sustainable option, compact urban areas.

1.4.3 There are a number of potential candidates for small new settlements – for
      example former industrial sites such as Stanton Iron Works in Erewash (1,100
      dwellings but Green Belt constraints?), and disused power station sites in
      South Derbyshire; and we would be willing to discuss their long-term potential.

1.4.4 Our joint working offers the opportunity to combine the purchasing power of
      smaller eco-villages across the three HMAs and provide exemplar schemes
      across the region, and we have begun discussions with English Partnerships
      on how we might achieve this.

1.4.5 The Prime Minister’s re-launch of Eco-Towns as stand-alone new settlements,
      and the announcement of additional funding if these are additional to planned
      growth, was too late for our draft RSS. Nonetheless, local partners are


                                         11
         looking again at how these could be pursued, and examine any private sector
         proposals that come forward.


1.5      Neighbourhood transformation and Mixed Communities

1.5.1 Certainly within the three City Councils, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in
      the public housing stock, there is scope for diversifying housing tenure and
      type while increasing densities and providing community and green
      infrastructure. Some initial projects with both private sector developers and
      Housing Associations / Housing Corporation have already begun – for
      example the Stonebridge estate in Nottingham.

1.5.2 Although these projects will not produce large net gains in housing numbers,
      they will make a substantial difference in terms of suitability and fitness of
      housing to meet the needs of tomorrow’s population, rather than the pre- and
      post- Second World War demographics that much of the public stock was built
      for. They will also make a huge difference to the communities receiving this
      investment. Leicester’s Braunstone New Deal for Communities, for example,
      is keen to work up a “mixed communities” scheme to continue the
      transformation of the estate.

1.5.3 We welcome the recognition in the Sub-national Review that housing,
      economic growth, regeneration and sustainable communities are inextricably
      linked, and we look forward to working with the national agencies to add
      value.


1.6      Regeneration and reversing the trend for city flight

1.6.1 Our Partnership for Growth takes as a given the draft Regional Spatial
      Strategy policy of urban concentration and regeneration, both in the Principal
      Urban Areas and the Sub Regional Centres. Our three Urban Regeneration
      Companies were indeed set up to help achieve this, and have made
      substantial progress over the last five years in revitalising our city centres and
      creating quality employment opportunities.

1.6.2 The final report3 on “City Flight migration patterns in the East Midlands”
      suggested a number of key policy interventions if we wished to avoid possible
      future problems associated with city flight:

         •   “accelerating residential sorting may put at risk cohesion, due to migration
             flows polarising the city region’s richer and poorer – and White and non-
             White – residents between its urban and more rural parts
         •   the central city local authorities may lose fiscal strength while having to
             work in partnership with other conurbation local authorities to achieve
             regeneration;

3
    Mike Coombes, Tony Champion, Tim Brown, Simon Raybould, for emda, March 2007



                                              12
       •   inner area problems could escalate with wider consequences such as
           raised crime risks, lower the city region’s attractiveness to possible in-
           migrants; and
       •   many skilled city centre workers live far out, causing road congestion and
           pollution due to insufficient high capacity high quality public transport.”

1.6.3 These recommended interventions, which clearly match many of our current
      regeneration priorities and proposals (and which are already being addressed
      through our three Urban Regeneration Companies, Building Schools for the
      Future and Regional Economic Strategy), are:

       •   “improved city educational services, and better secondary schools in
           particular
       •   tackling city problems of crime and anti-social behaviour
       •   improving public transport on high density corridors
       •   facilitating new employment growth sectors which favour clustering in
           cities
       •   upgrading and extending urban and suburban retail and leisure facilities
       •   providing a more diverse housing ‘offer’ in the main urban areas
       •   putting further emphasis on development on brownfield sites, and
       •   improving access to open space and enhancing the quality of the local
           environment including the public realm.”

1.6.4 The importance of these interventions will be reflected in our proposals for
      substantial further investment in the urban centres, to make them all places
      where people want to live.


1.7    Capacity building

1.7.1 The key lesson from the Growth Areas is that the organisations charged with
      planning and delivery of growth must develop the capacity to make the
      necessary step change in activity happen.

1.7.2 Some of the proposed build rates in our 2006-2026 programme are up to
      twice what the market actually achieved in 2001-2006. There is also a need,
      given the national demand for construction to 2012 and beyond, to increase
      the ability of our local construction industry to deliver the numbers and quality
      of houses required.

1.7.3 Our programme therefore includes the establishment of more posts whose
      purpose is to deliver sustainable growth. Shared posts, hosted by the most
      appropriate partner, will increase the strategic planning and specialist project
      delivery capacity available to all partners.

1.7.4 Past weaknesses in partnership with the private sector, specifically the need
      to give developers certainty about what is expected from them at the start of
      discussions, are a priority for capacity improvement. Joined up and co-
      ordinated supplementary planning documents will support core strategies in
      making our requirements and ambitions clear.


                                          13
1.7.5 We shall develop innovative ways of working, for example using our three
      existing City Growth Strategy partnerships to help deliver training in
      sustainable construction and modern methods of construction; using funding
      from DWP Cities Strategy, emda and Local Enterprise Growth Initiative
      (LEGI). A sustained and predictable 20 year construction programme is a
      once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tackle worklessness and promote local supply
      chains. We have already engaged with the Learning & Skills Council and
      JobCentre Plus to make this work.

1.7.6 We want to give local people the new skills necessary to build homes which
      will achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 (zero carbon), and
      encourage local businesses to start manufacturing products which currently
      have to be imported, for example triple glazed window units and solar panels.
      We would be delighted if a substantial number of our 200,000 new homes
      were manufactured in new local factories and assembled on site by our local
      skilled workers, who would then have an opportunity to live in these homes.


1.8   Community Infrastructure Fund

1.8.1 We obviously welcome the proposals in the Housing Green Paper to give
      New Growth Points access to the CIF as an additional resource.

1.8.2 Whilst most of our growth locations remain subject to the emerging Local
      Development Frameworks process; and therefore have not been allocated
      and masterplanned, there are some allocated major schemes which have not
      yet come forward, for example Ashton Green, Gedling Colliery and Mickleover
      / Mackworth.

1.8.3 The case of Gedling Colliery is one where CIF intervention would be both
      appropriate and necessary to unlock the site. A contaminated site in the north
      of the Nottingham PUA with potential for 1,100 homes, employment land and
      a country park on the colliery tip; it is being brought forward by a partnership
      which already includes English Partnerships and the Regional Development
      Agency. During the planning enquiry, the Inspector linked the provision of a
      new £30m Gedling Access Road (GAR) to the development of the site. Even
      with EP and emda funding supplementing local resources and Regional
      Funding Allocation, EP cannot make the development support the GAR, the
      S106 costs and site remediation and infrastructure. It is therefore currently
      our intention to bid to the CIF for £30m in 2008-10 to fund the GAR and
      unlock this site for housing.




                                         14
Delivery mechanisms for economic and housing
growth in the 3 Cities sub-area
2.1   The role of the 3 Cities and 3 Counties partnership (the 6Cs)

2.1.1 The strategic rationale for covering the whole of the 3 Cities sub-area and its
      three Housing Market Areas as one Growth Point is discussed elsewhere.

2.1.2 Taking the umbrella role of the 6Cs as a given, it is vital that the leanest
      possible delivery structure is chosen; to ensure rapid and effective decision
      making and project management.

2.1.3 The 6Cs PRINCE2 Programme Management Board will therefore have a
      strategic remit, making only those decisions which have to be made at the top
      level, or where there is clear advantage in a common framework. The day-to-
      day work will be delegated.

2.1.4 Where we seek central resources to improve our capacity and capability in
      sustainable development (for example in maximising developer contributions),
      these resources will be hosted by one of the partners but support all. This
      helps us raise standards and provide expertise across the whole area.

2.1.5 In-house expertise from other 6Cs projects will be available – for example
      using Nottingham’s Employment & Skills Board, or Derbyshire’s work on
      public procurement, as sources of sound advice. The statutory agencies have
      already given much support.


2.2   Delegation of delivery to the most appropriate level

2.2.1 The 2007-08 pilot programme of £5.485m has been delegated for delivery to
      the bodies who put forward the proposals. Coupled with PRINCE2 project
      assurance to the 6Cs Programme Board, this is working well.

2.2.2 We recognise that, to ensure rapid and effective spend of grant, clear and
      early responsibility for delivery has to be delegated. While the actual funding
      mechanism to be employed has yet to be decided by CLG, we will rapidly
      translate the allocation into local priority projects, and assign them to the
      delivery bodies, so that we can seize intervention opportunities as they arise.

2.2.3 In most cases, the most appropriate level for agreeing priorities is the Housing
      Market Area (HMA); and the most appropriate level for delivery the Local
      Authority, Urban Regeneration Company or Local Strategic Partnership. As
      our range and capacity of other delivery vehicles increases, they will take on
      more responsibility for delivery (see 2.7 below re possible CDCs).

2.2.4 We are working with GOEM to ensure that the Local Area Agreement
      outcomes for the New Growth Points funding are both flexible and responsive
      to changing market conditions.


                                          15
2.3   The role of the Local Planning Authorities

2.3.1 It is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authorities to decide where
      additional growth will go, within the context of the RSS. The 17 Local
      Planning Authorities of the 3 Cities Sub-area, supported by the 3 County
      Councils, have done a substantial amount of co-ordinated officer work on their
      LDF Core Strategies. Where possible, joint working is being undertaken
      during the preparation of Core Strategies, although more remains to be done.

2.3.2 In November 2007 the Panel report on the Draft RSS will become available,
      the recommendations of the Panel will feed into wide local political and public
      consultation by Local Planning Authorities on the options for future
      development in their areas. It is unlikely that any of these new sites (which
      are currently not allocated) will come forward for development until at least
      2011, but the Local Planning Authorities will have to ensure that the
      appropriate studies and appraisals are completed before the sites are
      approved in their adopted Local Development Frameworks. We seek CLG
      support in 2008-11 to carry out the studies and Masterplanning work
      necessary to enable phased release of these sites from 2011, several years
      earlier than would otherwise be possible.

2.3.3 Local Planning Authorities are already implementing the Government’s
      agenda for reforming the development control system. Part of the capacity-
      building requirement for delivering sustainable development is helping the
      authorities actively address past weaknesses in getting the most out of
      submitted planning applications; be it from maximising developer
      contributions, ensuring excellence in design and build quality, spreading the
      benefits across the whole of the host community, or tieing in service delivery
      from all service providers.

2.3.4 Our Local Planning Authorities have been, and continue to be, consulted on
      their expectations of plan-led development. Local leaders have ambitions for
      their communities which need to be translated into lists of infrastructure
      requirements; and then into costed delivery plans. Much of this work is in the
      early stages because the precise sites for growth are not formally identified,
      but also because plan-led development is a new way of working. The new
      Housing and Planning Delivery Grant will both help and incentivise progress.

2.3.5 Without the committed involvement and ownership of the District and Borough
      Councils as Local Planning Authorities, we cannot achieve the best outcomes
      for our communities. Our programme therefore seeks to help them make the
      best use of their resources and achieve tangible results for their residents.

2.3.6 Similarly, without closely aligning Core Strategies in Local Development
      Frameworks, and moving towards Joint Development Plan Documents
      between LPAs as the programme develops, we cannot work effectively across
      boundaries or plan effectively at PUA level. As a minimum, we shall be
      aiming to produce aligned and consistent Core Strategies, fully embracing this
      growth plan, and where it adds value, producing joint housing allocations or
      Action Area DPDs. During the course of the programme it is likely that joint


                                         16
      HMA Core Strategies will emerge. We shall keep the need for more formal
      arrangements, such as a joint planning unit, under review. The proposal for 2
      shared planning posts per HMA supports this work – one post would help with
      the strategic planning and the other with improving development control
      outcomes.


2.4   The role of the local Housing Authorities

2.4.1 As discussed in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 below, the housing needs identified in
      the Strategic Housing Market Assessments are driving the Housing
      Authorities’ strategies and programmes. We are also well aware that housing
      affordability has recently become much more of a problem for a far greater
      proportion of our population than the current social rented sector, as price /
      earnings ratios have increased. The historic low wage economy makes the
      cities particularly vulnerable to unrealistic house prices.

2.4.2 The Housing Authorities will be responding to the Housing Green Paper in
      due course. They will welcome extended powers to manage local markets
      and tackle empty properties more effectively.

2.4.3 We will be working with the Housing Corporation to maximise the take up of
      grant to deliver more affordable housing, and continue using our own Housing
      Revenue Account resources to support provision. Housing officers will step
      up their work with development control colleagues to offer pre-application
      discussions to ensure that the best possible housing outcomes are achieved.

2.4.4 Our Housing Authorities already have excellent working relationships with
      other partners – the Housing Associations and other Registered Social
      Landlords (RSLs) – and we shall build on this strength.


2.5   The role of the Regional Bodies

2.5.1 The purpose of the Partnership for Growth is to help deliver the 3 Cities parts
      of the RSS, Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Regional Housing Strategy,
      Regional Transport Strategy and Integrated Regional Strategy.

2.5.2 Nothing in the 6Cs growth proposals contradicts anything in the Regional
      strategies – indeed, our submission was based on them. The challenge is to
      add value and make the growth support the well-being of the wider Region,
      and help the East Midlands make a greater contribution to the UK.

2.5.3 The Regional Assembly, emda, English Partnerships and GOEM all have a
      wealth of learning gained from Northamptonshire’s experience in the Milton
      Keynes South Midlands (MKSM) Growth Area, and we shall seek to tap into
      this.

2.5.4 The 3 Cities sub-area cannot be seen in isolation. It adjoins other New
      Growth Points at Newark, Grantham and Lincoln; the Milton Keynes South


                                         17
      Midlands Growth Area in Northamptonshire; and across the regional
      boundary, in the West Midlands, the Coventry and East Staffordshire New
      Growth Points. Opportunities for better cross-boundary working are being
      sought, and the regional bodies are essential to joining up local pictures.

2.5.5 For example, the proposed growth at Coalville and implications for
      Swadlincote will not be looked at in isolation from that proposed in the West
      Midlands at East Staffordshire / Burton on Trent. Both could contribute to
      wider social, economic and environmental regeneration within the National
      Forest area (within which they are both located), and both could help
      support the reintroduction of passenger rail services between Leicester and
      Burton.

      (the implications of the sub-national review will be addressed in the 1st
      October version)


2.6   The role of the statutory agencies

2.6.1 The statutory agencies have a dual role of enforcement and enabling. Their
      guidance so far has not identified any ‘show stoppers’ which would prevent
      development at specific sites; but has warned of some constraints.

2.6.2 The 6Cs partnership has already been working with the Highways Agency to
      understand and improve road transport capacity, and the other agencies have
      been keen to volunteer their help. As an example, Natural England has
      contributed a great deal of staff time to helping produce the initial green
      infrastructure plans, supported by work from the Environment Agency and
      English Heritage, and by local partners such as the Regional Assembly, the
      National Forest Company and the voluntary sector.

2.6.3 We value the win / win approach being taken by the agencies, and expect to
      be able to embark on mutually beneficial joint projects.

2.6.4 We especially welcome the proactive approach being taken by the Housing
      Corporation and English Partnerships, and their increasingly joined-up
      working as Communities England / new homes agency.


2.7   Delivery vehicles

2.7.1 Each of the three cities has an existing Urban Regeneration Company (URC)
      with an approved Masterplan which has already made substantial progress;
      and each of the HMAs has an emda-funded Sub-Regional Strategic
      Partnership (SSP). Each City and each County also has a Local Strategic
      Partnership (LSP) responsible for its Local Area Agreement (LAA) with
      Government.




                                           18
2.7.2 The 2007-08 pilot programme £5.1m capital grants, and £100k of revenue
      grant, are being delivered in support of the three URC Masterplans because
      that is where the quick wins are available.

2.7.3 The 2008-11 programme is more complicated. While the three URC
      intervention areas remain the focus for achieving additionality in bringing
      brownfield sites forward for further housing development; we must also carry
      out the necessary studies and preparatory work for bringing forward the other
      sites identified in the trajectories as providing housing from 2011.

2.7.4 It is our intention, depending on the final CLG guidance, to look seriously at
      the Government’s invitation to set up City Development Companies (CDCs) or
      other delivery vehicles for each of the HMAs. These will have a clear delivery
      remit for the Partnership for Growth, and be resourced and supported to
      achieve rapid and effective delivery. However, the precise shape for each of
      the CDCs has yet to be agreed locally and in partnership with GOEM, emda
      and English Partnerships, and they are but one option for local partnerships to
      consider. If adopted, they will be flexible within the areas of activity chosen by
      local partners, and be set up to reflect the fact that economic activity does not
      recognise or respect administrative boundaries.

2.7.5 Similarly, we very much welcome the Housing Green Paper proposals for
      more proactive approaches to delivery from all the key players and the
      confirmation of the creation of the new homes agency.




                                          19
    2.8      Delivery Structures

    2.8.1 We seek to minimise the creation of new structures. However, some of the
          areas of work are new, and we need to set up formal project management
          structures to optimise effective cross-boundary working.

    2.8.2 Table 1 below shows the expected composition of the four programme boards
          who will co-ordinate the three HMAs and the strategic green infrastructure.
          Below this level, existing PRINCE2 Project Boards or individual organisations
          will be accountable for the delivery of individual projects


    Table 1 – expected programme board composition

Derby HMA                  Leicester &                     Nottingham Core            6Cs Strategic
Programme                  Leicestershire                  HMA Programme              Green
Board                      HMA Programme                   Board                      Infrastructure
                           Board                                                      Programme
Derby City                                                 Nottingham City            Board
Derbyshire County          Leicester City                  Nottinghamshire
District representatives   Leicestershire County           County                     Natural England
Derby Cityscape            District representatives        District representatives   EMRA
DDEP                       Leicester Regen Co              Nottingham Regen Ltd       Environment Agency
GOEM local rep             LSEP                            GNP                        English Heritage
PCT rep?                   GOEM local rep                  GOEM local rep             6 x HMA reps (inc
Voluntary &                PCT rep?                        PCT rep?                   Districts)
Community sector           Voluntary &                     Voluntary &                ? x Voluntary &
rep?                       Community sector                Community sector           Community Sector
Private sector rep?        rep?                            rep?                       reps,
                           Private sector rep?             Private sector rep?        Wildlife Trusts,
                                                                                      Groundwork,
                                                                                      Rural Community
                                                                                      Councils




    2.8.3 Table 2 overleaf shows the indicative (but much compressed and simplified)
          relationships between existing strategies and organisations and the
          Partnership for Growth delivery structures.




                                                      20
        Table 2 – relationships between structures (simplified)

      East Midlands                East Midlands                   East Midlands               East Midlands
     Regional Spatial           Regional Economic                Regional Housing            Regional Transport
  Strategy (RSS) / Local       Strategy (RES) / local            Strategy / Housing           Strategy / Local
       Development             RES Implementation                   Market Area               Transport Plans
       Frameworks                      Plans                        assessments                   (LTPs)




                           3 Cities & 3 Counties Leadership Group                         6Cs Partnership
                           (the Leaders of the six City and County Councils,                 Manager
                           the Regional Director GOEM and the Chief                   (funded by the six
                           Executive of emda)                                         authorities, GOEM & emda)

     6Cs NGP
      Project
     Manager                 6Cs Programme Management Board                           6Cs Transport
   (CLG                    (senior officers from the six City and County              Programme Board
                           Councils, GOEM, emda and English Partnerships)             (Highways Agency &
   funded for                                                                         Highways Authorities, TIF)
   2007-2008)



Derby HMA                    Leicester &                     Nottingham Core             6Cs Strategic Green
Programme                    Leicestershire                  HMA Programme               Infrastructure
Board                        HMA Programme                   Board                       Programme Board
                             Board

Delivery Officer (CLG        Delivery Officer (CLG           Delivery Officer (CLG       Delivery Officer (CLG
NGP funding                  NGP funding                     NGP funding                 NGP funding
requested for 2008-11)       requested for 2008-11)          requested for 2008-11)      requested for 2008-11)



PRINCE2 Project              PRINCE2 Project                 PRINCE2 Project             PRINCE2 Project
Boards / delivery            Boards / delivery               Boards / delivery           Boards / delivery
mechanisms as                mechanisms as                   mechanisms as               mechanisms as
appropriate (URC /           appropriate (URC /              appropriate (URC /          appropriate
CDC?)                        CDC?)                           CDC?)                       (Community Interest
                                                                                         Company model?)




Statutory Agencies and Partners – Arts Council England, Blueprint, British Waterways, CABE, East
Midlands Cultural Consortium, East Midlands Tourism, emda, English Heritage, English Partnerships,
Environment Agency, GOEM, Highways Agency, Housing Corporation, National Forest Company, Natural
England, OPUN, Regeneration East Midlands, Regional Assembly, Regional Housing Board, Severn Trent Water,
Sport England and the private, voluntary and community sectors



        KEY – previously existing ; set up for 6Cs ; set up for NGP 2007-08, to be set up


                                                        21
Rationale and evidence base for economic and
housing growth in the 3 Cities sub-area
3.1     Urban concentration and regeneration

3.1.1 The RSS evidence base contains the justification paper for the housing
      growth, and the ONS / CLG trend based household projection figures
      published in early 2006 suggest that levels of growth in excess of 25% above
      2003 projections will be required to cater for new households being created in
      the 3 Cities sub-area. This is being examined by the RSS Panel, and is
      expected to feature in its recommendations to the Secretary of State4.

3.1.2 The national pattern is of people living longer, choosing to live in smaller
      households, and actively seeking a place of their own. Added to net in-
      migration to the three HMAs, the 3 Cities picture is of one of anticipated
      demand for new homes for the foreseeable future. The age profile of the
      three City Unitaries is lower than the regional average and reducing, against
      the national trend. More so in Leicester and Nottingham than Derby, we are
      seeing an increase in the city working age population which mitigates the
      increase in the post-retirement population; but does not match the projections
      of an ageing demographic outside the cities. We will most certainly need a
      step change in our ability to house and care for more older people.

3.1.3 On policy grounds, we need to shape growth towards urban concentration
      and regeneration, as stated in the draft RSS. City flight affects the three city
      centres, which are in danger of losing their social mix and concentrating
      people with low skills (and often also BME residents and people whose first
      language is not English) in the inner cities. It also affects some of our sub-
      regional centres, where people find it difficult to secure good jobs and
      affordable homes in the communities they grew up in.

3.1.4 Emda-sponsored research, presented by Intelligence East Midlands at a
      seminar in Leicester on 22nd May 2007, examined migration and city flight. It
      warned of economic and social long-term consequences of the market-led
      continuing city flight:

        •   Reduced community cohesion as the city population becomes more
            polarised
        •   Reduced community cohesion leading to higher levels of crime and
            deprivation, setting up a vicious circle as those who can migrate do
        •   Further decline in City school educational standards, again adversely
            affecting our reputation and ability to attract inward investment
        •   Increased commuting, congestion and pollution as those working in higher
            level jobs in the cities choose to live away from the cities
        •   Rural polarisation between those with city-job incomes and those in the
            rural economy

4
  The Panel’s report will not be available in time to inform the 2008-11 investment allocation, and any
recommended changes in housing numbers will be addressed in the 2008 iteration of this document.


                                                  22
3.1.5 The draft RSS is undergoing its Examination in Public and a great deal of
      evidence is available from EMRA or through the EiP Panel webpages at
      http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/rss/east_midlands/index.htm

3.1.6 The Regional Housing Strategy is constantly being updated and a number of
      important pieces of research are currently being undertaken:


RHG Regional Research Strategy 2007/8 (as at 18th May 2007)

Research Study                 Lead agency              Contact Officer

Independent review to inform   East Midlands Regional   Geoff Milner
Regional Housing Strategy      Assembly (EMRA)          Geoff.milner@emra.gov.uk

Future of Housing for older    Government Office for    Deborah Harrison
people / Accessible Housing    the East Midlands        Deborah.HARRISON@goem.gsi.gov.uk
Strategy                       (GOEM)
Impact of Migrant Workers      GOEM /Decent And         c/o Jim Grundy
on Private Housing Sector      Safe Homes (DASH)        Jim.GRUNDY@goem.gsi.gov.uk
Intermediate Housing           Housing Corporation      Charles Amies
Research                                                Charles.Amies@housingcorp.gsx..gov.uk
Realising Housing Assets –     GOEM                     C/o Jim Grundy
‘Mixed Communities Pilots                               Jim.GRUNDY@goem.gsi.gov.uk
Scoping report into            EMRA                     C/o Dez Tanser
Behavioural Change                                      dez.tanser@emra.gov.uk
Tenants Survey                 East Midlands Tenant     C/o Jim Grundy
                               Participation Forum      Jim.GRUNDY@goem.gsi.gov.uk
                               (EMTPF)
Regional Homelessness          East Midlands Regional   C/o Claire Grainger
Strategy – sub regional        Homelessness Forum       claire.grainger@hlg.org.uk
development                    (EMRHF)
S106 Research - Regional       Housing Corporation      C/o Charles Amies
Launch                                                  Charles.Amies@housingcorp.gsx..gov.uk
HI4EM Ongoing)                 GOEM                     Jim Grundy
                                                        Jim.GRUNDY@goem.gsi.gov.uk



3.2    Economic Growth

3.2.1 We have always been clear that our growth must be free standing; and that
      our new residents must be able to find employment within the 3 Cities sub-
      area. We do not wish to provide dormitory suburbs for commuters, and we
      need enhanced economic activity to lead the housing market. Our low
      graduate retention rates suggest we are subsidising other regions and failing
      to maximise our economic potential.

3.2.2 Our ballpark ambition for creating homes and jobs together is one new job
      for every new home. This stretching ambition is not fully justified by the
      household projection figures alone to provide employment for the growing
      population, but also includes measures to tackle existing worklessness, and
      the current degree of outcommuting from the Region that adds to congestion.
      81,500 extra high quality jobs by 2016 is a serious economic challenge,


                                               23
      coming on top of the sectoral restructuring that has already been achieved
      since the loss of many of the traditional engineering and manufacturing jobs in
      the area. Our Urban Regeneration Companies have already made a good
      start on creating quality employment sites.

3.2.3 There is enormous potential to harness growth as an economic opportunity.
      As noted by the Stern Review, the carbon economy could be one of the
      fastest growing sectors, and we should harness the world-class indigenous
      academic expertise of our six Universities into advanced design and
      manufacture of zero-carbon products. Spin-out enterprise creation is one of
      our economic priorities. We also recognise that a twenty-year construction
      programme offers stable apprenticeships and training or career progression
      opportunities to a huge number of people who are not yet in work.

3.2.4 emda is leading on transforming the regional economy through our Regional
      Economic Strategy (RES), and within each HMA the Sub-Regional Strategic
      Partnership (SSP) has delegated budgets. All partners have a contribution to
      make and have prepared RES Implementation Plans. We know that we need
      to get more business leaders involved and committing resources to the growth
      of our area, and attract more headline investors to share in our growth. emda
      has a good record on attracting inward investment, and our performance on
      enterprise formation and survival has to improve to surpass that.

3.2.5 The RES already has a strong evidence base, which is available from emda,
      or through the Intelligence East Midlands website at
      http://www.eastmidlandsobservatory.org.uk/ , and does not need repeating
      here. Intelligence East Midlands has a wealth of useful research which will be
      used to inform the growth programme.

3.2.6 We shall be looking to Government to join up its own interventions to help
      create more jobs. For example, the public sector relocations from London
      and the South East, proposed by Sir Michael Lyons to reduce costs and
      staffing problems caused by overheating of the London economy, could be
      part of the catalyst that helps bring our Region’s knowledge economy
      performance up to and above the national average. Similarly, we are asking
      local partners in the Learning & Skills Council and JobCentre Plus to help our
      residents gain new skills in sustainable construction, and need them to have
      freedom from national targets to tackle local priorities.


3.3   Sustainable Transport

3.3.1 Given the scale of planned growth on top of past growth and increasing
      mobility, transport is a fundamental issue to be tackled. The latest Local
      Transport Plans (LTPs) produced by the six Highways Authorities have all
      been graded “excellent” by the Department of Transport, and this shows that
      we are taking sustainable transport very seriously.

3.3.2 However, the LTPs for 2006-11 and the Regional Funding Allocation were
      prepared on the basis of the 2003 growth plans and the expectation of having


                                         24
      to work without extra funding. Our step change in growth needs a
      corresponding step change in sustainable transport. We recognise our
      opportunity to bring forward the big ideas to make this transformation.

3.3.3 The 3 Cities and Counties have successfully concluded a Congestion
      Transport Innovation Fund (C-TIF) agreement with the Department of
      Transport for modelling road use. In the PTOLEMY model, the regional
      Highways Agency has a new and powerful tool, which we shall use to assess
      the impact of development and possible demand reduction measures.
      PTOLEMY and our local models will help us select the best locations for
      growth relative to existing and proposed sustainable transport links to centres
      of employment, services and leisure.

3.3.4 No political decision has yet been made about introducing demand reduction
      measures; but it is likely that such measures will only be introduced where
      and when there is genuine transport choice, and that any income will be
      ringfenced to provide even better sustainable transport.

3.3.5 The key messages that we are communicating about the C-TIF study are:
      • We’re making substantial efforts to reduce congestion – 6 ‘excellent’
         graded LTPs bear this out - but despite this it’s still getting worse
      • Congestion has a major impact on businesses – evidence from an emda
         study – and on us all
      • So we need to investigate more radical solutions for the longer term
      • Key is step change in public transport provision – trams, and buses that
         act like trams - But perhaps only road user charging will make the
         improved public transport affordable and effective, together with reducing
         demand on our roads
      • That’s why we’re investigating
      • No commitment or decision until we get the study results

3.3.6 As the RSS and Local Development Frameworks identify more precise
      locations for growth, the proposals will be tested against sustainable transport
      objectives to ensure the most sustainable sites are prioritised. This does not
      always mean that proposals adjacent to the PUAs will be the preferred option,
      as other existing centres may provide better transport links.

3.3.7 The existence of the three Cities as complementary urban centres means that
      there will always be cross-commuting between them as people take up career
      opportunities in one or another without choosing to move house. Our
      combined working age population exceeds 2 million, and gives us the same
      level of economic flexibility as a Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester if we can
      harness it. We want to increase our connectivity without increasing
      congestion, which is why we are supporting projects such as the three Skylink
      quality bus services from the city centres to our international airport.

3.3.8 The Regional Assembly has identified commuting as a real cause of
      congestion, and is trying through the RSS to make it easier for people to work




                                         25
         closer to home. A recent study for emda5 showed evidence of an imbalance
         in local employment opportunities, with over 10% of East Midlands residents
         in work commuting outside the region. Integrating employment land within
         new residential development, and encouraging enterprise and self-
         employment will be essential to reducing the need to travel to work, and
         helping more highly skilled people contribute to our region’s economy.


3.4      Strategic Housing Market Assessments

3.4.1 The three HMAs are all in the process of carrying out Strategic Housing
      Market Assessments.

3.4.2 The study for Nottingham Core HMA has just been completed (May 2007) and
      shows a housing market dominated by affluence and choice for those who
      can afford it, coupled with a growing polarisation and insurmountable
      affordability problem for those who cannot. The consultant6 concluded that
      while the East Midlands suffers neither the extreme overheating of the London
      housing market nor the low demand seen in parts of the North, there are
      pockets of such behaviour and therefore “maintaining and improving the
      balance within housing markets, avoiding mistakes and adverse unintended
      consequences, enabling more affordable housing and providing for need are
      key objectives of local and regional government”.

3.4.3 The Derby HMA report is expected in September 2007, while the Leicester
      HMA contract was let in July 2007. The results will feed into future versions of
      this Programme.

3.4.4 Past studies show common concerns:
      • The flight of families and more prosperous households from the inner cities
         to the suburbs
      • The lack of affordable rented housing for larger households requiring four
         or more bedrooms
      • The small number of lifetime homes or opportunities for households to stay
         in the same community as their housing needs change
      • The number of empty properties that need to be brought back into
         occupation
      • The reduction in mixed communities (both in tenure and type of
         household) that leads to polarisation of communities and lack of social
         cohesion and interaction

3.4.5 There are of course differences between and within the HMAs – for example
      the proportion and type of affordable housing required varies; and further work
      is being carried out with strategic housing colleagues to ensure local
      requirements are embedded in growth plans.

3.4.6 There is no doubt that HMA priorities will include:

5
    “Commuting flows in the East Midlands, Experian for emda, April 2007
6
    www.blinehousing.info/NottCore_HMA/Nottingham_CORE_SHMA-16-5-07.pdf


                                             26
          •     maintaining and improving the balance within housing markets,
          •     avoiding mistakes and adverse unintended consequences,
          •     enabling more affordable housing; and
          •     providing for need

3.4.7 The Regional Housing Board has set aside monies in 2007-08 for more
      research required by the HMAs, and again this will inform our programme of
      development.

3.4.8 We see a key role of our partnership of 17 Housing Authorities as being to
      develop common standards and application of them to drive up standards –
      for example a common standard of 50% affordable housing and a
      requirement for lifetime homes above the PPS3 threshold would match
      English Partnerships, and put the onus on developers to raise their game
      across the board.

3.4.9 We welcome the proposals in the Housing Green Paper for strengthening the
      role of local Housing Authorities in actively recycling homes and land for re-
      use; and in bringing empty homes back into use.


3.5       The role of the Housing Corporation

3.5.1 The Housing Corporation (HC) has a key role in helping to enable the delivery
      of a significant proportion of the new affordable homes in the sub region. The
      HC role extends beyond the delivery of affordable homes to support the
      overall quality and distinctiveness of mixed tenure neighbourhoods and in so
      doing, making them great places to live.

3.5.2 The grant funding that the HC can contribute can make a significant difference
      to overcoming viability issues to ensure that the appropriate tenure, size, type
      and range of homes is produced. This can be on sites that are particularly
      focused on affordable housing, as well as through interface with planning gain
      through section 106, or emerging fixed tariff style arrangements. The HC has
      a particular role in helping growth points formulate the appropriate response
      to the benefits to be obtained from the intelligent application of grant funding
      in relation to sub-regional financial appraisal and planning gain processes.

3.5.3 EMRA's Regional Housing Investment Strategy 2008/11 sets out the case to
      increase the proportion of the regional budget for the Three Cities sub region
      from 28% in 06/08 to 32% to align the budget with growth point priorities.
      Using the 06/08 EM regional affordable housing programme figures this
      increased proportion would equate to £85m for 08-11.

3.5.4 The HC Investment Programme for the sub region will fund the following
      broad categories of schemes:

      •       large strategic sites including more than 100 affordable homes
      •       urban infill/regeneration schemes including 20 to 100 affordable units
      •       small rural and urban sites with less than 20 affordable units.


                                               27
3.5.5 Where Growth point funding is required for infrastructure works to help bring
      forward housing on large strategic sites an individual proposal for site funding
      has been included in the Partnerships for Growth Programme of Development
      (PGPD). An item for 'Place Making' and community development work has
      also been included in the PGPD for 40 urban infill/regeneration sites. This
      proposal if approved will make an immense difference in forging relationships
      between existing and new members of local communities in the vicinity of
      these infill sites. The fund is essentially designed to support Local Authority
      community development officers to work with organisations such as Arts and
      Skills Council and Groundwork Trust to develop public art and community
      gardens. The fund will also enable Local Sustainable Design Forums which
      the HC and Opun facilitate for large strategic sites to be extended to these
      infill sites. Please follow link below for details of this
      initiative:http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10455


3.5.6 The 6Cs Growth Point team and the HC have set up a liaison framework at
      Housing Market Area level to include housing and planning officers from all 17
      local authorities and HC Development Partners to work with growth point
      coordinators to develop the Partnership for Growth Development Programme
      and the HC Investment Programme in tandem.




                                         28
Related infrastructure requirements
4.1    Sustainable Transport and Connectivity

4.1.1 We intend that developers will always bear costs of highway construction and
      improvements within, accessing, and required because of, new
      developments. Where there is sufficient value we will require the provision of
      safe pedestrian and cycle routes, bus / tram / train facilities and leisure routes
      from developer resources also. Where there is insufficient value, which is
      often the case in our regeneration areas where there has already been market
      failure to deliver, we shall look to NGP funding and other gap funding
      measures. We also recognise that other local priorities, such as provision of
      affordable housing and social infrastructure, may be ahead of transport in
      dividing up the contributions pot.

4.1.2 The detailed identification of growth locations in emerging Local Development
      Frameworks, and their Masterplanning, will give us detailed infrastructure
      requirements. Planning consents will require early provision of sustainable
      transport infrastructure, and developers will be expected to take account of
      these costs in the prices they pay for sites. Where land costs are
      unreasonably high, we will look at methods of capturing the past uplifts in land
      value, such as tariffs. We shall seek both construction of capital schemes and
      provision of commuted sums to provide revenue support for sustainable
      transport operations until they become self-financing.

4.1.3 We are setting very high standards of public realm works, in order to
      encourage walking and cycling as pleasurable experiences, and a viable
      alternative to the car; and also to reduce the problems and risks facing people
      with impaired mobility. Much of this work has to be done before development
      takes place in order to give the private sector the confidence to invest. We
      shall continue to use all available funding sources, including NGP, to deliver
      these schemes.

4.1.4 While major Park & Ride schemes are already planned, we want to increase
      more quickly the numbers and take-up of public transport as part of our modal
      shift work – for example bringing forward by several years the planned
      delivery of quality bus routes, coupled with the provision of more Park & Ride
      sites. Our ambition for trams, or buses that act like trams, extends beyond
      Nottingham’s very effective NET line to a number of light rail alternatives
      throughout our area. Added to improved walking routes, these “big schemes”
      can greatly increase public transport use and decrease the need to use (or
      own) a car. LTP funding is insufficient for a rapid step-change and again NGP
      may be a source of gap-funding until developer value is released.

4.1.5 There is also a need to provide revenue support for initiatives to effect modal
      change – providing initial subsidy to establish bus routes, helping establish
      green travel plans, working with businesses and services to find ways of
      reducing car travel etc. Our Local Transport Plans are already doing much of
      this for existing communities, but where NGP funding can provide
      additionality, it will also be used.


                                          29
4.1.6 Our joint Congestion Transport Innovation Fund (C-TIF) research will provide
      evidence of where we need more sustainable transport infrastructure,
      although the Local Transport Plans (LTPs) already include a programme of
      measures for the five years 2006-11. The 2011-16 LTPs will be even more
      ambitious in achieving modal shift and ensuring that growth does not mean
      more congestion. They will seek substantially improved investment from DfT.

4.1.7 Building major roads has got to be the last resort, on both cost and
      environmental grounds. There will be a need for substantial road building to
      serve new housing, but only within planned transport strategies which follow
      the hierarchy of reducing the need to travel, travelling by other more
      sustainable modes than the private car, and reducing the peaks in road
      occupancy before adding capacity.

4.1.8 Demand management measures, such as road pricing which is under
      consideration in the C-TIF bid, and workplace parking charges which are
      being implemented in Nottingham, provide a mechanism for both reducing the
      need for roads and an alternative source of revenue funding for sustainable
      transport.

4.1.9 There are some opportunities for new strategic road links which will contribute
      to national productivity; but they must avoid by good design and limited
      access points the problems of local traffic using major roads, which causes
      such congestion on sections of the M1 and A14. emda has identified regional
      Productivity TIF (P-TIF) priorities which require investment.

4.1.10 Our international airport hosts the largest pure freight operation in the UK and
       is expanding rapidly, both in employment and passengers. Key to its growth
       will be sustainable connectivity to the airport for both passengers and
       employees, through the link to the new East Midlands Parkway mainline
       railway station, the associated Park and Ride site, and the extension of the
       Nottingham tram NET Phase 2 route to the airport terminal.

4.1.11 The six Highway Authorities and the Highways Agency are currently looking
       again at their sustainable transport plans to see what can be accelerated, and
       examine where the higher levels of growth make “big ideas” such as express
       busways or light rail feasible. Our current Local Transport Plans (2006-11)
       were developed on previous population density data, and need revising to
       meet the new requirements and opportunities. We anticipate that the 2011-16
       round of LTPs will be substantially more ambitious and demanding of
       Government.

4.1.12 There is an identified need for each LTP to conduct a PUA wide Multi-Modal
       Public Transport Study to look at the new opportunities being made available.
       Many major sustainable transport projects have made no progress because
       there was no expectation of being able to assemble the funding – now
       Government’s new expression of support means that these should be
       revisited, as the increased population may make them value-for-money
       solutions which should be implemented.


                                          30
4.2    Green Infrastructure

4.2.1 Within the existing urban areas and any sustainable urban extensions, we
      need to deliver increased provision of quality public open and green space to
      compensate for higher development densities and provide shared local space
      for leisure and relaxation.

4.2.2 Outside the urban areas, we need to provide enhanced access to quality
      natural and historical landscapes for informal recreation. Set at a regional
      level, these country parks cater for visits of longer duration than local spaces.
      Currently often easiest accessed by car, they offer scope for linking walking
      and cycling routes as well as increasing visitor numbers to support bus
      services.

4.2.3 Strategically, we need to greatly improve the natural environment in terms of
      biodiversity and landscape character. We have strategic river corridors and
      existing schemes such as the National Forest; but the opportunity is there to
      make the whole of the 3 Cities & 3 Counties more attractive. Our proportion
      of woodland, despite the ongoing creation of the National Forest, is still too
      low, and we wish to increase it.

4.2.4 A prime source of green infrastructure funding is denied us. HM Treasury
      rules currently forbid the use of carbon offsetting in the UK. This perverse
      ruling prevents major local businesses, especially East Midlands Airport,
      contributing large sums of money to local tree planting as part of their carbon
      credits. If Government is serious about climate change, it needs to address
      this.

4.2.5 We also recognise the vital role of green infrastructure as a carbon sink and
      pollutant trap, and playing its part in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
      (SUDS) and flood control regimes; and see it as making a key contribution to
      tackling climate change and air quality.


4.3    Employment Land

4.3.1 Regional and sub-regional studies provide clear evidence that we have not
      had an attractive ‘offer’ of employment sites. Our indigenous companies
      complain of lack of suitable sites for expansion and relocation, while we have
      not (since Toyota) had the headline inward investment successes of other
      regions (despite emda’s recent performance being among the best).

4.3.2 Land values are far higher for housing than for commercial / office use, which
      in turn are much greater than for manufacturing and industrial use. Many
      sites which should provide local employment are the subject of planning
      applications and appeals for housing, and without public intervention and the
      use of compulsory purchase powers we risk increasing the need to travel to



                                          31
      work. We shall consider more public intervention to bring forward local
      employment sites.

4.3.3 Emda and the SSPs have recently conducted employment land studies, and
      together with the URCs and Blueprint are beginning to intervene successfully.
      Further work is needed to ensure that we achieve mixed use developments
      with integrated local employment opportunities, rather than monocultural and
      separated housing areas and employment areas. The model used in West
      Northamptonshire requires developers to provide both housing and local
      employment, and we are examining the potential for our growth locations.

4.3.4 We seek to further transform our economy from the current over-reliance on
      low wage low skill sectors, towards those with much higher value-added. We
      have already achieved a great deal of sectoral shift from manufacturing, for
      example with the demise of coal mining and textiles as major employers, but
      need to do much more.

4.3.5 A good start has been made, for example with emda and Blueprint’s work on
      Science Parks in support of Nottingham’s Science City status. Emda’s
      Brownfield Land Action Plans also offer opportunities to recycle important
      local employment sites for modern uses.


4.4   Education

4.4.1 Our three City Unitaries have some of the poorest school results in England –
      but also some of the best improvement rates. We want to make all our
      schools good schools, and reverse the perception that families have to move
      out of the cities to get a good education for their children.

4.4.2 The three County Local Education Authorities also have some excellent
      schools, despite the distributional challenges of rural deprivation, small
      schools and substantial expenditure on travel. The legacy of past under-
      investment means that they too will have to work hard to achieve their
      ambitions. No child should be disadvantaged by where they live.

4.4.3 One of the major advantages of our densification and urban extension
      programme (as opposed to new settlements) is our ability to build on existing
      community infrastructure. There will be opportunities to use a variety of
      funding streams to expand and improve those schools which already serve
      the areas to be identified as growth locations.

4.4.4 In some of our inner city regeneration areas, there is often the need to replace
      existing unsuitable Victorian buildings in the face of currently falling school
      rolls. Demographic projections show younger populations in the cities, and if
      we are to reverse city flight then we need to make city centre living attractive
      to families – and a key consideration is good schools. In effect, we have to go
      against the evidence of falling school rolls and invest in regeneration areas, if
      we are to reverse the trend. Government will need to accept a transition
      period where there appears to be overprovision while things settle down and


                                          32
      new schools replace old schools. Similarly, some smaller schools will have
      less than optimum capacity, but produce substantial local community benefits.

4.4.5 Where there is inadequate local provision, we will seek to build good modern
      primary schools within (and with safe walking routes) all major new housing
      developments, and suitable secondary schools within all new developments of
      4,000 homes. The cost of these schools is substantial, and we need to find
      ways of delivering them before homes are occupied, so that the habit of using
      and supporting the local school becomes ingrained. We shall look for
      innovative funding packages, including land swaps, to deliver schools early in
      the housing growth, and they will be a priority for developer contributions.

4.4.6 Schools need to be the centre of their community in and outside school hours.
      We see them as assets to be shared, offering life long learning, leisure and
      sports facilities to all. This can be planned for new schools, but the age of
      some existing schools, and the need to maintain child protection, makes it
      difficult to achieve everywhere. Our long term aim is that educational
      premises will be a living part of their community, not an enclave.

4.4.7 We recognise the vital role of schools in defining settlements as places where
      families choose to live. Growth gives us an opportunity to harness new
      development to serve both new and host communities. Flagship city centre
      schools, coupled with affordable and desirable family housing, are a key
      weapon in tackling city flight. Expanding our “Building Schools for the Future”
      programmes will maximise the benefits to host and new communities.

4.4.8 The school run to preferred schools is one of the major factors in peak hour
      road congestion. Making all schools good schools will help tackle this
      congestion, reduce the inflationary pressure on house prices of popular
      school catchment areas, and help rebuild local links between home and
      school.


4.5   Health

4.5.1 We are already working with our Primary Care Trusts and University Hospitals
      to increase joint provision of social and NHS care in better and purpose-built
      premises. While we have concerns about the quality of the standard national
      building designs, there is real opportunity to make these new centres a focal
      point in their communities and to site them where they will be most effective,
      rather than where they always have been. We shall work with partners to
      achieve the best outcomes for our citizens.

4.5.2 New Growth Points also offer the opportunity to embed healthy lifestyles in
      the places we live. Many of the sustainable transport, cultural and green
      infrastructure objectives are inextricably linked with encouraging people to
      take more exercise.

4.5.3 We shall seek even greater innovation from the NHS Trusts in solving shared
      problems. Initiatives such as the University Hospitals of Leicester “Hospital


                                         33
      Hopper” bus service reduce travel times for patients and staff, tackle the
      growing demand for hospital car parking space, and improve local air quality.

4.5.4 We need all Government Departments to look at their support for the health
      provision agenda; because it is so cross-cutting and so essential to making a
      place one where people want to live. It needs to shift from provision to active
      prevention, encouraging healthy lifestyles and early interventions.

4.5.5 Partners have already flagged up the central role of a multi-disciplinary health
      centre and pharmacy in making an area one where families are keen to live;
      and we shall be continuing to engage the health and social care partners in
      our masterplanning.

4.5.6 No less important is how we plan to provide local care, in their own or
      sheltered homes, for an increasingly elderly and longer-living population.
      Specific schemes such as “Extra Care” help people live in their own homes for
      longer, reducing the cost of care homes or hospital stays by providing
      enhanced local facilities and informal care, and we see this as a value for
      money solution which also encourages the recycling of family homes back in
      to the housing market.

4.5.7 We have already been working on the “Supporting People” programme, which
      recognises the critical role of a supportive housing environment for older
      people and those with learning difficulties; and will seek to expand these
      activities.


4.6   Place shaping, heritage, culture and sport

4.6.1 All our settlements have their own identity, and we wish to retain that
      distinctiveness and self-sufficiency. There has been debate at the RSS EiP
      about whether the 3 Cities is a polycentric city region or a grouping of
      complementary cities; and we know from previous discussions with
      ODPM/CLG that our City Region model does not fit easily into their view.

4.6.2 We do not see ourselves following the development path of, say, the West
      Midlands conurbation, where outsiders think of the whole area as
      Birmingham. Although our growth will deliver the equivalent of another
      Leicester PUA by 2026, we seek to avoid coalescence of settlements. We
      expect to maintain and strengthen the areas of green infrastructure which
      mould our landscape and provide our diversity and breadth of identity.

4.6.3 Each City provides high level services for its surrounding area. There is
      choice and also specialism. The Cities are the hub of the sustainable
      transport modes and the places where we should seek to increase dwelling
      densities and strengthen the quality of the built environment. Investment is
      already delivering City-level infrastructure in the form of Cultural Quarters,
      public realm improvements to support regional retail centres, and quality
      employment sites to support high-skill high-value jobs. Our five City
      Universities (and Loughborough) are all expanding and investing.


                                          34
4.6.4 As stated in the original proposal, we have a number of Sub Regional Centres
      (SRCs) which provide a similar role for their hinterland. The SRCs vary and
      this has been recognised at the EiP. Some provide excellent opportunities for
      sustainable growth, others should be protected. All would benefit from
      increased infrastructure investment, and this has been recognised by emda in
      its support for market towns. While the three cities will always provide the
      highest level facilities, we want to enable the SRCs to be the place of choice
      for their catchment areas.

4.6.5 Culture, creativity and enterprise are vital to people, to communities, to well
      being, to prosperity, to distinctive places, to quality-of-life, and to happiness. It
      is only with culture at the centre of regional strategy, policy and planning that
      we can meet social and economic challenges, and establish a flourishing
      region. Cultural Quarters and the creative industries are already helping the 3
      Cities diversify their economies and exploit niche national and international
      markets. In recent years there has been investment to improve the quality of
      infrastructure for arts, sports, museums, libraries and other cultural facilities
      across the region. To attract and retain people in our cities we need to
      continue to invest in first class sports and cultural facilities which have a local
      and sub-regional catchment, as well as those which build communities at the
      neighbourhood level, and which are accessible and fit for purpose.

4.6.6 A key sports (and healthy living) objective is the creation of a participation
      legacy following the Special Olympics in 2009 in Leicester, and the London
      2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is not only in the physical
      existence of sports and active recreation facilities, but also in using good
      place design to make the choice of being more active more likely. Our joint
      programme seeks to increase capacity for embedding sports participation and
      healthy living in Masterplans.

4.6.7 Heritage and sense of place is an important shared value for our partnership.
      Proud pioneers of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions have a great
      deal to show today’s society, and part of our city and town centre renewal is
      aimed at showing off the quality and diversity of our built heritage, and
      illustrating our fascinating Roman and Medieval heritage.

4.6.8 Image making and perception of place are key weapons in persuading the
      private sector to invest, whether it be in new housing or new jobs. We shall
      seek to invest in landmark cultural projects and better promote our visitor
      attractions, which help establish our urban centres as great places to live,
      work, and visit; where a small public investment is multiplied many times in
      the benefits achieved.

4.6.9 We shall use culture as a strong driver of identity and local community
      building. For example, we are discussing with the Housing Corporation the
      possibility of using NGP funding to commission local artists to involve
      residents of Corporation-funded schemes in designing and producing pieces
      of public art to enhance and identify their neighbourhood. Similarly, the



                                            35
       choice of materials and designs for public realm works will reflect the diversity
       of local heritage, and encourage informal human contact.


4.7    Community facilities

4.7.1 We intend to use the opportunity of NGP funding to enhance facilities for local
      people to socialise and get together in their communities. Provision for young
      people is often a local priority in reducing crime and disorder, while our pilot
      SureStart facilities have shown exciting results helping parents and children.

4.7.2 Many projects will be on a small local scale, others such as Derby’s
      Osmaston facility or Leicester’s Childrens’ Hub are much more ambitious.
      They will all have a positive effect on other themes of the Local Area
      Agreement, especially Safer and Stronger Communities.

4.7.3 The provision of community facilities is a key factor in showing people that
      growth can bring benefits. It is also vital in making the areas which will host
      growth places where people want to live. We do not intend to make the ‘new’
      housing areas models of provision, when for roughly the same investment we
      can provide a central resource in the district centre which makes the whole
      district much more cohesive and attractive. We have learned from other
      areas the risks of creating a perception that other neighbourhoods are second
      class; and how this can affect the viability and quality of service delivery in the
      unimproved areas while exceeding the planned capacity in the new
      development.

4.7.4 Again, some of the smaller capital revenue projects being proposed by
      partners link regeneration, growth and “winning hearts and minds”. They
      promote ownership by local communities, and permit local politicians to take
      the lead in examining the difficult issues.

4.7.5 Building up the new communities, and strengthening existing host
      communities, require much more than physical schemes and bricks and
      mortar. As suggested in para 4.6.9; there is great potential for initiatives
      which bring local people together to complete a shared task for the benefit of
      the whole community. We shall seek to support a wide variety of projects
      which build social capital and increase community cohesion: from travelling
      cinema to local nature reserves; youth facilities to lunch clubs for older
      people. If our communities are to work as they should, we have to bring
      people out of their houses to meet their neighbours, and give everyone a
      stake in their community. There are no quick solutions, but sustained long-
      term projects (often requiring comparatively little in the way of resources)
      have been shown to make a real difference.

4.7.6 We are engaging the Voluntary and Community sector (VCS or Third Sector)
      in our growth plans. VCS groups and organisations have a tremendously
      important part to play in creating social capital and community spirit; and the
      provision of many public services, especially in social care, would be
      impossible without them. We will help them increase their delivery capacity.


                                           36
4.8   Energy efficiency and zero carbon

4.8.1 The drive to achieving zero carbon homes (Level 6 of the Code for
      Sustainable Homes) faces many barriers, but we recognise that other
      European countries have overcome these. We welcome the Government’s
      commitment to make Level 6 mandatory by 2016, and urge the construction
      industry to respond to the challenge. We applaud the leadership of English
      Partnerships and the Housing Corporation in insisting that projects they
      support achieve Level 3 from 2007 instead of 2010.

4.8.2 Our partnership has a proud record on implementing energy efficiency, buying
      electricity from renewable sources, and delivering affordable warmth in the
      social rented sector. We will continue doing this across the existing stock,
      and use our combined buying power to bring down costs. We do need
      Government to implement sustained measures to encourage UK businesses
      to provide a growing and competitive market in renewable energy – for
      example a guaranteed price for selling electricity back to the grid, a “feed in
      tariff” which works well in Germany by decreasing the pay back time for the
      investment, and encouraging home owners to make that investment.

4.8.3 Zero carbon is a “big ask”. It requires a step change beyond the ‘bolt on’
      improvements such as insulation, solar panels and condensing boilers – it
      needs to be the objective driving site layout and building envelope design.
      Often it will require the use of modern methods of construction, or the virtual
      absence of fossil fuel consumption. The provision in growth locations of a
      zero carbon infrastructure is essential to delivering Level 6.

4.8.4 The layout of growth locations to make the most of passive solar heating is a
      basic Masterplan requirement. South-facing windows (suitably screened
      against high angle summer sun) maximise solar gain, while well-designed
      natural light and ventilation reduces additional energy needs. Our joint
      programme includes provision of expert advice to planners conducting pre-
      application discussions, so that passive solar can make its full contribution.

4.8.5 The greatest gains in changing behaviour and reducing waste are in removing
      the need for individual heating systems. An infrastructure of District Heating
      pipework, using locally produced biofuels powering a central Combined Heat
      and Power (CHP) plant, can provide heating, hot water and electricity for the
      whole community. The larger sustainable urban extensions of around 5,000
      homes and substantial community and business infrastructure provide an
      excellent opportunity for achieving near-perfect efficiency of centralised
      heating systems. Mixed use developments provide a balanced 24-hour / 7
      day demand, and the necessary summer heat sinks in the form of school /
      public swimming pools.

4.8.6 Modern methods of construction can provide a house which can be kept warm
      by the waste heat of household equipment. We shall continue the exploration
      of best practice and the development and application of a set of “Passivhaus”
      standards, thereby achieving very low heating requirements along with


                                          37
          addressing the residual demand through renewable energy and CHP. We
          shall seek some world-class exemplar schemes to help our local construction
          industry learn the new skills.

4.8.7 Low energy bills are especially important for households on fixed incomes,
      such as our increasing number of retired people. We expect, as part of our
      local Climate Change actions, to set up not-for-profit energy supply
      companies (ESCOs) providing a variety of services to reduce per-capita
      energy footprints.

4.8.8 Our six Universities are already conducting world-class research. The
      opening in October 2007 of the Centre for Innovation in Carbon Capture and
      Storage at the University of Nottingham gives us a new lead in carbon
      sequestration – the chance to lock CO2 into the construction materials that we
      use to build our new homes and infrastructure.

4.8.9 It is not our intention to hold up the pace of housing provision in order to
      achieve higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes. In specific sites,
      most notably the Ashton Green and Ozone eco-communities, we shall insist
      on better performance than the Building Regulations timetable because that is
      the ethos of those sites. As with English Partnerships7 and the Housing
      Corporation, we shall require developers to deliver additional benefits (in
      terms of more affordable housing provision, high design quality, defined start
      and completion dates, and higher environmental performance standards)
      where we have put in our own assets to bring a site forward.

4.8.10 We would wish Government to be clear that we do not consider the offsetting,
       by purchasing carbon credits, of net carbon emissions to count as achieving
       “zero carbon” housing. Our local political leadership, across all political
       parties, is adamant that we should be aiming to emulate the very best practice
       in reducing the pace and effects of climate change.




7
    See Housing Green Paper Chapter 3 page 37 paragraph 13


                                               38
Summary of investment needs
5.1     Support for schemes to bring forward more housing sooner

5.1.1 There will be schemes required to remove barriers which have caused market
      failure to deliver further housing development on otherwise appropriate sites,
      and the interventions necessary to bring forward the most sustainable
      locations for development before resorting to less sustainable locations.

5.1.2 Unlocking sites is not a precise science, and we require flexibility in funding so
      that where market schemes do come forward, we can switch intervention to
      concentrate on the changing priorities of the market. We welcome
      Government’s intention to give us that local flexibility.

5.1.3 In the early years, the sites we shall choose to unlock will be those that have
      clear regeneration potential, and where there has been clear market failure
      over a number of years. We shall also target the brownfield sites identified in
      our Brownfield Land Action Plans.

5.1.4 With growing understanding of what drives the market, we shall also work
      more proactively to reduce unrealistic expectations and assemble viable sites
      by bringing difficult parcels of land into public ownership. “Hope values” and
      land banking are an already identified barrier to bringing sites forward, and we
      need to intervene where necessary. English Partnerships and Blueprint have
      already achieved some useful negotiated purchases, and we will support
      them with Compulsory Purchase Orders if required.

5.1.5 We recognise the acute need to provide much more affordable, social rented,
      family housing. While we rely on developer contributions, and the Housing
      Corporation and its partners, to provide this, our Housing Authorities are keen
      to explore all options which will help them provide a decent home to everyone.
      We shall seek to improve accessibility, ‘living place8’ and ‘lifetime home9’
      standards within pre-application discussions; and use both Housing Revenue
      Account and General Fund local authority assets to support affordable
      housing provision.


5.2     Support for ensuring sustainable growth

5.2.1 Many housing schemes require public intervention to deliver additionality
      beyond the basic standards – better design, low environmental impact, green
      infrastructure, and provision of community facilities which reduce the need to
      travel. This is especially the case in the regeneration areas which are the
      target of the Draft RSS emphasis on urban concentration and regeneration.


8
  Building for Life is a CABE standard which assesses design criteria in making a great place to live
9
  Lifetime homes provide flexibility and accessibility to cater for people’s housing needs throughout
their lives and changes of household composition, and allow people to continue living in their home
community instead of moving to strange surroundings when they become ill or frail


                                                  39
5.2.2 While there is often a connection with unlocking the viability of proposals, the
      added value and additionality of delivering excellence instead of mediocrity is
      something we consider vital to raising standards across the board.

5.2.3 We recognise that soft interventions can also be effective – hence our
      proposals to increase capacity and capability to maximise the use of
      developer value, for example by employing specialists in appraising schemes
      and negotiating developer contributions, rather than relying on overworked
      planning officers.

5.2.4 Our joint programme for making our housing growth more sustainable
      therefore includes support for:

       • continuation of the 6Cs programme manager capacity
       • a shared expertise resource in assessing the financial viability of developer
         proposals to ensure that value is released (and to help us bring in more
         innovative approaches such as open-book partnerships and land tariffs)
       • shared legal and commercial expertise (possibly hosted by English
         Partnerships, Blueprint or emda) to help us raise our game on site assembly
         and bringing land into public ownership by negotiation or compulsory
         purchase
       • a fund to buy in zero-carbon expertise, for example to ensure that
         Masterplans make the most of passive solar or communal energy
         opportunities
       • a fund to support better design and help our planners develop their skills in
         challenging applicants to improve development layout and architectural
         merit (and to support the efforts of ATLAS10, CABE and OPUN in design)
       • shared expertise in assessing archaeological, geological, ecological,
         heritage and landscape issues and addressing them in Masterplans
       • a shared champion for sports and physical activity, to ensure that growth
         links into the national programme for 2012 legacy, and that Masterplans
         include high standards of formal and informal sports and leisure
         opportunities

5.2.5 Within each of the three Housing Market Areas, we are looking to bring
      together New Growth Points funding, Housing and Planning Delivery Grant,
      and Transport Innovation Fund resources to provide:

       • a HMA programme co-ordinator to track project progress, provide
         programme assurance, and keep the HMA Programme Board and its
         partners informed and actively involved
       • four professional officers to act as a shared additional resource within the
         key areas of work to plan for growth – strategic planning (Local
         Development Frameworks and Masterplanning), strategic transport planning
         (Local Transport Plans), development control / major applications, and
         operational sustainable transport / green travel planning.

10
  ATLAS is English Partnerships’ advisory team for large applications, CABE has been engaged by
CLG to work with New Growth Points, and OPUN is the East Midlands Regional Centre of Excellence
for the built environment.


                                              40
5.3   Support to ensure that services and infrastructure keep pace with growth, and
      are delivered in time to influence the lifestyle of all new residents

5.3.1 The issue of early delivery of infrastructure is one we have already fed back
      through GOEM. There is a requirement for gap funding to ensure that the first
      occupant of a development has full access to local services, and doesn’t
      therefore get into the hard-to-break habit of getting into the car. Anecdotal
      evidence suggests that past requirements of providing facilities “before
      occupation of the x00th house” do not change the behaviour of residents who
      did not have that benefit from the start, and we must transform this culture.
      We are particularly thinking of local shops, primary schools, health centres
      and community centres / libraries, but also include bus services and provision
      of small business premises in the initial requirement.

5.3.2 We shall be seeking the expert support of English Partnerships and others in
      negotiating innovative development agreements for our larger sites, with lead
      developers or consortia who can deliver the required infrastructure from the
      start of occupation. This is a step change in anticipating and planning the
      delivery of infrastructure and we welcome the incentives provided by the new
      Housing and Planning Delivery Grant scheme.

5.3.3 We welcome the opportunity to explore the potential of Local Asset-Backed
      Delivery Vehicles and to consider the deployment of Local Authority and other
      publicly-owned land into them, to provide a source of up-front infrastructure
      funding.

5.3.4 A common theme in the Appendices is the need to catch up with infrastructure
      in developments which gained planning consent and S. 106 agreements in
      the past. With the benefit of hindsight, many of these developments could
      and should have provided more value for investment in local infrastructure;
      but the planning system at the time did not deliver what it would now.


5.4   Support for delivery / capacity building

5.4.1 Key to delivering the additional benefits of growth is raising our game in
      getting the greatest possible contribution from development values, and
      applying it effectively to supporting infrastructure investment.

5.4.2 Similarly, we need to assist all the Local Planning Authorities in co-ordinating
      their Local Development Frameworks and Core Strategies, in setting high
      design standards and successfully challenging poor quality applications, and
      in working with the market to enable the increased delivery of quality housing.

5.4.3 Section 6.1 below contains a list of proposed soft interventions to help provide
      step-change capacity improvements.

5.4.4 As noted elsewhere, we shall engage key partners such as the Learning &
      Skills Council and JobCentre Plus in supporting the construction industry.


                                          41
5.5   Early delivery

5.5.1 Many studies and interventions could be delivered from 2007-08 as well as in
      the 2008-2011 period if funding was available. We would welcome
      discussions about early starts to hasten delivery, and are able to provide gap
      funding to start projects before the beginning of the 2008-09 financial year.

5.5.2 We know from our experience of the pilot funding in 2007-08 the challenges of
      working up and delivering major infrastructure projects in the same year as
      funding is agreed. Now that we have the comfort of our Partnership for
      Growth with Government, we are able to use our own resources to begin work
      on projects which would in the past have been considered “at risk” pending
      confirmation of funding, and which would therefore either not have been done,
      or done at minimal cost.

5.5.3 The 2011-2014 funding period will be vital for the delivery of the second
      phase of growth locations which are not yet formally allocated in local plans;
      but which are being identified in the emerging local development frameworks
      to respond to draft RSS housing allocations.

5.5.4 Support in 2008-11 for feasibility studies, flood risk assessments, transport
      assessments, masterplanning, green infrastructure and water cycle studies
      will be required to ensure that viable and deliverable capital investment
      programmes can be put forward for the 2011-2014 round.




                                         42
3 Cities & Counties Partnership for Growth priorities
for 2008-2011
6.1   Soft interventions to transform capacity and capability

6.1.1 Developer Contributions – the key requirements reported by partners are:

      • strategic planning to identify what infrastructure is required to meet the
        needs of each development, and to ensure costs and specifications are
        known from the start
      • setting up of shared capacity and expertise to ensure that we know the
        economics of a proposal, and can extract the maximum value from
        development
      • confidence among officers and elected members who take planning
        decisions that their robust (but based only on material planning
        considerations) approach will be supported by the Planning Inspectorate
        and the Secretary of State
      • sharing best practice and new ways of ensuring that infrastructure is
        provided up front – and the confidence to take risks to speed delivery
      • enhanced legal and enforcement capacity to ensure that we actually get the
        agreed developer contribution
      • the confidence and flexibility so that, where there is genuine question over
        viability, we can adjust our processes to get the first phase on site
      • professional development and networking of planning officers, many of who
        work in small groups, and can feel isolated and restricted

6.1.2 Continuing planning reform – we need to ensure reform gives us:

      • increased capacity to deal more quickly with planning applications, including
        even more pre-application discussions to ensure that the application comes
        in complete
      • resources to tackle the shortage of planning officers and the need to allow
        them time to undertake professional development
      • partnership with other agencies – for example the Environment Agency and
        CABE – to have early warning when a proposal is likely to run into
        objections
      • the store of experience to know when an application is insufficiently
        developed - and the confidence to refuse it
      • support from the Planning Inspectorate in dealing quickly with appeals, and
        giving clear and specific guidance to its Inspectors on the standard
        expected
      • explicit guidance to the development industry from Government that a high
        standard of planning application is required first time – and confirmation that
        a poorly prepared or shoddy scheme will be rejected; whilst an honest and
        open approach over the barriers and viability problems will result in
        constructive advice and assistance to help the good schemes go ahead.




                                         43
6.1.3 Specialist expertise – as noted in paragraph 5.2.4; we shall seek to set
      aside shared resources to provide economical and affective access to
      specialist knowledge where we need it.




                                        44
Table 3 – summary of financial support requested for joint 3 Cities and 3 Counties projects

Summary of 3 Cities & 3 Counties projects put forward for support from the CLG Housing and Growth Programmes Fund 2008-2011
Capital Projects       2008-       2009-   2010-   Capital   Revenue Projects                           2008-      2009-      2010-   Revenue    Grand Total
                        2009        2010    2011   total                                                 2009       2010       2011   total
3 Cities & 3 Counties joint projects
Place making on        £0.5m      £0.7m    £0.8m   £2m       6Cs co-ordinator                         £55,000    £55,000        £0    £110,000
HC schemes
Sustainable            £0.5m         £1m   £0.5m   £2m       3 x HMA co-ordinators                   £150,000   £150,000   £150,000   £450,000
construction
exemplar
schemes (with EP)
                                                             3 x strategic planners / LDF /          £150,000   £150,000   £150,000   £450,000
                                                             Masterplanning shared posts
                                                             3 x development control / major         £150,000   £150,000   £150,000   £450,000
                                                             schemes / pre-apps shared posts
                                                             3 x strategic transport planning        £150,000   £150,000   £150,000   £450,000
                                                             (sustainable transport) shared posts
                                                             3 x operational sustainable transport   £150,000   £150,000   £150,000   £450,000
                                                             delivery / green travel plans shared
                                                             posts
                                                             S. 106 expert                            £50,000    £50,000    £50,000   £150,000
                                                             Zero carbon expertise fund              £100,000    £50,000    £50,000   £200,000
                                                             Design expertise fund                    £50,000   £100,000    £50,000   £200,000
                                                             Legal (CPO) expertise fund               £50,000   £100,000    £50,000   £200,000
                                                             Archaeological, geological,              £50,000   £100,000    £50,000   £200,000
                                                             ecological expertise fund
                                                             Legacy (sport and physical activity)     £50,000    £50,000    £50,000   £150,000
                                                             champion
                                                             Sports, play and built leisure           £40,000        £0         £0     £40,000
                                                             assessment and feasibility study
                                                             Sustainable construction skills         £300,000   £500,000   £200,000       £1m
                                                             projects (with City Growth Strategies
                                                             and Cities Strategies)
TOTALS                £1.0m      £1.7m     £1.3m   £4m                                               £1.455m    £1.755m    £1.250m      £4.5m         £8.5m




                                                                                45
Reference Documents
Regional

1.    Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands and the Panel Library
      for the Examination in Public

2.    Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006-2020 – A Flourishing
      Region

3.    Integrated Regional Strategy for the East Midlands

4.    Green Infrastructure Public Benefit Mapping Project

Derby HMA

      The Derby PUA Housing Land Availability Assessment, prepared by Atkins /
      Savills in April 2007 and funded by CLG, is available to download at
      www.derby.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/LandUsePlanning

      East Derbyshire and South Derbyshire Greenways Strategies

Leicester and Leicestershire HMA

      The Leicester PUA Housing Land Availability Assessment, prepared by Roger
      Tym & Partners in April 2007 and funded by CLG, is available to download at
      http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council--services/ep/planning/housinglandavailabilityassessment

      Leicester City LDF Core Strategy – Open Space Assessment and Open
      Space Strategy

      Leicester Shire Employment Land & Premises Study final report September
      2006 – SQW for LSEP

Nottingham Core HMA

      Nottingham Principal Urban Area Strategic Housing Land Availability
      Assessment, EKOS/ARUP for HMA partnership, CLG funded, April 2007

      Nottingham City Region Employment Land Study, Roger Tym for HMA
      partnership incl GNP, January 2007

      Central Nottingham Housing Market Analysis, Knight Frank Residential
      Research, for NRL and NCC, June 2007

      Nottingham ‘Core’ Strategic Housing Market Assessment, B Line and 3
      Dragons for HMA partnership, May 2007

      (All above available at www.plan4nottingham.com)



                                                   46
      Breathing Space’ A Strategic Framework for the Management of Nottingham‘s
      Open and Green Spaces, 2007 – 2017, NCC, 2007
      (http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/cdplanningmasaapbreathingspace.doc)

      Trent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Black and Veatch for HMA
      Partnership and Environment Agency, forthcoming Autumn 2007


Green Infrastructure




                                      47
            3 CITIES & 3 COUNTIES
             NEW GROWTH POINT

      DRAFT PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH
  PROGRAMME OF DEVELOPMENT 2006-2026
and indicative investment priorities for 2008-2011



         Appendix 1 – The Derby HMA


                       VERSION 3.0
                     14th August 2007
                 DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CLG



                            1
Contents


Vision and Rationale for Growth                              Page 3

Housing Trajectory                                           Page 14

Derby HMA Housing Trajectory tables and graphs               Page 20

Infrastructure projects                                      Page 24

Longer Term Projects to Support Housing Delivery Post 2011   Page 38

Maps                                                         Page 40




                                                   2
Vision and Rationale for Growth

A1.1     Introduction

A1.1.1   The Derby Housing Market Area (HMA) covers the districts of Derby, South Derbyshire and Amber Valley. This area has a
         track record of delivering new housing. There has been a strong past trend of migration into the HMA with house building at
         high levels relative to population. In some respects, the area has been performing a growth point function for many years.

A1.1.2   Housing growth has been supported by the HMA’s economic performance and record of job creation. The success of
         manufacturers such as Rolls Royce and Toyota has been a key part of this, but the service sector is also becoming
         increasingly important. The local economy is well positioned for continued growth within the context of the overall 3 Cities
         economic offer. Forecasts indicate that the area has relatively favourable projections for job growth.

A1.1.3   In Derby itself, the City Centre is a priority for growth and regeneration. The establishment of a URC in the form of Derby
         Cityscape in 2003 reflects this. Derby Cityscape’s Masterplan provides a vision for transforming the City Centre over the next
         10-15 years. Outside the City Centre, there is a range of regeneration priorities within the Derby urban area and throughout the
         wider HMA in South Derbyshire and Amber Valley, including the towns of Swadlincote, Alfreton, Belper, Heanor and Ripley.

A1.1.4   Housing in the Derby HMA is relatively affordable in the national context. However, research by DTZ on housing market areas
         for EMRA notes that there has been substantial price growth in the Derby HMA in recent years. There is considered to be an
         emerging affordability challenge. Studies of housing need carried out by the local authorities confirm that there is a substantial
         unmet requirement for affordable housing.


A1.2     Planning Vision and Strategy

A1.2.1   The vision for the 3 Cities Sub Regional Strategy (SRS), as set out in the draft Regional Plan, is for an area where the
         principles of sustainability are achieved through new development and regeneration. In the Derby HMA this will involve a
         strengthening of the role of the Derby Principal Urban Area (PUA) as a location for new homes, jobs and services. There will
         be a complementary emphasis on Swadlincote, Alfreton, Belper, Heanor and Ripley as important centres in their own right.

A1.2.2   The SRS indicates that 1,770 dwellings pa will be provided in the Derby HMA over the period 2001 – 26. This is an increase of
         over 28% above the previous RSS baseline. It will provide for continuing in migration to the Derby HMA, but at a level slightly

                                                                    3
         below that implied by the Government’s trend based projections. The Derby HMA has seen particularly rapid past housing
         growth, especially in some parts of South Derbyshire and Amber Valley, which is reflected in the trend. There has been in-
         migration to the area from the Nottingham HMA, where housing has been constrained. It is considered that it would be
         unsustainable to continue to follow these trends and the 3 Cities SRS therefore proposes a more balanced approach to
         housing between the two HMAs.

A1.2.3   The 1,770 dwellings pa for the Derby HMA is distributed as follows:

         •   Derby City          700 dws pa – all Derby PUA
         •   South Derbyshire    605 dws pa - of which 255 dws pa as Derby PUA extensions
         •   Amber Valley        465 dws pa - of which 25 dws pa as Derby PUA extensions

A1.2.4   The total annual provision for the Derby PUA as a whole is therefore 980 dwellings pa.

A1.2.5   These Regional Plan proposals have recently been the subject of an Examination in Public with the Panel’s report expected in
         the autumn. Proposed changes in the light of the report are now expected from the Secretary of State next Easter with
         approval of the Plan later that year. This process will ultimately determine the level of housing in the Derby HMA and the
         strategy for its delivery.

A1.2.6   The housing targets in the SRS are challenging, particularly for the Derby PUA, but are considered achievable. The City of
         Derby Local Plan and the Amber Valley Local Plan provide for strategic housing land releases, including brownfield sites and
         modest urban extensions. The Derby Cityscape Masterplan identifies additional strategic housing opportunities in Derby City
         Centre that will extend well beyond the Local Plan’s time horizon. In South Derbyshire there is a good supply of housing land
         in the southern half of the District at Swadlincote, but no up to date local plan for the district. A conjoined planning inquiry is
         underway in South Derbyshire into five applications for major housing development, four of which adjoin the Derby PUA. The
         District and City Councils support the approval of one of these sites to help meet housing needs prior to LDF preparation. A
         decision is expected in 2008.

A1.2.7   A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has recently been undertaken for the Derby PUA. This indicates
         that the urban capacity assumptions underpinning the draft Regional Plan’s housing target are soundly based. It also found
         that there is scope to identify sufficient suitable greenfield sites to ensure requirements can be met to 2026.

A1.2.8   The three local planning authorities are reviewing and rolling forward their plans under the new LDF system to meet the longer
         term requirements of the Regional Plan to 2026. The Councils have embraced the need for cooperation and joint working

                                                                     4
         within the LDF process. The respective Local Development Schemes indicate a commitment to coordinated Core Strategies.
         There is joint working on the evidence base, for example the Housing Needs and Market Assessment and Employment Land
         Study, which have been undertaken on a HMA wide basis. The Councils have agreed to prepare a joint Site Allocations DPD
         for the Derby PUA to enable a comprehensive, cross boundary approach to planning for housing and related facilities.


A1.3     Complementary Strategies

         Community Strategy

A1.3.1   Derby City Partnership is the LSP for the City. Its 2020 Vision document states that in 2020 Derby will be a dynamic and lively
         City, with a revitalised and bustling city centre. Priorities for 2006 – 09 are:

         •   To create a city centre which people of all ages and backgrounds will be able to enjoy, including the delivery of the right mix
             and balance of homes for city living
         •   To focus on Derby’s deprived neighbourhoods so that opportunities there are the same as for people in the rest of the city.
             This includes making sure that existing and future housing is appropriate to meet the housing needs of all parts of the
             community.

         City Growth Strategy

A1.3.2   The Derby City Growth Vision, endorsed by Derby City Partnership, provides a new form of economic development strategy
         based on three interrelated ambitions:

         •   To build Derby’s portfolio of higher value, knowledge based employment
         •   To ensure Derby is a location of choice for able, talented and creative people
         •   To energise all of Derby’s communities, capturing their full economic potential

A1.3.3   This vision will be achieved through a focus on four ‘cluster’ development opportunities: manufacturing/engineering, creative
         industries, retail and tourism. There are also six cross cutting themes, two of which are particularly relevant to housing growth:

         •   Generating the ‘liveable City’ to attract and retain creative people and key workers; and
         •   Infrastructure for growth


                                                                    5
         Neighbourhood Renewal

A1.3.4   Neighbourhood renewal is a Community Strategy priority for Derby. There are proposals to roll out neighbourhood forums
         across the City on a ward basis. The following neighbourhood renewal projects have particular relevance to the Programme of
         Development in the PUA.

         •   Rosehill Housing Market Renewal Initiative – this Government funded project relates to an area of terraced housing in
             relatively poor condition and suffering from low demand. A masterplan looking at options to improve the area is in
             preparation.
         •   Osmaston Masterplan – commissioned with funding from Derby Homes, Rolls Royce and the City Council. It will look at
             development options for the area, which includes surplus Rolls Royce premises and a large amount of inter-war council
             houses.
         •   Derwent Masterplan – commissioned to consider the options for the Derwent New Deal area, which primarily comprises
             interwar council housing.

         Local Transport Plans

A1.3.5   The Derby Joint Local Transport Plan (LTP) covers the Derby PUA and the surrounding rural area. It is jointly produced by the
         City and County Councils in close liaison with the three adjoining district councils.

A1.3.6   The strategy underpinning the Derby LTP has six main elements:

         •   Land use policy - including an emphasis on placing major trip attractors in the City Centre
         •   Promotion of ‘smarter’ travel choices – soft demand management measures such as better public transport information and
             promotion of travel plans
         •   Local safety and accessibility improvements – such as high quality pedestrian and cycle routes
         •   Strategic public transport improvements – including bus priorities and new park and ride sites
         •   Strategic traffic management and demand restraint – e.g. car parking charges
         •   Maintenance of transport infrastructure

A1.3.7   The Derbyshire LTP sets out priorities for the remainder of South Derbyshire and Amber Valley including, as an Annex, a
         strategy specifically covering the Burton/Swadlincote area. This LTP covers a range of transport priorities reflecting the mainly
         rural nature of the area and identifies the need to improve accessibility by public transport to Derby City hospitals and to the
         Dove Valley business park. Similarly, access to education and training facilities in South Derbyshire and railway stations are

                                                                   6
          highlighted as a priority. More generally, the role of the Burton - Swadlincote Bus Quality Partnership is acknowledged and
          aims to improve the quality of bus services linking the two towns and to National Forest attractions. The need for better links
          to Derby is also acknowledged. Further developments to the national cycle routes in South Derbyshire cycle route network are
          identified as necessary. In terms of road provision, the strategy points to emerging feasibility work on major road schemes
          needed to link Swadlincote to the wider trunk road network including Phase 2 of the Swadlincote Regeneration Route.

          Derby Cityscape Masterplan

A1.3.8    The Derby Cityscape URC Masterplan provides a framework to rejuvenate Derby City Centre so that it can realise its full
          potential to serve the local community and the wider region. It seeks to promote a step change in the scale of activity, with a
          balance of new residential, commercial, retail, leisure and cultural uses. One of the key objectives is the establishment of a
          ‘living centre’ with new communities.

A1.3.9    There is potential for 4 - 5000 new homes in the City Centre. Key locations include Castleward, the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary
          (DRI), North Riverside and Friar Gate Goods Yard. The Eastern Fringes Area Action Plan currently in preparation by the City
          Council covers Castleward and the DRI and will help to bring these sites forward.

          Design Policies

A1.3.10   A ‘Sustainable Design’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Derby City is in preparation. This will:

          •   reinforce and develop the design policies of the Local Plan
          •   expand on the requirements for Design and Access statements
          •   reinforce CABE Building for Life criteria
          •   introduce standards and targets for the reduction of carbon emissions
          •   provide guidance taking forward the principles of sustainable design and energy use
          •   reinforce and supplement the Code for Sustainable Homes

A1.3.12   Site specific SPDs have been developed for two major housing sites - Rykneld Road and Manor/Kingsway. These take
          forward the relevant local plan policies using a masterplanning approach, assessing the opportunities and constraints
          presented and setting out design and layout principles.




                                                                     7
A1.3.13   The Derby Cityscape Masterplan contains design guidance for developments in the City Centre. In addition, Derby Cityscape
          and the City Council have agreed a Public Realm Strategy for the design and delivery of a high quality coordinated City Centre
          public realm. This contains two key design themes:

          •   The Hidden River: unlocking the potential of the river, reinforcing its role as a place of historical importance and drawing
              people out to the Riverside to enjoy the green spaces.
          •   City Vision: how people orientate themselves and find their way around the City Centre.

          Sport and Leisure

A1.3.14   A Derbyshire Sports Facility Strategy has recently been formally adopted. The key elements of the strategy conclude that:

          •   Compared with other counties, National Governing Bodies consider that Derbyshire has a lack of facilities suitable for the
              higher levels of performance sport, facilities are inadequate to support the needs of talented athletes and current facilities
              are not capable of staging or supporting major sporting events
          •   Much of the supply of local sports provision in Derbyshire is of a low quality and requires urgent investment to modernise,
              improve and expand facilities. The current stock of facilities has largely suffered from a lack of long term investment. For
              example, the average age of dry side facilities is 26 years and swimming pools approximately 30 years
          •   An integrated plan for investment in school sports provision through BSF and PFI and the modernisation, improvement and
              expansion of council owned local sports facilities is lacking and should be given the highest priority by Derbyshire Sport,
              local authorities and the governing bodies of sport.

A1.3.15   In view of this a vision was established for the County and City to:

          “Create a network of high quality community and specialist sports facilities within Derbyshire that will enhance the quality of life
          of people within existing, new communities and visitors”

A1.3.16   Derby has been identified as the preferred location for the development of four strategic priorities that include: a 50 metre pool,
          Indoor and Outdoor Athletics and Indoor Tennis. In addition to this, the strategy recommends that Derby looks into the
          feasibility of providing an Indoor Bowls Centre and Indoor Climbing Wall. Funding sources need to be identified for all these
          projects.

          Health Services


                                                                      8
A1.3.17   Derby and Derbyshire PCTs cover the Derby HMA. The PCT’s Strategic Service Development Plan (SSDP), has been
          developed to support an approach to promoting and maintaining the good health of local neighbourhoods and individuals in
          line with the Government White Paper “Choosing Health”. This plan is intended to address the future needs of local
          populations including demand for services arising from population growth, the increasing proportion of older people and the
          need to improve access to services, especially in the more deprived neighbourhoods and communities.


A1.4      Key Infrastructure Issues

          Transport

A1.4.1    Transportation measures are a priority for action. Road congestion is a major concern and Air Quality Management Areas
          have been declared in some locations. In Derby City Centre, the Connecting Derby Inner Ring Road LTP major scheme is vital
          to regeneration proposals. Phase 1 of the project has now been implemented. Completion of the remaining phases 2 and 3 by
          2009 is a top regional priority. Outside the City Centre, the capacity of the A38 junctions on the west side of the City is a
          constraint to the longer term development of urban extensions. The Highways Agency has proposed grade separation of these
          junctions for completion by 2016.

A1.4.2    The longer term strategy in the LTP envisages the eventual provision of four park and ride sites and linked bus priority
          measures along four strategic transport corridors:

          •   A516/A38 Derby City Hospital
          •   A61 Sir Frank Whittle Road
          •   A52 Nottingham Road
          •   A6 Boulton Moor

A1.4.3    This strategy would be implemented subject to eventual acceptance of the 3 Cities Transport Innovation Fund proposals
          currently being worked up in detail following the successful bid for pump-priming funds. The TIF proposal includes many other
          measures including accessibility improvements, soft demand management measures such as a major expansion of travel
          information and travel planning, and consideration of road user charging as part of a wider scheme including at least the 3
          Cities area. These proposals, although not yet firm commitments, need to be taken into account in the Programme of
          Development.



                                                                    9
A1.4.4   The transportation impact of current proposals for new housing and economic development in and around the Derby PUA are
         being assessed through the recently developed Derby Area Transportation Model. This will help the best locational choices to
         be made and the traffic impacts of development to be mitigated effectively. Transport issues will need to be particularly
         urgently addressed in the context of a possible combination of sites being released as urban extensions to Derby in South
         Derbyshire through the current public inquiry. The Regional Plan requirement to identify additional urban extensions in Derby
         and elsewhere via LDFs creates an additional need for research and analysis of the land use and transport interactions
         involved with different options. These projects represent major pieces of work to be undertaken in the coming year for which
         funding needs to be identified.

         Water Related Infrastructure

A1.4.5   Flood protection is an important consideration, as the Rivers Derwent and Trent flow through the area. The Environment
         Agency’s flood risk map identifies significant areas of Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 within the Derby PUA. A number of the sites
         identified in the Derby PUA SHLAA are subject to some degree of flood risk. A Level One Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
         (SFRA) is underway for Derby PUA and similar assessments will be required throughout the rest of the HMA. Subject to the
         outcome of that work, a further Level 2 Assessment will be commenced early in 2008. This work will provide a sounder basis
         for considering planning applications and guiding LDF preparation.

A1.4.6   Severn Trent Water was consulted on the preparation of the Derby PUA SHLAA. In terms of water resources and treatment,
         they advised that the location, scale and timing of the housing growth envisaged would be unlikely to cause significant
         difficulties. Current investment plans should be able to accommodate the growth proposed. In terms of sewage treatment
         capacity, however, the Derby works is unlikely to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the full scale of the growth
         proposed to 2026. The SHLAA notes that Severn Trent is working on its next business plan for submission to OfWat and that
         this will outline the scale of the asset investment required during 2010-15. The RSS housing growth proposals will need to
         inform this submission.

A1.4.7   There is an acknowledged issue of flooding caused by the surcharging of foul sewers within parts of the south of the Derby
         PUA. This is caused primarily by the prevalence of older combined foul and surface water sewer systems. This issue is being
         addressed via the SFRA in consultation with the Environment Agency and Severn Trent.

A1.4.8   In view of the interrelated nature of these issues, it is considered that there is a need to develop a Water Cycle Strategy to
         guide and coordinate planning for water services infrastructure and housing development. This would assess water supply,
         sewage disposal, flood risk management and surface water drainage issues in the context of development proposals,
         examining the scope for water use minimisation and sustainable drainage systems.

                                                                   10
          Green Infrastructure

A1.4.9    Local plan policies define and protect a number of the major elements of the Green Infrastructure network, including Green
          Wedges and Green Belt, main areas of public open space, strategic wildlife corridors and known areas of particular
          biodiversity value. Policies on biodiversity are expanded on in the City’s Nature Conservation SPD. In addition a number of
          other assets including all the boundaries of conservation areas, the World Heritage Site, Listed Buildings Local Nature
          Reserves and many footpath and cycle ways are mapped separately. There are several proposals to develop new and
          improved parks, some of which relate directly to new housing development, but these require additional funding to be identified
          in order to be delivered.

A1.4.10   There has been recent close liaison with regional partners, including Natural England, on the region’s developmental work on
          Green Infrastructure. There is an urgent need for a Green Infrastructure and Open Space Study to devise a comprehensive
          strategy and to inform LDF work. This would look at provision and needs and provide a basis for a GI delivery plan for new
          development areas, based on a character assessment of existing assets. Following consultation with Natural England a brief
          has been prepared to undertake this work on a 3 Cities basis.

          City Centre

A1.4.11   A range of City Centre schemes complement and support the aims of the masterplan for a step change in city living. For
          example, the Eagle Centre extension opening in October will double the amount of retail space in the complex and provide a
          luxury multi-screen cinema. The Quad visual arts and media centre is under construction. The Riverlights development will
          provide a new bus station, hotels, leisure facilities and housing.

A1.4.12   There is a developing programme of City Centre public realm improvements in accordance with the adopted strategy. Current
          schemes include refurbishment of East Street to coincide with the opening of the new Eagle Centre extension and the
          Cathedral Green improvements and footbridge funded under the Growth Point Pilot Fund. The City Council has earmarked
          significant resources to support the programme, but substantial additional funding will need to be found to achieve full delivery
          within a reasonable timescale.

          Health Services

A1.4.13   Major investment in a new ‘superhospital’ hospital for Derby is well underway at the Derby City General Hospital site at
          Uttoxeter Road. The new hospital will be complete in 2008, after which all remaining acute services will transfer from the

                                                                    11
          Derbyshire Royal Infirmary. This will enable land at the DRI to be released for housing development in accordance with the
          Derby Cityscape Masterplan. There is also a need to provide for new residential accommodation for health workers and
          ancillary health care facilities at the Manor/Kingsway site which adjoins the new hospital.

A1.4.14   There is a programme to develop and improve primary and community health care facilities through the Southern Derbyshire
          Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). This has delivered recent projects throughout the HMA such as the Swadlincote
          Health Centre, the Alfreton Primary Care Centre and the Coleman Health Centre. It will be important to continue to work with
          the PCTs to ensure that future LIFT developments and other primary care investment is coordinated with and supports the
          housing programme envisaged.

          Education

A1.4.15   The national Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme aims to bring all secondary schools up to new standards by
          creating 21st century learning environments. As a Wave 5 authority, Derby City will shortly submit a Strategy for Change Part
          1 addressing the following issues:

          •   The clarity of response to Departmental and Ministerial expectations as expressed in Remit for Change
          •   The extent to which the Every Child Matters agenda is being addressed through and supported by BSF plans
          •   Plans for greater diversity and choice of schools (including academies)
          •   The value added to school level provision, outcomes and community access by BSF capital funding

A1.4.16   Following Ministerial approval of Strategy for Change part 1, the Council will submit a Strategy for Change Part 2 which is a
          more detailed document showing how the key challenges and objectives for the Council will be addressed through changes to
          the secondary estate. Derby City Council will need to continue to develop its approach as given in the Readiness to Deliver
          statement so that an overarching vision of the future of secondary schooling in the City is in place to support the development
          of Strategy for Change and to support schools and others in implementing Derby City’s BSF programme.

A1.4.17   There are emerging cross boundary issues regarding secondary school provision that will require early resolution in parallel
          with anticipated LDF work to identify sites for new housing around the PUA. Several secondary schools in Derby, Amber
          Valley and South Derbyshire which currently serve the PUA are at or near capacity. The scale of development envisaged
          longer term in the draft Regional Plan points to the eventual need for a new secondary school at some point. There will need to
          be close joint working between the respective planning and education authorities to examine the issues and options in full and
          to identify a solution.


                                                                   12
          Planning Obligations

A1.4.18   The use of Section 106 planning obligations to secure necessary infrastructure is well established in the HMA and is supported
          by local plan and Government policy. A wide range of approaches has been developed by the planning authorities to assess
          the appropriate level of contributions in for different community needs in relation to different scales of development. The City
          Council is preparing a Supplementary Planning Document for consultation this autumn which will provide a guide to how
          planning obligations will be sought and ensure that appropriate provision is made for contributions to all relevant types of
          infrastructure.




                                                                   13
Housing Trajectory

A1.5     Strategic Housing Sites

A1.5.1   Strategic priorities for intervention to deliver housing include the following brownfield sites in Derby City Centre being promoted
         by Derby Cityscape:

         •   Castleward – 1,200 homes
         •   North East Riverside Intervention Area – 390 homes
         •   Derbyshire Royal Infirmary – 850 homes
         •   Friar Gate Goods Yard – 771 homes
         •   Other City Centre

A1.5.2   The strategic greenfield and brownfield/greenfield sites outside the City Centre listed below play a key role in the housing
         trajectory for the Derby PUA and will also benefit from measures to support delivery:

         •   Wilmorton - 593 homes (development underway)
         •   Mickleover Campus - 476 homes (development imminent)
         •   Manor / Kingsway – 700 homes (development being led by English Partnerships)
         •   Rykneld Road - 980 homes
         •   Osmaston Regeneration Area Rolls Royce sites – 858 homes (subject to current Osmaston masterplanning process)
         •   Boulton Moor, South Derbyshire – 1,058 homes (subject to outcome of current planning appeal process)
         •   Radbourne Lane, Amber Valley – 600 homes

A1.5.3   All of these sites are identified on Maps 1 and 2. With the exception of Radbourne Lane, each has been evaluated in the Derby
         PUA SHLAA, which contains more site specific information including detailed maps.

A1.5.4   Away from the PUA, there are three major housing sites in South Derbyshire and Amber Valley which will contribute
         significantly to early housing delivery in the Derby HMA.

         •   Former Hilton Depot, Hilton, South Derbyshire – 1,800 homes, of which 476 remain to be completed
         •   Swadlincote Lane, Swadlincote, South Derbyshire – 1,000 homes, of which 792 remain to be completed
         •   Cinderhill, Amber Valley – 300 homes

                                                                    14
A1.6     Site Details

         The sections below summarise the main characteristics and issues for each site. SHLAA reference numbers are provided in
         each heading where applicable.

         Castleward (Ref 66)

A1.6.1   This is a regeneration priority in the City of Derby Local Plan Review and proposed for comprehensive redevelopment as an
         urban village in Cityscape’s Masterplan. The site is covered by the emerging City Centre Eastern Fringes Area Action Plan
         which is reaching Preferred Options stage. Despite being located between the City centre shopping area and the Railway
         Station, the area is dominated by uses such as light industry and surface car parking. In addition to 1,200 homes of a mix of
         types and tenures, the proposals include major office development, supporting facilities for the new community and a new high
         quality pedestrian priority link between the Railway Station and the City Centre. This will incorporate active ground floor uses,
         including the potential for a supermarket, and will become the focal point for the new neighbourhood. Improved access to
         Bass’ Recreation Ground, the major open space serving the area, is also a key priority but will create a significant challenge
         owing to the physical constraints that exist.

A1.6.2   There are a large number of landowners in the Castleward area and it will be a challenge to assemble the land. Compulsory
         Purchase powers may be required. There may also be issues relating to the viability of regenerating the area, particularly in
         terms of providing affordable housing, necessary infrastructure and ensuring a high standard of sustainable design. Viability
         assessments are currently being carried out. It is anticipated that, in conjunction with Derby Cityscape, a ‘Preferred Developer’
         will be appointed. English Partnerships and emda are partners with the Council and Cityscape in these efforts to bring the site
         forward.

         North East Riverside (Ref 22)

A1.6.3   The site is not allocated in the City of Derby Local Plan Review but has been identified in the Cityscape Masterplan as a
         mixed-use residential-led opportunity. In addition to 390 new dwellings, the site is identified for office, hotel, leisure and
         complementary retail uses. A new multi-storey car park would also be developed on the site of an existing surface level car
         park.

A1.6.4   Land assembly will an issue here as there are a number of landowners. Compulsory Purchase powers may be required. The
         site also falls within Flood Zone 3 and may require mitigation measures and there are issues of viability. These problems are

                                                                   15
         exacerbated by the need for pedestrian/cycle infrastructure in the form of bridge links across the river and part of the local road
         network. English Partnerships are actively engaged in helping to bring the site forward.

         Derbyshire Royal Infirmary (Ref 44)

A1.6.5   This is site is becoming available as a result of the relocation of acute services to the City General Hospital elsewhere in the
         City. It is owned by a single landowner (the NHS Trust). This is also a regeneration priority area in the City of Derby Local
         Plan Review and proposed for comprehensive residential redevelopment in Cityscape’s Masterplan. The site is covered by
         the emerging City Centre Eastern Fringes Area Action Plan which is reaching Preferred Options stage.

A1.6.6   The site includes architecturally and historically important buildings, statues and other structures, the treatment of which will be
         particularly important. The most important of these will be the original Infirmary buildings, which are ‘locally listed’. Whether
         these can be viably converted and refurbished for residential use will require careful consideration.

         Friar Gate Goods Yard (Ref 24)

A1.6.7   This is a regeneration priority identified in the adopted CDLP Review for residential use, supported by offices, leisure and other
         uses. The majority of the site is former railway land and includes listed buildings, including the Bonded Warehouse and Engine
         Shed which need to be retained and reused as part of the site’s redevelopment. Convenience retailing will be permitted on the
         ground floor of the Bonded warehouse as a means of securing its preservation. Other challenges to development include
         transport impact (including integration of the scheme with Connecting Derby), ground conditions and the presence of features
         of natural history importance on part of the site, impacts on which will require mitigation.

A1.6.8   A planning application has been received and negotiations with the developer are well advanced but several outstanding
         issues remain to be resolved, including the ability of the site to deliver affordable housing in view of the viability issues arising
         from the challenges above.

         Other City Centre Sites

A1.6.9   Other key City Centre housing sites include Full Street (100 homes) and Becket Well (212). Full Street is a Riverside site being
         brought forward by a developer. There are viability and design issues associated with the need to incorporate the listed
         Magistrates Courts in the scheme. Becket Well is on the site of the former Duckworth Square development and is being taken
         forward by an affordable housing provider. There is also potential for housing at the St Georges site. Emda have taken a land
         holding as partners with Cityscape in the area and the site is being taken forward by Blueprint.

                                                                     16
          Osmaston Regeneration Area (Refs 13, 88)

A1.6.10   Rolls Royce are vacating older industrial premises in the Nightingale Road in the Osmaston area having developed new
          accommodation nearer to their main Sinfin works. These sites have been identified in the SHLAA as suitable for residential
          redevelopment. The largest site is the historic Nightingale Works which incorporates the locally listed Marble Hall. A
          masterplanning process is now underway for the wider Osmaston area and this is looking in more detail at redevelopment
          options for the sites in the context of a regeneration strategy for the area as a whole.

          Wilmorton (Ref 35)

A1.6.11   This site, which is a redevelopment of the former Derby College, is now well under construction. It is located just outside the
          major employment area of Pride Park and its development will facilitate an extension to the nearby Alvaston Park within the
          Derwent Valley green wedge

          Mickleover Campus (Ref 1)

A1.6.12   Derby University is vacating its Mickleover Campus having developed new facilities elsewhere in the City. The site is identified
          in the CDLP Review for residential development and open space and planning permission is about to be granted. Access
          infrastructure works are underway. Issues include the management of traffic along the Uttoxeter Road corridor and the need to
          integrate the new development with the existing community and the green infrastructure network.

          Manor/Kingsway (Ref 7)

A1.6.13   The Manor/Kingsway hospitals site, identified for mixed use in the adopted CDLP Review, is now largely within the control of
          English Partnerships who are bringing it forward for development under the national Hospital Sites programme. It is one of the
          largest sites in the programme and of both national and regional significance. As well as housing, the site will provide
          employment opportunities, new mental health care facilities, supporting facilities for the nearby City Hospital, a park and ride
          facility and open space. A Supplementary Planning Document has been prepared by EP and the Council in partnership with
          the health trusts and has been subject to consultation. EP are working up a planning application and disposal strategy. The
          intention is that the site will be an exemplar project for the City in terms of design and sustainability. Challenges include the
          impact of traffic on the surrounding road network and the need to accommodate several competing objectives and interests
          within the limited area of land available.


                                                                    17
          Rykneld Road (Ref 19)

A1.6.14   This greenfield urban extension site is identified in the CDLP Review for almost 1,000 homes with supporting facilities. It forms
          an extension to the recently developed neighbourhood at Heatherton, but is split into two halves by the busy Rykneld Road.
          Proposals include an employment area, a primary school and an extension to the existing Heatherton neighbourhood centre. A
          Supplementary Planning Document has been prepared in partnership with the developers and has been subject to
          consultation. A planning application is at an advanced stage of preparation. The main challenges are the management of
          traffic along the Burton Road corridor, provision of appropriate green infrastructure and enhanced on site and off site
          pedestrian and cycle linkages.

          Boulton Moor (South Derbyshire Ref N)

A1.6.15   This site is one of the five in South Derbyshire currently being considered at a conjoined Inquiry. The Council and South
          Derbyshire District Council have expressed their support for this urban extension to the PUA to be granted permission and for
          the purposes of this Programme it has therefore been included in the trajectory. The Boulton Moor planning application is
          based on a masterplan and proposes a school, neighbourhood centre, open space and park and ride to serve the London
          Road corridor. Land for the park and ride would be provided through a planning obligation but there would be a need for
          additional resources to fund its construction. As noted above, however, it is possible that further sites, or a combination of
          further sites, may be released as a result of the conjoined inquiry and this may need to be revisited. This would pose particular
          challenges in terms of the adequacy of the local and strategic road infrastructure, particularly on routes into the City and the
          provision of secondary education.

          Radbourne Lane (Amber Valley)

A1.6.16   This is an urban extension to the Mackworth area of Derby falling within Amber Valley. The site is allocated in the adopted
          Amber valley Local Plan and a Supplementary Planning Document has been published for consultation. A planning application
          is in preparation. Challenges include integration of the site with the existing Mackworth community and mitigating the impact
          on local services and the road network.

          Former Hilton Depot, Hilton, South Derbyshire

A1.6.17   This is the site of a former MoD depot lying adjacent to the village of Hilton. Covering some 108ha, it is being re-developed in
          phases for both major housing and employment. Whilst development commenced in the mid 1990s, it is still being built out
          and it is expected that the final development will have provided around 1,800 dwellings in total. A major challenge is that the

                                                                    18
          expansion of the village has outstripped the provision of local community infrastructure and facilities. This is largely a
          reflection of the period during which the original outline planning permission and developer contributions were agreed.

          Swadlincote Lane, South Derbyshire

A1.6.18   This is a major greenfield site which has outline planning permission for 1,000 dwellings at Church Gresley, Swadlincote.
          Consent was originally granted in 1990, but development did not commence on site until 2003. Approximately 200 dwellings
          have been completed to date and it is expected that the overall dwelling capacity may increase as a result of higher residential
          densities. As noted elsewhere, Swadlincote is likely to receive further significant housing requirements under the emerging
          Regional Plan and particular challenges for the area are therefore road infrastructure and connectivity to the trunk road
          network together with the provision of health and education facilities.

          Cinderhill, Amber Valley

A1.6.19   This proposed scheme is a comprehensive mixed-use development for employment and residential uses and will involve the
          remediation of existing derelict and contaminated land and the introduction of a major new access onto the A38. The site is
          allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Although an outline planning application has been submitted there are a still a number of
          challenges to bring forward the forward, including the substantial cost of remediating the derelict/contaminated land, the
          implementation of key transport infrastructure, the delivery of affordable housing as an element of total housing provision
          within the site and the integration of the development with neighbouring communities. The Borough Council also anticipates
          having to use its compulsory purchase powers to secure ownership of the entire development site.


Longer Term Housing Delivery

A1.7.1    As the housing trajectory demonstrates, the identified sites plus other commitments can provide a reasonable continuity of
          supply for the next five years. There is a need to identify additional land through the LDF process to meet longer term needs
          up to 2026, both for Derby PUA and for the remaining parts of Amber Valley and South Derbyshire. For South Derbyshire, the
          amount of land that will need to be identified through the LDF will depend on the decisions made in relation to the current
          conjoined Inquiry. The assumption made for the purposes of this Programme is that only the Boulton Moor proposal will be
          approved.

A1.7.2    The three Councils in the Derby HMA have agreed to coordinate preparation of their Core Strategies and to work
          collaboratively on evidence base preparation. The common target for publication of Core Strategy Preferred Options is

                                                                     19
         September 2008, with adoption in summer 2010. A joint Site Allocations DPD for the Derby PUA will follow, to be adopted by
         August 2011. This means that the new LDF sites should be delivering houses by 2013.

A1.7.2   There are substantial challenges involved in undertaking this programme of joint work, in particular the need for a
         comprehensive evaluation of options for urban extensions capable of providing up to 5,000 homes in the South Derbyshire
         part of the Derby PUA. The evidence base for this work will need to cover a range of difficult and complex issues, including in
         particular the transportation, drainage, sewerage and secondary school issues identified earlier.

A1.7.3   Similar LDF work will be needed to examine the options for urban extensions to the towns of Swadlincote, Alfreton, Belper,
         Heanor and Ripley in order to meet outstanding housing needs in the remainder of South Derbyshire and Amber Valley. Other
         development options may also need to be considered.




                                                                   20
21
                                                                                                                                                                                           Past Completions
                                                             Derby HMA Housing Trajectory 2001 - 2026                                                                                      Estimated Completions

                                                                                                                                                                                           Annual Residual Requirement

                          2500

                                                                                2198          2207                 2177
Net Delling Completions




                                                                         2108          2122
                                                                  2036                                                    2030          2061
                          2000                                                                              1921                 1914
                                                                                                                                               1848 1848 1848 1819
                                                      1795 1760
                                                                                                     1713                                                            1726
                                 1641          1647                                                                                                                         1668
                                                                                                                                                                                   1543
                                                                                                                                                                                          1493 1493
                          1500
                                        1302



                          1000



                           500



                             0




                                     9


                                     0


                                     1


                                     2


                                     3


                                     4


                                     5


                                     6
                                     8
                                     0


                                     1


                                     2


                                     3


                                     4


                                     5


                                     6


                                     7
                                   /2


                                   /3


                                   /4


                                   /5


                                   /6


                                   /7


                                   /8


                                   /9




                                  /1


                                  /2


                                  /2


                                  /2


                                  /2


                                  /2


                                  /2


                                  /2
                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1


                                  /1
                                08
                                01


                                02


                                03


                                04


                                05


                                06


                                07




                               18




                               20


                               21


                               22


                               23


                               24


                               25
                               10


                               11


                               12


                               13


                               14


                               15


                               16


                               17




                               19
                               09
                              20


                              20


                              20


                              20


                              20


                              20


                              20


                              20




                             20


                             20


                             20
                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20


                             20
                             20




                                                                                                              Year




                                                                                                                    22
                           Derby HMA Housing Trajectory - Projected gross completions 2007-26

                    2500


                    2000
Gross Completions




                                                                                   To be Identified (non PUA)
                    1500
                                                                                   To be identified (PUA)
                                                                                   Windfalls (Post 2016)
                    1000                                                           Other Identified Sites
                                                                                   Strategic Sites

                     500


                       0




                                    6
                                   8




                                   0


                                   1




                                   3


                                    4


                                    5
                                   0


                                   1


                                   2


                                   3


                                   4


                                   5


                                   6


                                   7




                                   9




                                   2
                                  /8


                                  /9




                                 /2
                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /2


                                 /2


                                 /2


                                 /2


                                 /2


                                 /2
                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1


                                 /1
                               07


                               08




                              23


                              24


                              25
                             12


                             13


                             14


                             15


                             16


                             17


                             18


                             19


                             20


                             21


                             22
                             09


                             10


                             11
                            20


                            20




                           20




                           20




                           20


                           20


                           20


                           20
                           20




                           20


                           20


                           20


                           20


                           20


                           20


                           20




                           20




                           20
                           20




                                                  Year




                                                           23
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

1. Short Term (Current) Key Projects Supporting Housing Delivery 2007/08


Ref No      Project                        Link to Housing Delivery                              Cost

1           East Street Enhancement        Public realm project encouraging City Living          £2.1m

2           Cathedral Green                City centre public realm project using New Growth £3.6m
                                           Point Pilot fund encouraging City Living

3           Rosehill Housing Market        Project for area of low demand, poor quality          £5.525m
            Renewal Initiative             terraced housing and high vacancies. Masterplan
                                           is being developed to identify improvements and
                                           possibly additional housing opportunities.
4           St Alkmunds Footbridge         New footbridge over inner ring road linking City      £1.5m
                                           centre to residential areas
5.          Derby Quad, Market Place       Visual arts and media centre adding to the cultural   £5.9m
                                           offer of the City Centre and making it a more
                                           attractive place to live.
6           Strategic Flood Risk           Study to assess flood risk in Derby and guide         £100k
            Assessment                     future decisions regarding location of housing.
                                           Essential input to LDF work.
7           Housing Needs and Market       HMA wide study to inform future housing strategy      In house
            Assessment                     and LDF regarding market trends and specific
                                           housing needs including affordable housing.



                                                     24
2. Medium Term Infrastructure Projects to Support Housing Delivery 2008/09 – 10/11
At this draft stage the identified medium and long term projects are generally related to the Derby PUA. However they will evolve,
particularly as housing locations throughout the HMA are firmed up. This is likely to lead to the identification of more projects in Amber
Valley and South Derbyshire. For the medium term projects, the amount of funding sought from growth point sources is shown in italics.

Ref    Project Description,                   Potential Funding          Priority   Total Cost               Spend Profile £s
No.    Justification and Links to             Sources and Case for        Level     £s 2008/11
       Housing Delivery                       Growth Point funding        1-3
                                                                                      Growth           Growth Point Contribution
       Lead Organisation Derby City                                                    Point
       Council unless otherwise stated                                              Contribution
                                                                                      Sought
       Capital Projects                                                                            08/09          09/10          10/11

       a) Green Infrastructure/Parks

 1     Bass’s Recreation Ground
       Enhancement

       Improvements to include new            Developer contributions        2       1,030,000     60,000        620,000        350,000
       paths, lighting and entrances,         should be available
       cycle route, recreational facilities   from various City                       680,000      60,000        620,000
       including wheeled sports,              Centre sites in due
       biodiversity improvements.             course. In the interim
       Bass’s Recreation Ground is the        growth point funding is
       main piece of public open space        sought to provide early
       in the City Centre. It will serve      improvements to this
       new housing at Castleward and          key City Centre public
       North Riverside.The open space         open space.
       has poor access and minimal
       recreational facilities.
       Skateboard facility will provide
       an outlet for young people

                                                                        25
    currently using City Centre
    public areas inappropriately.
2   City Park, Moorway Lane

    New city park providing natural      Developer contributions          1   3,000,000   150,000   850,000   2.000,000
    style park with new recreational     will cover a proportion
    facilities – paths, cycle routes,    of the costs, but a large            2,160,000   150,000   850,000   1,160,000
    play areas from toddler to           funding gap will remain.
    senior, nature and wildlife areas,
    woodland planting, public
    art/sculpture trails and new park
    centre.. With a catchment of 5
    km, the park will serve new
    housing developments at
    Rykneld Road, Mickleover
    Campus and potentially land to
    be identified in South
    Derbyshire.
3   Mickleover District Park

    Creation of a new district park      There is potential for a         3   800,000     50,000    300,000   450,000
    from new open space and              developer contribution
    enhancement of existing open         to this park from the                463,000     50,000    300,000   113,000
    space. Includes purchase of          Radbourne Lane
    land and laying out new open         housing site, but more
    space to provide new paths,          resources are required
    cycle routes, play areas,            for full implementation.
    recreational facilities, woodland
    and tree planting. It will serve
    new housing developments on
    the north side of Mickleover,
    including the University Campus
    site and Radbourne Lane.


                                                                     26
4   Osmaston Park Improvements

    Phase 1 improvements to the          The City Council has           2    1,000,000   900,000     100,000
    park are already being delivered.    committed substantial
    Phase 2 would provide meeting        investment to this park             600,000     500,000     100,000
    rooms and changing rooms, new        (including £400k in
    paths, lighting and entrance         2008/09). Additional
    improvements, tree planting and      funding will allow
    play equipment. Osmaston Park        improvements to be
    will provide the major open          completed by 2010.
    space for new housing in
    Osmaston. The park has already
    undergone substantial
    investment to raise the range
    and quality of facilities.
    These projects will provide
    additional facilities and improve
    accessibility to the park required
    by increased local population.

5   Derwent Riverside
    Development Project

    This is a comprehensive              The City Council has   1 overall    3,770,000   1,310,000   1,130,000   1,330,000
    improvement programme of the         committed £840k for       (but
    River Derwent corridor through       improvements at          some       2,930,000   470,000     1,130,000   1,330,000
    the City, providing a continuous     Alvaston Park in       elements
    public route linking a series of     2008/09. North of City    may
    parks and open space and the         Centre the project      have a
    wider countryside beyond the         complements measures     lower
    city boundaries.                     proposed as part of     priority)
    A major emphasis of the              World Heritage Site
    proposals is on improved             Action Plan. Funding
    accessibility, addressing issues     would also complement

                                                                   27
of public safety and quality of the   current Cathedral
open spaces to encourage              Green project and
increased use of the riverside        Bass’s Rec.(see Project
and associated open spaces.           1)
The river is a city wide linear
recreational resource. It benefits
all residents, but provides direct
access from housing
developments at Wilmorton
College and in the City Centre,
including Castleward,
Riverlights, North Riverside and
Full Street. Key elements
include:

   •   Cycle and pedestrian
       route Haslams Lane to
       City boundary
   • Darley Park riverside
       walk, Visitor Centre and
       bridge to Darley Fields
   • Riverside path and bridge
       enhancements
   • Riverside Gardens
       improvements in city
       centre
   • Riverside path
       improvements, Bass’s
       Rec to Alvaston Park
   • Public art and
       interpretation
Riverside management to
improve biodiversity and control
invasive species

                                                                28
    B) City Centre

6   Castleward Infrastructure
    - Derby Cityscape

    Early provision of spine            Design work is                 1   4,859000    2,000,000   2,000,000   859,000
    route/public realm for the          underway at a cost of
    Castleward urban village            £175k this year. The               4,859,000   2,000,000   2,000,000   859,000
    proposal. Central to Masterplan     route represents a
    concept for Castleward, also will   substantial additional
    benefit DRI site                    abnormal cost that
                                        severely affects
                                        development viability.
                                        No alternative funding
                                        source has been
                                        identified.

7   North Riverside Infrastructure
    – Derby Cityscape

    Bridge link across Derwent to       EMDA /EP /City Council         1   3,830,000               1,810,000   2,020,000
    Riverlights, footbridges into       project. Preliminary
    Derwent Place car park,             spending to date                   1,810,000               1,810,000
    riverside landscaping and           £225k. Development
    plazas. In line with Derby          appraisal assumes
    Cityscape masterplan and.           public sector support
    necessary to bring forward North    will be needed for some
    Riverside site.                     elements, including
                                        river bridge and public
                                        plazas


8   Market Place/Assembly
    Rooms

                                                                  29
    Improvements to façade and           Key public space and             2   5,140,000   1,140,00    500,000     3,500,000
    interiors of Assembly Rooms          cultural facility. Recent
    and TIC, plus related public         investment of £65k by                2,570,000   1,140,000   500,000     930,000
    realm improvements, paving and       Council on Big Screen,
    landscaping. Complements             £380k committed for
    other City Centre projects           public realm
    including nearby Quad under          improvements including
    construction and benefits all city   war memorial, other
    centre housing sites.                sources being pursued.
                                         50% of costs from
                                         growth point funds will
                                         help match funding to
                                         be secured.

9   City Centre Public Realm -
    Short Term Programme

    Public realm improvements            The City Council has             1   7,764,000   6,544,000   1,220,000
    throughout the City Centre in        set aside a substantial
    accordance with the approved         capital sum in the short             3,882,000   3,272,000   610,000
    Public Realm Strategy. In the        term to help deliver the
    short term these include             programme of public
    improvements to Theatre Walk,        realm improvements.
    Eagle Market entrance, Full          Matched growth point
    Street crossing (completing          funding to complement
    Cathedral Green scheme) and          this would enable more
    shop front improvements.             of the programme to be
    Improved public realm will           delivered in the short
    provide a more attractive and        term.
    liveable City Centre encouraging
    the development of housing
    schemes.


                                                                     30
10   City Centre Affordable
     Housing Support

     Fund to assist in securing             Supplementary funding          1   1,500,000   500,000   500,000   500,000
     affordable housing on City             will enable more
     centre sites with abnormal costs       balanced communities               1,500,000   500,000   500,000   500,000
     and/or viability difficulties. There   to be developed.
     are a number of sites under            Housing Corporation
     discussion where this is a             support alone is not
     serious problem, even given            sufficient to enable
     Housing Corporation support.           targets to be met.

11   Community Legal Advice
     Centre

     The Centre will provide                A tendering process is         3   700,000     700,000
     integrated, accessible, end to         underway to select an
     end legal advice services. It          organisation to set up             700,000     700,000
     requires a central location in         and run the Community
     Derby City Centre, together with       Legal Advice Centre for
     outreach services and other            3 years from 2008.
     delivery methods to ensure that        (Closing date 21st
     vulnerable priority client groups      September 2007)
     are reached. Services will be
     delivered flexibly, in places, at      Funding is needed to
     times and in ways that promote         acquire and convert a
     access for clients. This is a          building in the City
     Community Strategy led scheme          Centre.
     that will support the growth of the
     City in many ways, for example
     by meeting the needs of migrant
     workers.

     C) Transport

                                                                      31
12   Connecting Derby

     Completion of Inner Ring Road         Major scheme primarily           1   14,646,000   8,992,000   5,654,000
     for City Centre. Integral part of     funded through regional                (RFA)
     Cityscape masterplan and              funding allocation and
     essential for successful City         City Council and other
     Centre regeneration, including        sources. Substantial
     achievement of City Living            spending already
     aspirations.                          incurred. Not expected
                                           to require growth point
                                           contribution

13   London Road Bridge

     Replacement of bridge on              Major scheme funded              1   6,934,000                            6,934,000
     strategic transport corridor          through regional                                                          (incl some
     serving key housing sites –           funding allocation. Not                                                    spend in
     Castle Ward, DRI, Boulton Moor,       expected to require                                                          2012)
     Wilmorton. Bridge suffering           growth point
     from corrosion of structural          contribution.
     elements. Programmed for
     2010/12

14   Boulton Moor Park and Ride

     Provision of park and ride facility   Developer is providing           1   2,500,000                1,000,000   1,500,000
     on land to be provided through        land at residential value            (excluding
     S106. Links to Boulton Moor           for the scheme (not                     land)
     housing site and other sites on       included in total costs
     London Rd corridor.                   identified here). Growth             2,500,000                1,000,000   1,500,000
                                           point contribution
                                           sought for construction
                                           costs.

                                                                       32
15   Alvaston Bypass Extension
     Bus Priority Scheme

     Construction of Bypass               This project would be            2   8,000,000                8,000,000
     extension and associated bus         delivered subject to a
     priority measures. Benefits to all   successful TIF bid. In               2,000,000                2,000,000
     sites on London Rd corridor          that event it is proposed
                                          that growth point funds
                                          could supplement
                                          funding under TIF.

16   City Hospital Park and Ride

     Provision of decked parking for      This project would be            2   10,000,000   2,000,000   8,000,000
     park and ride facility.              delivered subject to a
     Assists with transport impacts of    successful TIF bid. In               2,500,000    500,000     2,000,000
     sites on Uttoxeter rd and Burton     that event it is proposed
     Rd corridors, including              that Growth Point funds
     Mickleover Campus, Rykneld Rd        could supplement
     and Manor/Kingsway. Decked           funding under TIF.
     car parking more efficient use of
     land at Manor/Kingsway site.

17   Rykneld Road Pedestrian and
     Cycle Link

     Provision of additional              Some developer                   3    400,000     400,000
     pedestrian/cycle link between        contribution towards the
     the two halves of the housing        costs is anticipated, but             300,000     300,000
     site using third party land. This    the link is not a
     will encourage journeys by foot      prerequisite of
     and bike, especially to the          development and
     neighbourhood centre and             cannot reasonably be
     school. Costs to cover               made so.

                                                                      33
     acquisition and construction.

     D) Other Capital Projects

18   Allenton Library

     Multi purpose space including          Developer contributions         3   750,000                         750,000
     traditional library services,          from the Osmaston
     internet access, music, video,         developments could                  520,000                         520,000
     advice services and learning           help make up a
     facilities. Allenton District Centre   proportion of the
     does not have a library. The           funding required.
     library would serve new housing
     in the Osmaston area.


19   Public Art

     Fund to help provide public art        Developers are                  3   300,000     100,000   100,000   100,000
     benefiting priority housing sites      expected to incorporate
                                            public art under the                300,000     100,000   100,000   100,000
                                            ‘percent for art scheme’
                                            This funding would be
                                            used to match
                                            fund/complement
                                            developer spending

20   Cinderhill Affordable
     Housing– Amber Valley

     Comprehensive mixed-use                Despite long-standing           1   1,600,000             800,000   800,000
     development scheme (housing            commitment in
     and employment) requiring              Structure Plans and                 533,400               266,700   266,700
     direct access to A38 and               Local Plan, site has not

                                                                       34
     remediation of existing derelict     come forward, due to
     and contaminated land within         substantial cost of
     the site. Development should         remediating derelict and
     include an element of affordable     contaminated land, and
     housing consistent with policy.      transport infrastructure.
                                          Growth Point funding
                                          would support match
                                          funding currently being
                                          sought from the
                                          Housing Corporation
                                          and would enable the
                                          provision of a more
                                          substantial element of
                                          affordable housing
                                          (30% of total housing
                                          provision)

     Revenue Projects

21   Water Cycle Studies – all
     LPAs

     Will complement Strategic Flood      SFRAs will be funded             1   150,000   150,000
     Risk Assessments linking to          by the LPAs.
     other water infrastructure issues,   Complementary funding                150,000   150,000
     including water supply, sewage       for Water Cycle Studies
     system capacity and water use        is sought.
     minimisation. The outcome will
     be in the form of strategies to
     inform infrastructure planning
     and to input to the LDF process.
     To be undertaken in partnership
     with Severn Trent Water and the
     EA.

                                                                      35
22   Derby HMA Programme
     Coordinator

     To administer and coordinate          As proposed in main 3           1   150,000   50,000    50,000    50,000
     the Programme of Development          Cities Programme
     for Derby HMA                                                             150,000   50,000    50,000    50,000

23   Travel Planning Coordination

     To provide coordinated advice         Funding will support            2   300,000   100,000   100,000   100,000
     and support on the development        LTP strategy relating to
     of green travel plans for new         soft demand                         300,000   100,000   100,000   100,000
     housing developments. Funding         management measures
     for post and studies

24   Strategic Development
     Options Studies – all LPAS

     Transportation and land use           The scale and                   1   500,000   500,000
     studies are needed to help            complexity of the work
     identify sites for additional urban   required involves a                 500,000   500,000
     extensions and to establish           need for consultancy
     associated transport and other        implying funding
     infrastructure requirements.          requirements well in
     Feeds into LDF and planning           excess of existing LDF
     applications.                         budgets.

25   Nightingale Works Marble Hall

     Survey and feasibility work to        This work would                 3   100,000   100,000
     establish appropriate community       complement the
     use for locally listed Marble Hall    masterplanning                      100,000   100,000
     Part of the surplus property to be    exercise being funded

                                                                      36
released by Rolls Royce in      by the City Council,
Osmaston, expected to provide   Derby Homes and Rolls
800+ houses subject to          Royce
masterplanning.




                                                        37
Longer Term Projects to Support Housing Delivery Post 2011

(Projects may be brought forward to 2008 – 11 programme if suitable funding sources can be identified)



Ref Project Title, Description and Justification                  Potential Funding                           Total Estimated
No.                                                                                                           Cost £s
1.   A 38 Junction Improvements – Highways Agency

     Grade separation of three junctions on A38 which are         RFA                                         94,000,000
     congested at peak times. Junction capacity affects all
     existing and potential housing sites on west and south
     west side of Derby.

2    MIckleover/Mackworth Guided Busway

     Land is safeguarded along the line of the former railway     TIF/LTP/Developers/Growth Point             20,000,000
     from the City Centre to Mickleover for this longer term
     transport project. It relates well to housing developments
     at Manor/Kingsway, Radbourne Lane and Friar Gate
     Goods Yard, and other areas west of Derby which may
     have potential for housing development.

3    City Centre Public Realm

     Longer term projects to fully implement the Public Realm     City Council, DDEP, Lottery, Growth Point   35,000,000
     Strategy, including ‘City Pathways’

4    Osmaston – Rosehill Road Bridge



                                                                   38
    Project emerging from Rosehill Housing Market Renewal HMRA, LTP, Growth Point                                 To be established
    initiative and masterplanning work for Osmaston. These
    two areas, which both have potential for new housing are
    severed from each other by a railway line. A bridge
    would directly address this issue.

5   Osmaston – Osmaston Park Footbridge

    This would provide a safe link across the busy Outer       LTP, Growth Point                                  To be established
    Ring Road from the Osmaston housing area to its
    nearby park (see Medium term Project 4)

6   Racecourse Park improvements

    New cycle routes, paths and lighting. Could justify        Lottery, S106, Growth Point                        150,000
    Growth Point funding if new housing developments arise
    from the Derwent Masterplan

7   Museum Square
    .
    Linking to public realm improvements on Wardwick.          Lottery, Growth Point                              4,000,000
    Creation of glass atrium providing enclosed, disabled
    friendly new entrance into library and museum, with
    reception, catering and retail within. Space in building
    reallocated to make library more effective.

8   Silk Mill Museum

    Renewal of museum as part of WHS Action Plan,              Heritage lottery fund, capital receipts, Trusts,   10,900,000
    including possible installation of river turbines          Growth Point


9   Moorways Sports Development


                                                                 39
     50 m swimming pool complex and refurbished sports           Land sales, Sport England, Lottery, Growth   Net cost assuming
     centre. Possible relocation of Moorways Athletics           Point                                        land sales is £4m -
     stadium, which could provide additional housing land in                                                  £13m
     Osmaston area.

10   Queens Leisure Complex
                                                                                                              7,000,000
     Remodelling of centre to provide 25m training pool,         Sport England, Growth Point
     exercise studio, boulder wall and b-active shop.

11   Alvaston Park Cycle Centre

     Centre for cycling activity, cycle hire etc, located in     Lottery, Growth Point                        800,000
     district park adjoining the strategic River Derwent cycle
     route.

12   Rosehill Sport and Health Complex

     Replacement for Shaftesbury Sports Centre Centre            LIFT, Growth Point                           To be established
     possibly co-located with new health facilities, potential
     partnership with PCT




                                                                  40
41
42
                      Derby HMA Growth Point Draft Programme of Development
                         Medium Term Infrastructure Projects 2008/09 – 10/11

Ref.    Project Description              Priority         Growth Point Contribution           Total Growth Point
No                                       Level             Proposed Spend Profile            Contribution Sought
Capital Projects                                        08/09       09/10     10/11
a) Green Infrastructure/Parks
1      Bass’s Recreation Ground              2         £60,000     £620,000                       £680,000
       Enhancement
2      City Park, Moorway Lane               1        £150,000     £850, 000    £1,160,000       £2,160,000
3      Mickleover District Park              3        £50,000      £300,000      £113,000         £463,000
4      Osmaston Park                         2        £500,000     £100,000                       £600,000
       Improvements
5      Derwent Riverside                 1(overall    £470,000     £1,130,000 £1,330,000         £2,930,000
       Development Project               but some
                                         elements
                                           lower
                                          priority)
Green Infrastructure Subtotal                         £1,230,000   £3,000,000 £2,603,000         £6,833,000
b) City Centre
6       Castleward Infrastructure –          1        £2,000,000   £2,000,000   £859,000         £4,859,000
        Derby Cityscape
7       North Riverside Infrastructure       1                     £1,810,000                    £1,810,000
        – Derby Cityscape
8       Market Place/assembly                2        £1,140,000   £500,000     £930,000         £2,570,000
        Rooms
9       City Centre Public Realm –           1        £3,272,000   £610,000                      £3,882,000
        Short term Programme
10      City Centre Affordable               1        £500,000     £500,000     £500,000         £1,500,000
        Housing Support
Ref.        Project Description        Priority       Growth Point Contribution         Total Growth Point
No                                      Level          Proposed Spend Profile          Contribution Sought
                                                    08/09       09/10       10/11
11     Community Legal Advice             3       £700,000                                  £700,000
       Centre
City Centre Sub Total                             £7,612,000   £5,420,000 £2,289,000       £15,321,000
c) Transport
12     Connecting Derby                   1
13     London Road Bridge                 1
14     Boulton Moor Park Ride             1                    £1,000,000 £1,500,000       £2,500,000
15     Alvaston Bypass Extension          2                               £2,000,000       £2,000,000
       Bus Priority Scheme
16     City Hospital Park & Ride          2                    £500,000   £2,000,000       £2,500,000
17     Rykneld Road pedestrian            3                    £300,000                     £300,000
       and Cycle Link
Transport Sub Total                                            £1,800,000 £5,500,000        7,300,000
d) Other Capital Projects
18     Allenton library                   3                                £520,000         £520,000
19     Public Art                         3       £100,000     £100,000    £100,000         £300,000
20     Cinderhill Affordable Housing      1                    £266,700    £266,700         £533,400
Other Capital Projects Sub Total                  £100,000     £366,700    £886,700        £1,353,400
e) Revenue Projects
21     Water Cycle Studies                1       £150,000                                  £150,000
22     Derby HMA programme                1       £50,000       £50,000    £50,000          £150,000
       Coordinator
23     Travel Planning Coordination       1       £100,000     £100,000    £100,000         £300,000
Ref.   Project Description       Priority        Growth Point Contribution            Total Growth Point
No                                Level           Proposed Spend Profile             Contribution Sought
                                              08/09        09/10         10/11
24    Strategic Development         1       £500,000                                      £500,000
      Options Studies
25    Nightingale Works Marble      3       £100,000                                      £100,000
      Hall
Revenue Projects Sub Total                  £900,000      £150,000      £150,000         £1,200,000

OVERALL TOTAL                               £9,842,000   £10,736,700   £11,428,700       £32,007,400
              3 CITIES & 3 COUNTIES
               NEW GROWTH POINT

        DRAFT PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH
    PROGRAMME OF DEVELOPMENT 2006-2026
  and indicative investment priorities for 2008-2011



Appendix 2 – The Leicester and Leicestershire HMA


                         VERSION 3.0
                       14th August 2007
                   DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CLG




                              1
Contents

Priorities for investment in 2008-2011                                        Page 3

Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Housing Trajectories                         Page 6

Key development opportunities and Infrastructure Projects                     Page 9

Preparing for Sustainable Urban Extensions in other growth locations          Page 12

Table 1 – summary of financial support requested from CLG                     Page 16

Leicester Regeneration Company Waterside Intervention Area                    Annex A

Leicester Regeneration Company Abbey Meadows Intervention Area                Annex B

Leicester Regeneration Company St. George’s North New Community               Annex C

Leicester Ashton Green exemplar zero carbon community                         Annex D

Leicester Hamilton                                                            Annex E

City, Town and Local Centre Improvements                                      Annex F

Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Blaby District             Annex G

Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Charnwood Borough          Annex H

Sustainable Urban Extensions to Loughborough                                  Annex I

Sustainable Urban Extensions to Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton            Annex J

Sustainable Urban Extensions to Coalville                                     Annex K

Other opportunities in the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area   Annex L




                                                                       2
Priorities for investment in 2008-2011

A2.1     The HMA priorities for the 2008-2011 New Growth Points funding are:

A2.2     Capital schemes to support housing delivery in 2008-11

         •   Leicester Regeneration Company Masterplan projects in Waterside, Abbey Meadows and St. Georges
         •   Leicester Ashton Green examplar zero carbon community (Castle Hill district park, ?)
         •   Leicester Hamilton (district park)
         •   Leicester Braunstone New Deal for Communities Mixed Community
         •   Green Infrastructure projects (to be decided)
         •   Green Infrastructure in Charnwood Forest and the National Forest

A2.3     Capital or revenue feasibility studies to prepare for schemes coming forward for 2011-2014

         •   Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Blaby District
         •   Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Charnwood Borough
         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions to Loughborough
         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions to Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton
         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions to Coalville
         •   Other opportunities in the Housing Market Area
         •   Green infrastructure planning for Charnwood Forest
         •   Green infrastructure appraisals for Blaby, Charnwood and Hinckley & Bosworth Sustainable Urban Extensions; which
             in turn will inform SUE options appraisals
         •   Sustainable transport options study, to ensure connectivity between major developments and town and city centres

A2.4     Revenue or small capital pot projects

A2.4.1   Blaby District:

         •   Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester - tbc


                                                               3
A2.4.2   Within Charnwood Borough:

         •   Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester – tbc
         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions adjoining Loughborough - tbc
         •   Flood alleviation works aimed at bringing forward the key Loughborough employment site at Dishley Grange

A2.4.3   Within Harborough District

         •   Support for developing the role of the Stoughton area as an accessible urban fringe for the PUA
         •   Support for continued Local Improvement Partnership work at Market Harborough, Lutterworth and Broughton Astley
             to improve the sustainable development of these centres; in particular to deal with traffic issues in Lutterworth and
             improvement of community facilities in Broughton Astley, and develop town centre initiatives in Market Harborough
         •   Public transport improvements on the A6 corridor feeding from Kibworth/Great Glen into Oadby/Leicester (joint with
             Oadby & Wigston Borough Council / Leicester City Council)
         •   Enhancement of the East Leicester Green Wedge / Stepping Stones Community Woodlands etc in providing for the
             leisure/recreational needs of an expanded PUA

A2.4.4   Within Hinckley & Bosworth District:

         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions to Hinckley, Earl Shilton and Barwell - tbc
         •   Work with the Highways Agency, Warwickshire County Council and Leicestershire County Council, to carry out a
             study of the effects and capacity of upgrading Junction 2 and introducing a new junction on the M69 on the strategic
             network and the cross-boundary movements between the East and West Midlands
         •   Hinckley town centre play area £100k plus land acquisition costs
         •   Burbage Common improvements required to visitor facilities to meet both existing as well as future capacity £80k

A2.4.5   Within Melton Borough

         •   Masterplanning to bring forward the Melton Mowbray urban extension start date to 2011 or 2010
         •   Melton Mowbray by-pass preparatory work. to bring forward its start date before the current 2012-2015



                                                                4
A2.4.6   Within Oadby & Wigston Borough:

         •   Support for the Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston town centre improvements
         •   Public transport improvements on the A6 corridor feeding from Kibworth/Great Glen into Oadby/Leicester (joint with
             Harborough District Council / Leicester City Council)

A2.4.7   Within North West Leicestershire District:

         •   Sustainable Urban Extensions to Coalville - tbc
         •   Support for the creation of new employment land to support the Coalville growth location
         •   improvements to public transport
         •   improvements to public realm in Coalville town centre

A2.4.8   Leicestershire Local Transport Plan and Central Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (both 2006-11)

         •   support for work to bring forward delivery of sustainable transport schemes currently programmed for later in the
             2006-11 LTP plan period and the next period 2011-16
         •   support for a step change in approach – the bringing forward for earlier delivery of ‘big schemes’ such as guided bus
             routes or reopening of freight rail lines to frequent local passenger services, further bus corridors and Park and Ride




                                                                 5
Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Housing Trajectories

The Housing Trajectory tables and graphs are contained in a separate Excel spreadsheet for this draft

             Introduction

A2.5         Completions to 2006 indicate an imbalance between the PUA, where there has been underprovision relative to the
             annualised allocation, and the rest of the HMA, where there has been overprovision. The draft Regional Plan’s strategy of
             urban concentration and regeneration aims to turn this around, so that by the five years ending 2016, the focus is on
             development in and adjoining the existing Leicester PUA, where significant growth can be accommodated if the barriers
             to development are overcome. As part of the overall strategy of the draft Regional Plan, substantial growth is also
             proposed outside the PUA, particularly at three Sub-Regional Centres, to provide continued growth capacity for the HMA
             to 2026 and beyond. At this stage, the trajectories are indicative, split into five year stages, and numbers of dwellings in
             each cell being rounded to the nearest 500. This means that any value less than 250 dwellings will appear as zero, and
             that totals may not sum. More detailed trajectories will be worked up in discussions with individual district councils.

A2.6         Total HMA Trajectory

A2.6.1       This trajectory is derived from the totals of:

             •   The revised Appendix 2 to the draft Regional Plan, which sets out a trajectory for planned development and further
                 capacity;
             •   The Leicester PUA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment1 which sets out the trajectories for LRC
                 intervention areas and SUEs within the PUA;
             •   Trajectories for individual SUEs adjoining Sub-Regional Centres; and
             •   an additional small element to allow for new greenfield development in other parts of the HMA.

A2.6.2       Completions to 2006 are below the strategic allocation, due to the underperformance in the PUA. However, substantial
             increases are anticipated through to 2021.


1
    Roger Tym & Partners May 2007


                                                                     6
A2.7     Leicester Principal Urban Area Trajectory

A2.7.1   This trajectory is derived from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, funded by CLG, which sets out the
         trajectories for LRC intervention areas and SUEs within the PUA.

         •   2006-2011 – 1,570 per annum
         •   2011-2016 – 2,090 per annum
         •   2016-2021 – 2,200 per annum
         •   2021-2026 – 1,950 per annum

A2.7.2   Of these, an average of 1,260 homes a year will be required to be built in Leicester City over the next 20 years to meet
         the draft Regional Plan allocation of 1,180 dwellings per year over the whole Plan period. This is a 50% uplift on the
         average completion rate of 850 dwellings a year over 2001-2006.

A2.7.3   There is evidence of a market preference for delivering several smaller sites simultaneously at an annual sales rate of no
         more than 350, in order to give buyers choice of location and type. Market deliverability is a key factor in phasing.

A2.7.4   Growth in the LRC Intervention Areas continues throughout the Plan period, whilst the emphasis in growth in SUEs shifts
         progressively from those inside the PUA (Hamilton, Birstall Hallam Fields and Ashton Green) to those adjoining the PUA.
         This latter reflects the need to prioritise development within the PUA as much as possible, and the effect of infrastructure
         constraints west of Leicester, as set out below.

A2.7.5   Housing provision at a SUE west of the M1 could not commence before the M1 widening works are completed; the
         current Highways Agency programme is that widening would be carried out in the period 2011 to 2016. Analysis by both
         PTOLEMY and the Central Leicestershire Transport Model, particularly looking at public transport, to examine potential
         and existing services and their potential extensions, could provide sufficient comfort to allow a limited amount of housing
         to proceed rather earlier. However, the Highways Agency is reassessing the costs of the Contract 2 scheme and this may
         have implications for delivery. It is therefore concluded that no provision for housing west of Leicester should be included
         in the period 2011/16.

A2.8     Leicestershire Trajectory outside the PUA



                                                                 7
A2.8.1   This trajectory is derived from the numerical difference between the HMA trajectory and the PUA trajectory. It shows a
         progressive reduction from the overprovision up to 2006 to a smaller amount of growth towards the end of the Plan
         period. This reflects a high level of completions to 2006 and existing commitments to 2011. Development of SUEs is
         anticipated to start after 2011, and in the case of Loughborough and Hinckley, to continue after 2026. It should be noted
         that provision after 2026 is additional to the 2001 to 2026 Regional Plan housing provision total.

A2.8.2   SUEs adjoining Loughborough - Because of the scale of infrastructure required, no more than 500 dwellings could be
         provided before 2011. In addition, to accommodate the revised advice submitted by Leicestershire County Council in
         December 2006, the additional 3,500 dwellings to achieve the total of 8,000 dwellings are phased beyond 2026.

A2.8.3   SUEs adjoining Hinckley - The revised Appendix 2 of the Regional Plan shows that once urban housing capacity and
         existing commitments and completions have been taken into account there is a requirement to find 3,600 dwellings in
         Hinckley and Bosworth to 2026. Part of the SUE is therefore phased post 2026.

A2.8.4   SUEs adjoining Coalville - North West Leicestershire District Council is likely to receive an application shortly in respect
         of the Grange Road local plan allocation. This raises the possibility that there could be some development prior to 2011,
         albeit probably quite small scale. Additionally, a build rate of 300 dwellings per annum is very ambitious and may be
         difficult to justify.

A2.8.5   SUEs adjoining Melton Mowbray - The actual phasing suggested by Melton Borough Council is as follows:

         2006-2011        6%
         2011-2016        32%
         2016-2021        32%
         2021-2026        30%

A2.8.6   This is because of doubts whether the local housing market could sustain higher growth, and practical difficulties in
         obtaining higher output from a single site. (It should be noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, the
         rounded figures in the trajectory do not adequately deal with the proposed provision at Melton Mowbray.)




                                                                 8
Key development opportunities

A2.9.1   The early priority is to support the “quick wins” on already allocated sites within Leicester City. Leicester Regeneration
         Company Masterplan intervention schemes at the Waterside, Abbey Meadows and St. George’s North New Community
         will provide some 8,650 homes. Together with the developments at Hamilton (2,000) and Ashton Green (3,500), these
         major sites deliver the majority of the planned quick wins in the PUA in 2008-2011.

A2.9.2   £1.5m CLG Pilot Funding in 2007-2008, supplemented by developer contributions and Leicester City Council capital
         investment, is delivering well in excess of £2m public realm improvements, which will help overcome the lack of
         developer confidence which has meant that planning consents are not being implemented.

A2.9.3   Leicester City

         Within the City Council boundaries, there are six short to medium term large scale opportunities which will require public
         sector intervention to deliver quickly and to Sustainable Communities standards:

         •   LRC Waterside Intervention Area (Phase 1 £1m CLG investment in 2007-08) – 3,500 homes
         •   LRC Abbey Meadows Intervention Area (Phase 1 £0.5m CLG investment in 2007-08) – 3,400 homes
         •   LRC St. George’s North / New Community – up to 1,700 homes
         •   Ashton Green exemplar zero carbon community – 3,500 homes
         •   Completion of development at Hamilton – 2,000 homes
         •   Braunstone New Deal for Communities “mixed community”

A2.9.4   Outside the City

         There are a number of current developments on site, which have been brought forward by the market and which need no
         intervention. As part of their emerging Local Development Frameworks, the Local Planning Authorities and the County
         Council are looking again at those sites which have already been allocated but not yet developed, to see where there
         may be opportunities to bring forward more housing.




                                                                 9
Table A2-4 – Leicester Waterside trajectory 2001-2016 – see Annex A
                     2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8    2008/9   2009/10   2010/11   2011/12   2012/13   2013/14   2014/15   2015/16   TOTAL
Past Completions -
Allocated Sites                                                   229
Projections -
Allocated Sites                                                                      1384               1690
Total Past
Completions                                                       229
Total Projected
Completions                                                                          1384
Cumulative
Completions                                                       229                1515               3205                                                        3,500



Table A2-5 – Leicester Abbey Meadows trajectory 2001-2016 – see Annex B
                     2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8    2008/9   2009/10   2010/11   2011/12   2012/13   2013/14   2014/15   2015/16   TOTAL
Past Completions -
Allocated Sites
Projections -
Allocated Sites                                                            44        95       513       790       764       511       492       191
Total Past
Completions
Total Projected
Completions                                                                44        95       513       790       764       511       492       191
Cumulative
Completions                                                                44        139      652       1442      2206      2717      3209      3400                3,400



Table A2-6 – Leicester Ashton Green trajectory 2001-2016 – see Annex C
                     2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8    2008/9   2009/10   2010/11   2011/12   2012/13   2013/14   2014/15   2015/16   TOTAL
Past Completions -
Allocated Sites
Projections -
Allocated Sites



                                                                                10
Total Past
Completions          0        0        0        0        0
Total Projected
Completions                                                       0        0          0        350?
Cumulative
Completions                                                                                                                                                          3,500



Table A2-7 – Leicester Hamilton trajectory 2001-2016 – see Annex D
                     2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8     2008/9   2009/10   2010/11   2011/12   2012/13   2013/14   2014/15   2015/16   TOTAL
Past Completions -
Allocated Sites
Projections -
Allocated Sites
Total Past
Completions          350      350      350      350      350      370
Total Projected
Completions                                                                350        350      350       350       350       250?                                    2,000
Cumulative
Completions



Table A2-8 – Leicester St. Georges North trajectory 2001-2016
                     2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8     2008/9   2009/10   2010/11   2011/12   2012/13   2013/14   2014/15   2015/16   TOTAL
Past Completions -
Allocated Sites                                 80
Projections -
Allocated Sites                                                            17         200      124       130       200       250       250       250       199
Total Past
Completions                                     80
Total Projected
Completions                                                                17         217      341       471       671       921       1171      1421      1620      1,700
Cumulative
Completions                                     80                         97         297      421       551       751       1001      1251      1501      1700




                                                                                 11
Preparing for Sustainable Urban Extensions in other growth locations

(see attached indicative location map)

A2.10.1   The Draft RSS refers to the best opportunities to meet the bulk of the additional provision for the PUA being to the west
          of Leicester in Blaby, and north of Leicester in Charnwood Borough, which are detailed below.

A2.10.2   Leicestershire County Council has modelled the transport implications of the proposals and they are now being
          considered through the regional plan process. Two reports have been produced by Leicestershire County Council;
          ‘Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of SUEs at Selected Broad Locations in Leicestershire’
          (December 2006) and ‘Further Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of SUEs at Selected Broad
          Locations in Leicestershire’ (April 2007). These assessments are available as supplementary documents. Whilst no ‘in
          principle’ issues have been raised in the assessments that might prevent the SUE proposals being taken forward; cross
          boundary work will be vital if their delivery is to be properly planned and co-ordinated with, amongst other things,
          motorway widening, trunk road improvements, the substantial growth in the City and growth areas in other counties.

A2.11     Adjoining Leicester in Blaby District

A2.11.1   There has been substantial employment growth in Blaby and the capacity of M1 J21 has been recently improved. The
          Highways Agency has consulted on its plans for widening the M1 and creating free-flow links between M1/M69. Subject
          to these measures being implemented, the draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension to the west of Leicester in
          Blaby District delivering 4,000 homes, which may be revised to 3,750 homes and 25ha of employment land
          (Leicestershire County Council’s revised advice in December 2006 following more detailed transport assessments)
          following the EiP.

A2.12     Adjoining Leicester in Charnwood Borough

A2.12.1   The draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension north and east of Leicester in Charnwood delivering 4,875
          homes, which may be revised to 4,375 homes and 25ha of employment land (Leicestershire County Council’s revised
          advice in December 2006 following more detailed transport assessments) following the EiP.




                                                                 12
A2.13     Sustainable Urban Extensions to the three Sub-Regional Centres of Coalville, Hinckley and Loughborough

A2.13.1   As noted above, part of the strategy of the Draft Regional Plan involves three possible major growth location solutions
          consisting of SUEs at Loughborough, Hinckley and Coalville. These will be large enough to support their own local
          infrastructure, make sustainable transport modes viable, and be Masterplan-led

A2.13.2   Due to the early focus on development in Leicester, the need to confirm allocations through the RSS and LDF process,
          and a desire to carry out detailed master planning and other preparatory work, the proposed Sub-Regional Centre SUEs
          provide just 4% of the proposed HMA growth to 2016 (and 53% by 2026). Their sustainability is largely dependent on the
          necessary infrastructure being in place from the start, to prevent them becoming mono-cultural housing estates. It is also
          vital that they are large enough to support their own secondary school (or sustain and improve a nearby school), so that
          they provide local facilities from birth to adulthood, and reduce the need to travel. They also need to be able to support
          climate change schemes such as District Heating, which removes the need for individual heating boilers and hot water
          storage.

A2.13.3   A smaller urban extension of some 1,250 homes at Melton Mowbray has been considered for some time, and given its
          more advanced stage in the Local Development Framework could be accelerated and improved through NGP.
          Leicestershire County Council’s advice to the RSS Panel suggested enlarging this development to 1,500 homes.

A2.13.4   As part of the Regional Plan process, representations have been made which include proposals for further or alternative
          Sustainable Urban Extensions. The Panel will consider such proposals in the preparation of their report due to be
          published in Autumn 2007.

A2.14     Sustainable Urban Extension to Coalville

          •   The draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension to Coalville delivering 4,875 homes, which may be revised to
              4,375 homes and 25ha of employment land (Leicestershire County Council’s revised advice in December 2006
              following more detailed transport assessments) following the EiP. The timing is dependent on achieving local
              employment opportunities and therefore not adding to commuting
          •   The Transport Assessment recommends the introduction of a new express bus service serving Leicester, Ashby de la
              Zouch, Coalville and Burton upon Trent (which is in the East Staffordshire New Growth Point); and continues to
              support reinstatement of passenger services on the Leicester to Burton rail line


                                                                 13
A2.15       Sustainable Urban Extension to Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton

A2.15.1     The draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension to Hinckley delivering 4,875 homes, which may be revised to
            4,375 homes and 25ha total of employment land sites (Leicestershire County Council’s revised advice in December 2006
            following more detailed transport assessments) following the EiP. The timing and precise location is dependent on
            Highways Agency resolving capacity problems on the A5 and considering fully opening M69 Junction 22. Physical
            constraints in Hinckley suggest that Barwell / Earl Shilton should also be considered as preferred locations for growth
            with limited dispersal to other key rural centres.

A2.15.2     Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council and Leicestershire County Council are well aware of the quantity of movement
            across the Regional boundary of the A5 to the West Midlands and the need to discuss proposals with neighbouring
            authorities.

A2.15.3     Early discussion identifies the potential for re-opening the Elmesthorpe railway station, and providing park and ride and
            bus interchange services, to help new residents use rail travel to access employment in the neighbouring centres of
            Leicester, Coventry and Birmingham.

A2.15.4     Public consultation on the LDF Core Strategy identified the need for a new leisure centre – total cost estimated at £26m.
            Development could commence in 2010. The proposed site is located on land between Barwell and Hinckley.

A2.16       Sustainable Urban Extensions to Loughborough

A2.16.1     The draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension to Loughborough delivering 4,875 homes, which may be revised
            to 8,000 homes and 25ha of employment land (Leicestershire County Council’s revised advice in December 2006
            following more detailed transport assessments), following the EiP.




2
  (Both M69 Junction 2 and Elmesthorpe Railway Station are located in Blaby District. Blaby District Council has long-standing concerns about the impact
that the additional traffic using south-facing slip roads may have on the settlements of Sapcote and Stoney Stanton. Blaby District Council, in principle,
supports the re-opening of Elmesthorpe Station for passenger use and would wish to be involved in any proposals to achieve this objective.)


                                                                             14
Other related proposals

A2.17    In addition to the specific opportunities and proposals within and adjacent to the Leicester PUA and the sub regional
         centres of Loughborough, Hinckley and Coalville referred to above, there are further proposals which will help the
         proposed growth be delivered in a sustainable way. These proposals include:

         •   Charnwood Forest green infrastructure initiatives
         •   Stepping Stones community woodland green space project
         •   Tree survey of trees and woodland cover in proposed areas of growth
         •   Strategic river corridors
         •   Non-vehicular access improvements
         •   Developing and analysing ecological and geological resources
         •   Developing and implementing innovative approaches to waste facilities and recycling
         •   Improving services for young people including extended schools, childrens’ centres and youth facilities
         •   Developing leisure proposals such as the Big Country cinema project
         •   Provision of extra care facilities and associated services for older people
         •   Improvement and creation of country parks
         •   Upgrading voluntary and community infrastructure
         •   Implementing the Cultural Strategy
         •   Ashby Canal restoration as part of the waterways network
         •   Creative and cultural business development in areas of growth
         •   Tourism and ‘sense of place’ improvements, which will also assist newcomers to get to know their new home
         •   Wider sustainable travel and strategic road network improvements, such as the Kibworth, Melton and Lutterworth by-
             passes




                                                               15
Table 1 – summary of financial support requested from CLG

Summary of 3 Cities & 3 Counties projects put forward for support from the CLG Housing and Growth Programmes Fund 2008-2011
Capital Projects        2008-2009       2009-       2010-   Capital    Revenue Projects               2008-      2009-        2010-   Revenue    Grand Total
                                         2010        2011   total                                      2009       2010         2011   total
Leicester & Leicestershire HMA
Leicester Abbey           £500,000      £1.5m      £1.5m    £3.5m
Meadows Phase 2                                                                                                                                            £
Leicester Waterside           £2m        £2m         £2m    £6m        Leicester Central           £100,000             0        0    £100,000
Phase 2                                                                Library feasibility study
Leicester Hamilton        £400,000          0          0    £400,000   New Leicester City           £35,000    £25,000           0     £60,000
District Park                                                          Cultural Strategy for
                                                                       next 10 years and
                                                                       project measuring the
                                                                       benefits of culture
Leicester Ashton         £200,000    £300,000    £100,000   £600,000   Heritage Interpretation     £100,000   £75,000       £50,000   £225,000
Green Phase 1 -                                                        Plan and Education
Castle Hill Country                                                    Programme
Park
Leicester Ashton         £500,000        £2m       £3.5m    £6m
Green exemplar
zero carbon
community
Leicester Sports          £0.75m         £1m           0    £1.75m     Leicester Sports            £20,000*
Facilities            Water-based     8 Court                          facilities scoping
Strategic plan            pitch St Sports Hall                         strategic plan
                       Margaret’s Babington
                         Pastures     College
Leicester St            £600,000         £2m                £2.6m
George’s North

West of Leicester               0    £200,000    £500,000   £700,000   West of Leicester SUE       £100,000   £100,000      £50,000   £250,000
SUE                                                                    feasibility study and
                                                                       masterplanning
North of Leicester       £200,000    £200,000    £500,000   £900,000   North of Leicester SUE      £100,000   £100,000      £50,000   £250,000
SUE                                                                    feasibility study and
                                                                       masterplanning
Loughborough SUEs        £200,000    £200,000    £500,000   £900,000   Loughborough SUEs           £100,000   £100,000      £50,000   £250,000
                                                                       feasibility study and
                                                                       masterplanning



                                                                              16
Hinckley SUE           £200,000   £200,000   £500,000   £900,000   Hinckley SUE feasibility   £100,000   £100,000   £50,000   £250,000
                                                                   study and
                                                                   masterplanning
Coalville SUEs         £200,000   £200,000   £500,000   £900,000   Coalville SUEs             £100,000   £100,000   £50,000   £250,000
                                                                   feasibility study and
                                                                   masterplanning
Town and Local             £2m        £2m        £2m    £6m        Community and social       £100,000   £100,000   £50,000   £250,000
Centre                                                             capital building
Improvements
Leicester Central                     £8m       £17m    £25m
Library                                                 (CIF)
Leicester Museums                    £20m               £35m
& Heritage                           NWM                (CIF)
Masterplan and                    £15m Old
Asset Strategy                       Town
(indicative projects
New Walk Museum
refurbishment with
new art gallery, Old
Town restoration)
TOTALS                                                  £31.15m                                                               £1.885m    £33.035m




                                                                         17
Leicester Regeneration Company Waterside Intervention Area                                                             Annex A

A2.A1   Phase 1 (2007-08) investment is delivering over £1.5m of public realm improvements in the south of the area around St.
        Nicholas Circle, Bath Lane, Welles Street and Holy Bones, and demonstrate the standard of excellence required by the
        public realm strategy. It aims to stimulate at least £214m of private sector investment providing around 1,377 new homes
        in the south of the area, where planning consents exist but have not yet been implemented.

A2.A2   This Bath Lane scheme will reconnect the area to the City Centre and particularly to the £350m expansion of the
        Highcross Quarter with its flagship John Lewis store, opening in September 2008 and expected to induce substantial ‘city
        living’ provision in the Waterside. Supported by a three-year £19.6m City Council, emda, LSEP and developer-funded
        “Streets & Spaces” programme, this phase seeks to remedy some of the post-industrial dereliction and the separation
        caused by the 1960’s clearance of the medieval street layout to build the Central Ring Road. Complementary work is
        being carried out nearby by De Montfort University to reconnect its campus with the City Centre.

A2.A3   Phase 2 (2008-11) is a period of major investment in the Waterside. In addition to the Phase 1 homes, development
        should push northwards through Blackfriars and meet up with the £35m English Partnerships / Blueprint LRC Exemplar
        scheme at Frog Island, which is expected to come for planning approval in early 2008. There are a number of key
        interventions to create value, and thereby bring forward developments and improve their quality.

A2.A4   Key to opening up the Waterside to its full riverside potential is the green infrastructure centred on the Rally Park,
        connecting it to the east bank and providing flood protection, wildlife corridors, leisure access and safe transport routes.
        The Rally Park itself offers exciting prospects for a land swap to provide a new primary school to support family housing,
        with adjacent community facilities. As a new neighbourhood park, managed for the community in perpetuity, it will
        provide the focal point of Waterside and be clear evidence of regeneration. CABE Space and the Land Restoration Trust
        are already involved in the project.

A2.A5   There is a need for key highway infrastructure to unlock some of the Waterside sites, and provide investor confidence to
        the institutions backing the developers. Planning consents have already secured some of the land for the construction of
        a new access road and bridge across the canalised River Soar, and the link road to support the English Partnerships /
        Blueprint scheme at Frog Island. The City Council Cabinet will consider options identified by the transport study in
        September, and a delivery scheme will then be worked up. It is expected that the Council will initially fund the detailed
        feasibility study for the delivery of a road and bridge to connect St. Augustines Road with Bath Lane, costing some £100k


                                                               18
         and taking 6 months to agree a deliverable scheme with the landowners and British Waterways. Much of the land is
         already in the Council’s ownership and initial consultation is very favourable. Early estimates of cost suggest a total
         scheme of £7.5m including a £3.5m bridge across the canalised River Soar, with construction spread over 2008-09 and
         2009-10.

A2.A6    In Phase 2 of the public realm improvements, funding will be sought to support the early delivery of more housing around
         Blackfriars and St Augustines, and encourage the long-term regeneration of all parts of the Waterside:

         •   the provision of a small new public open space in Blackfriars / Jarvis Street (land already secured by s. 106
             agreement)
         •   improved access across the river to make a safe route to Rally Park – feasibility study followed by investment plan
         •   public realm works - the continuation of the quality public realm from Bath Lane / Welles Street, including the
             development of a riverside promenade
         •   reducing the impact of through traffic from the A50 Highcross Street to provide a better and safer pedestrian
             environment for the “New Walk Extension” to link the city centre with the waterside
         •   Support funding to assess, plan and co-fund a community-wide approach to renewable energy provision, maximising
             the potential, and anticipating and meeting the 2016 zero carbon goal as soon as is practicably and financially
             achievable. To include heat and power distribution networks.


Map / table of names of sites and housing numbers




                                                               19
Leicester Regeneration Company Abbey Meadows Intervention Area                                                       Annex B

Abbey Meadows LRC Intervention Area and former BUSM site – 3,400 new homes from 2007 – short to medium term

A2.B1    Phase 1 (2007-08) is delivering public realm and structural landscaping works to set the high standard which all
         developments in this area are expected to achieve. The SPD for the area was adopted in April 2007 and a Public Realm
         Strategy has just been completed. With the start on site of the road infrastructure for both the emda-backed Science
         Park and private developer housing on Abbey Meadows West, the investment seems to have helped developer
         confidence on some sites, although more public investment is urgently required to overcome concerns which remain
         about the viability and likely start date of other more major housing schemes – most notably the currently stalled
         Metropolitan Housing Trust scheme for 727 dwellings on the former bus depot site.

A2.B2    Phase 2 (2008-11) will carry forward major Public Realm and infrastructure improvements to facilitate major residential
         developments on Wolsey Island and the BUSM site. It will focus on creating the conditions for new, integrated and
         sustainable communities, emphasising environmental quality and recognising the importance of the green infrastructure
         and strategic river corridor. The programme will create and enhance links to and through the area, offering new open
         spaces, improving access to green space and establishing an attractive place to live. Two new footbridges will reduce
         the necessity for car journeys. Funding will be used for -

         •   Further upgrading and extension of Abbey Meadows, which provides the essential secondary route to serve new
             housing developments providing some 900 units (sites 2, 3 & 4 on the map)
         •   Footbridge and associated works to connect the Science Park and residential developments (site 10) at Abbey
             Meadows West to the residential sites on Wolsey Island
         •   Footbridge and associated works to connect the residential sites on Wolsey Island to the BUSM residential
             development site (site 1)
         •   Extension of Abbey Meadows Lane to improve access and facilitate development
         •   Public realm works and environmental works to the river and canal corridors, including the existing Sustrans cycle
             route, to improve public safety and enhance the setting and environment of the new residential communities
         •   Works to promote sustainable development
         •   Improvements to St. Margaret’s Pastures sports ground, including a water based all weather pitch to bring top-class
             hockey back to Leicester and provide local sports facilities for Abbey Meadows



                                                               20
A2.B3   The LDF Open Space Assessment identified the need to improve links with Abbey Park and create a ‘district’ park for
        Belgrave to take the pressure off Cossington Street Recreation Ground when the BUSM site is developed. This will
        partly be created by the open space and green infrastructure within the BUSM site, and partly using the existing flood
        plain north of the Science Park (the former John Ellis playing fields).

A2.B4   The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has implications for the checking and strengthening of flood defences to reflect the
        change of use from industrial to residential; and obviously the positioning of the two new footbridges will, like the existing
        Holden Street Bridge, take account of possible water levels.

A2.B5   There is substantial recent movement in bringing forward housing, thanks to a large extent to the developer confidence
        engendered by the £0.5m CLG investment in 2007-08.

        • 44 apartments at Boston House (site 5 on the map) are due to be completed shortly, with related pre-application
          discussions for a further 23 having been brought forward.
        • Morris Homes have just started site demolition for the first phase (95 flats) out of 307 on site 6 on the map.
        • Planning applications have now been submitted for 450 dwellings at Sock Island (site 2) and 1,190 on the BUSM site
          (site 1).
        • Blueprint are in pre-application discussions over 200 homes at site 4, Advance Tapes / Rocket Studios




                                                                21
Site map – Abbey Meadows




                           22
Leicester Regeneration Company St. George’s North New Community                                                            Annex C

LRC St. George’s North Intervention Area – New Community –1,700 new homes – medium to longer term

A2.C1    This area, despite its closeness to the Cultural Quarter and the City’s retail centre, been slower to take off with only 80
         homes built. However, there are more in the planning pipeline, with three sites totalling 52 apartments having recently
         submitted applications and 217 more started on site, (for example the Telereal building at 40 Wharf Street South which
         has just started on site, thanks to a change of developer, and provided £100k S.106 contribution to public realm). There
         are also planning consents for a further 159 dwellings on 9 sites which have yet to be implemented. With the exception
         of 4 three-bedroom apartments at Crown House, all of these developments are one- or two-bedroom apartments or
         studio flats.

A2.C2    A Public Realm study, encompassing Wharf Street South and part of Lee Circle and Lower Hill Street, has now been
         completed. The permeability and connectivity of the neighbourhood will be improved by the extension of the City Centre
         Public Realm Strategy into these areas.

A2.C3    There is an identified need for the delivery of the Supplementary Planning Document framework, which seeks to bring
         forward a more diverse range of house types and households, and improve the appeal of this city centre area as a place
         to live:

         •   delivery of a small public open space in Lee Circle
         •   Public Realm works to enhance the environment and improve public safety
         •   the provision of two “pocket parks”, on Wharf Street South and at Bedford Street South / Dryden Street to
             complement the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy
         •   public realm works in Wharf Street South, Lee Circle and Lower Hill Street and other areas to stimulate housing
             provision and facilitate the capture of S106 payments from developers
         •   improvements to the Central Ring Road crossing at Wharf Street South to reconnect St. Matthews to the City Centre

A2.C4    It is likely that the City Council will prioritise work on the key pedestrian routes of Lee Street and Wharf Street. There is a
         fear that individual developers will come forward with small unsatisfactory schemes, and it is the intention of the Local
         Planning Authority to enforce complete compliance with the existing adopted Supplementary Planning Document in the
         interests of the overall development of the area.


                                                                  23
Map




      24
Leicester Ashton Green exemplar zero carbon community                                                                 Annex D

A2.D1    Leicester City Council has made £300k available in 2007-08 to complete the Masterplanning. EDAW consultants have
         been asked to consider the existing design framework and how it might be adapted to, provide for the need for a
         community college, minimise external traffic impact, and provide best sustainable development practice. An advisory
         report on options and the best way forward is expected in August 2007, and action is expected to be undertaken to allow
         the submission of a new outline planning application for the chosen design concept by early 2008. A start on site is
         expected in 2009.

         In 2008-11, funding will be sought for:

         •   Planning and construction of informal recreation facilities in the Castle Hill Country Park, including protection and
             interpretation of the Ancient Monument.
         •   Planning and implementation of the infrastructure for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) scheme, coupled with
             district heating and the potential use of locally grown fuels
         •   Support costs for introducing a dedicated rapid public transport system via existing highway infrastructure, and for
             studying opportunities for developing and implementing a partial off-highway system; both connecting with city centre
             key nodes
         •   With English Partnerships, CABE and Housing Corporation support, an exemplar housing scheme to set the required
             standard for zero carbon housing in a well designed mixed tenure community
         •   Early infrastructure requirements
         •   Provision of an eight-court sports hall at Babington College to provide an indoor sports venue close to Ashton Green

A2.D2    Ashton Green has the potential to deliver 3,500 to 4,000 new homes from 2009. The City Council, as the landowner, has
         the vision to develop a world-class zero carbon exemplar community. The original Masterplan is now over a decade old,
         and until a revised version is adopted it is unclear what schemes will be brought forward.

Map and tables from Fabian Dcosta




                                                               25
Leicester Hamilton                                                                                                        Annex E

A2.E1    Hamilton is coming forward through the market, and there has been some excellent joint work between the Trustees and
         the City Council to make it a quality development. Major transport investment in the Eastern District Distributor Road
         (EDDR) has opened up the site to housing development, and infrastructure such as the supermarket and primary school
         have already been provided for the 1,500 houses already constructed. The Tesco development provided a purpose built
         library and learning centre as a hub of the District Centre. An additional 2,000 homes are planned by 2016, and current
         sales are running at about 350 a year.

A2.E2    The LDF Open Space Assessment identified the need to create a ‘district’ park to meet the recreational needs of the new
         community at Hamilton. The ‘district’ level park offers formal and informal recreation, and funding will be sought for its
         development up to Green Flag standards.

A2.E3    Hamilton is on the north-east corner of the City and will probably adjoin parts of the Charnwood SUE, with the Redrow
         development likely to cross the boundary. This will mean that Hamilton provides services to early occupants of the new
         SUE, and offers scope for planned infrastructure to serve 8,000 homes – for example a quality bus service to the City
         Centre. The planned £22m relocation of Gateway College to Hamilton in 2009 also offers a huge opportunity for
         community building and shared facilities.




                                                               26
City, Town and Local Centre Improvements                                                                                   Annex F

A2.F1     The scale of growth proposed, and the “sustainable urban extensions” approach means that we must ensure that the
          existing urban centres have the capacity to serve the new population. Most of the basic infrastructure is in place, and our
          programme therefore includes improvements rather than new provision. This is a more cost-effective approach, and also
          has the benefit of demonstrating to local host communities the benefits of growth.

A2.F2     There are a number of distinct local centres serving, and providing identity and sense of place to, their communities. We
          intend to reinforce their vitality, and improve the standard of services they offer. Work on local centres will also help bring
          forward quick wins on allocated or windfall sites which the market has so far neglected.

Leicester City

A2.F3     Among the schemes which form the next part of the City’s renaissance, building on the Highcross Quarter retail
          development and the Performing Arts Centre which reinforce its role as a Regional centre, are:

          •   A Childrens’ Hub in Leicester City Centre
          •   A new Central Library for Leicester as a focus for culture, learning and information, to replace the two existing Central
              Lending and Reference Libraries, which are unsuitable buildings for modern use
          •   Delivering Leicester’s Museums and Heritage Masterplan and Asset Strategy, including upgrading New Walk
              Museum and relocating Leicester’s contemporary Art Gallery, and redeveloping the Old Town as a tourist, visitor, and
              business centre linking the Highcross Quarter, Leicester Castle complex, Guildhall and Cathedral with Leicester
              Lanes and improving historical and archaeological sites
          •   Creating a sporting and volunteering legacy for Leicester as host city for the 2009 Special Olympic Games, and
              London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games
          •   Implementing the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy to enhance and develop sustainable communities through access
              to parks and play
          •   Reviewing and updating ‘Diverse City’, Leicester’s Cultural Strategy produced 6 years ago, to reflect the changing
              nature of the city, and research demonstrating the benefits culture has on people and place
          •   Tourism and ‘sense of place’ of place improvements, which will attract visitors, assist newcomers in settling in the city,
              and reduce city flight
          •   Developing community based sports and cultural facilities in growth areas, which are accessible and fit for purpose


                                                                  27
Local centres within and adjoining the Leicester PUA

A2.F4     The network of local centres is complex within the PUA, with dual use by residents and workers. We intend to strengthen
          local centres so that they become the place of choice for day-to-day services. We also want to bring forward the quality
          bus routes and park & ride sites which will help achieve modal shift and better use of these centres. The Local Planning
          Authorities are working together to co-ordinate studies, and the LSEP and County Council have recently funded surveys
          of 17 centres.


A2.F5     Town and local centres within Blaby District

A2.F5.1   Blaby District Council is making improvements to Blaby Town Centre consistent with its emerging Masterplan. An
          immediate priority is the feasibility study for a Blaby railway station (see para A2.G5 below).

A2.F5.2 The existing Narborough railway station also offers opportunities to improve the town centre offer.


A2.F6     Town and local centres within Charnwood Borough

A2.F6.1 Thurmaston and Syston are the existing centres which will be expected to provide initial service capacity for any SUE to
        the north and east of Leicester. Charnwood Borough Council has already identified the need to expand the Silverdale
        Drive community centre and make better links with Watermead Country Park.

A2.F6.2 The Syston / Thurmaston Bypass may need to be brought forward to enable the SUEs and free up the local centres from
        through traffic for increased sustainable transport provision.


A2.F7     Town and local centres within Oadby and Wigston Borough

A2.F7.1 Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston are part of the Leicester Principal Urban Area, and the Borough forms part of the
        physical built framework of Leicester. Although the scope to deliver significant levels of additional housing is limited, and
        the draft RSS proposes a decrease in the Borough’s annual housing requirement, Oadby and Wigston town centres


                                                                 28
          provide key local services and facilities which are easy to access by public transport by those in the south of the City.
          Masterplans are currently being progressed for all three town centres which will strengthen their eminence and identify
          opportunities for new housing development on sites that are currently underused. This will provide an important
          contribution toward the provision of additional dwellings within the Leicester Principal Urban Area.

A2.F7.2 Town Centre Masterplans have been prepared for Oadby and Wigston, and the implementation of these masterplans
        includes:

          •   Improvements to the public realm, including pedestrianisation
          •   Providing new community buildings
          •   Providing new housing, office and retail development
          •   Establishing separate, specific and complimentary roles including appropriate gateway developments for each town
              centre
          •   Providing new traffic management measures, including improvements to public transport infrastructure

A2.F7.3   Other opportunities include:

          •   Strengthening economic development prospects in the Borough, including assisting the re-use of existing
              employment sites for modern employment or alternative uses
          •   Initiatives to deal with the needs of an older and culturally diverse population
          •   Strengthening Green Infrastructure throughout the Borough, including improvements to Brocks Hill Environment
              Centre and Country Park and Oadby Grange Country Park
          •   Bringing forward, with Harborough District Council, a site for Park & Ride which will reduce congestion and travel
              times on the arterial A6 route into Leicester city centre, and provide further public transport choice

A2.F7.4 In 2008 to 2011 funding will be sought from a variety of sources for:

          •   *Drawing up and implementing a Public Realm Strategy (to include pedestrianisation, hard and soft landscaping,
              lighting, signage, shop front improvements, reinforcement of gateways, branding, public art etc)
              Consultancy £50,000; Implementation and Project Management £600,000 (capital)
          •   *Town Centre Manager post (to cover Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston town centres and coordinate with
              promotion, business development, implementation etc)


                                                                 29
             Salary and Budget for Implementation £150,000
         •   *Housing Policy Officer post (to implement work associated with the Housing Market Assessment; bringing forward
             sites for residential development especially those identified through Masterplanning; Gypsy and Traveller Needs
             Assessment; Housing Tenure for the Borough’s multi cultural community)
             Salary and Budget for Implementation £150,000
         •   *Drawing up and modelling a Highways and Public Transport Strategy (to provide public transport infrastructure and
             to introduce measures to reduce traffic congestion in the town centres)
             Consultancy and modelling £250,000
             (This will be done in partnership with Leicester City and Leicestershire County Councils, who are jointly responsible
             for the Central Leicestershire Local Transport Plan, and has the potential to be undertaken on an HMA wide basis)
         •   Establishment of new purpose built doctors surgeries and associated facilities in Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston
             town centres (where doctors from all three settlements have discussed with the Council their need for new and
             improved facilities to meet increasing registrations and to provide extended services locally)
             £1 Million? - to be progressed by PCT
         •   To establish Incubator facilities for new business start ups including serviced offices and workshop space
             Land acquisition/Building Refurbishment and Implementation £1 Million? – LSEP / emda
         •   To undertake an assessment of the Borough’s Identified Employment Areas to explore their feasibility to sustain
             employment uses (to improve the economic prosperity of the Borough through the provision of appropriate industrial
             and business space and to release land within the Leicester Principal Urban Area for alternative uses where
             appropriate)
             Consultancy £50,000

                   * Identified as Priority Projects by Oadby & Wigston Borough Council


Sub-Regional Centres

A2.F8    The LSEP has already embarked on a programme of supporting the economic viability of the Leicestershire Sub-
         Regional Centres, with masterplan improvements planned for Coalville, Hinckley, Loughborough, Market Harborough,
         and Melton Mowbray.




                                                                30
A2.F9    Coalville

A2.F9.1 Town Centre Masterplan proposals:

         •   Identity and sense of place: large pieces of sculpture at key gateway points to town centre and in key public realm
             areas (£80,000); Bins/Seats design commissioning - to ensure a consistent branding for street furniture throughout
             the town in a design that is original and fitting the new image (£10,000); and Murals - to design painted murals
             features on buildings to create warmth and vibrancy and a consistent scheme to flow through town (£40,000)


A2.F10   Hinckley / Barwell / Earl Shilton

A2.F10.1 Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council is working up programmes addressing the following issues:

         •   The lack of suitable community and leisure facilities contained within the Hinckley Sub Regional Centre
         •   Teenage leisure facilities – to provide recreational facilities for youth, acting as diversionary provision, targeting
             ‘hotspot’ areas
         •   CCTV enhancements to increase system capacity to cover additional sites £250k
         •   The development of a cultural quarter around the Concordia Theatre along with the development of a creative
             innovation centre and the relocation of Hinckley College campus on the former Atkins Factory site
         •   Environmental improvements to the Upper Castle Street area of the town. The aim is to phase future improvements
             into the heart of the town centre, opening up the opportunity for creating new pedestrian links.
         •   The development of a new railway station forecourt to provide a transport interchange, providing a stronger bus
             linkage between adjoining town centres and the railway station
         •   Additional allotment provision, particularly within Burbage and Hinckley
         •   Lack of sports pitch space in Burbage, estimated cost assuming the utilisation of existing greenspace £300k, and poor
             quality pitch provision across the Borough. Est £1.5m for drainage improvements, pavilions etc
         •   Lack of playing field provision generally within the west of the Borough including inadequacy of play equipment
             provision within Market Bosworth
         •   Quantitative deficiencies in equipped play in Earl Shilton, Burbage, Hinckley
         •   Hinckley town centre play area - £100k plus land acquisition costs



                                                                31
A2.F10.2 Hinckley itself suffers frequent town centre congestion due largely to only having 2 railway crossings, and the barrier the
         railway line creates to the south and west of the town needs to be addressed. This would be the subject of a major
         infrastructure bid, should potential housing sites come forward in the areas which are currently inaccessible.


A2.F11    Loughborough

A2.F11.1 Loughborough has a number of deprived wards, and any growth has to create a ripple of confidence which helps these
         residents get into employment. The emerging Loughborough Town Centre Masterplan and Eastern Gateway proposals
         identify a priority scheme of a link road between Meadow Lane and Nottingham Road, which would release brownfield
         land for housing and employment, and deliver an enhanced public transport interchange at the station and an improved
         public realm for this key gateway to the town.

A2.F11.2 Potential projects to contribute to the Loughborough Town Centre Enhancements are:

          •   Support for provision of a strategic multi storey car park within the Baxter Gate Hospital site development;
          •   Possible expansion of Queens Park;
          •   Flood alleviation works to release key town centre sites - Devonshire Square, Limehurst Depot;
          •   Enhanced community building, possibly through the replacement and/or enhancement of the existing facility at John
              Storer House, a successful multi-agency community centre (the Charnwood Centre of Excellence for Community
              Well-being project); (an estimated £3.5m capital)
          •   A community arts facility, building on the success of Charnwood Arts;
          •   Public realm improvements within the town;
          •   Relocation of the Library to create a modern knowledge centre for the town.


A2.F12    Market Harborough

A2.F12.1 Harborough District has undergone substantial growth already, and is allocated a further 8,625 dwellings in the Draft RSS
         for the Plan period 2001-2026. The split between PUA and non-PUA is to be decided by the LDF process. In support of
         the draft RSS aim of urban concentration and regeneration, Harborough is intending to phase the release of greenfield
         sites so as to help the Leicester PUA authorities bring forward the brownfield sites.


                                                                 32
A2.F12.2 There are a number of outstanding infrastructure deficiencies in some relatively recent developments, for example the
         settlement of Broughton Astley, which has more than doubled in size since 1990 and now has 10,000 inhabitants. The
         Parish Council seeks more growth to help provide leisure, sports and youth facilities for the whole settlement.


A2.F13    Melton Mowbray

A2.F13.1 Melton Borough is delivering 4,000 more homes within the Draft RSS Plan period, with 1,250 at Melton Mowbray. A key
         infrastructure outcome is a relief road to remove through traffic from the town centre. This will alleviate air quality and
         congestion problems and help Melton re-establish its identity; and also free up the strategic road links between Leicester,
         Market Harborough & Oakham and Nottingham & Newark. See Annex L.




                                                                33
Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Blaby District                                                          Annex G

A2.G1    The draft RSS proposes a Sustainable Urban Extension to the west of Leicester in Blaby District delivering 4,000 homes
         which may be revised to 3,750 homes and 25ha of employment land (Leicestershire County Council’s revised advice in
         December 2006 following more detailed transport assessments) following the EiP.

A2.G2    Funding support in 2008-11 is sought to assist Blaby District Council and Leicestershire County Council carry out the
         necessary studies to bring a site forward in the Local Development Framework, and complete a Masterplan before the
         site is released. Revenue support will be required for the appointment of a Blaby SUE Project Officer.

A2.G3    Initial work has identified a potential site west of the M1, which could take a sustainable urban extension. It will be
         important to provide the right facilities for people who want to live there, and to maintain the separation from the
         surrounding settlements of Leicester Forest East, Enderby and Braunstone Town. The scope for this site will need to be
         tested against other options as part of the LDF process.

A2.G4    An initial sift of likely needs (of which NGP will provide additionality) includes:

         •   Following the ‘Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of SUEs at Selected Broad Locations in
             Leicestershire’ (April 2007), further investigation and definition of transportation infrastructure is required to mitigate
             the impact of the proposed SUE
         •   Re-opening of the Ivanhoe/National Forest Line to passenger traffic, with a station at Meynell’s Gorse, to provide a
             sustainable means of transport between the proposed SUE and Leicester;
         •   Air Quality modelling to assess the impact of the emissions from traffic generated by the SUE;
         •   Work on waste processing, waste transfer and re-cycling of materials generated by the SUE
         •   Advice from consultants concerning climate change and development in the District
         •   Further transport work and green infrastructure proposals included for Blaby SUE are likely to extend across the City
             boundary
         •   Masterplanning once the site is identified and allocated
         •   Enhancing social capital and building community cohesion, initially through work with communities where new growth
             is planned
         •   A 40% target for affordable homes, per the Blaby Housing Needs survey findings
         •   Design codes and zero carbon building targets


                                                                   34
        •   Feasibility study for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) scheme, coupled with district heating and the potential use of
            locally grown fuels
        •   Establishing local and neighbourhood centres in the first phase, to provide small retail, business start-up premises
            and service / community facilities within easy walking distance of homes
        •   A large multi-purpose facility at the ‘heart’ of the SUE which would be capable of providing opportunities for sport,
            leisure, cultural and religious events – the “Community Hall”
        •   Provision of appropriate recreation facilities, including multi-use games areas and changing accommodation. Ensure
            good links to facilities outside the SUE, e.g. Enderby Leisure Centre and Meridian Leisure
        •   3 or 4 Primary Schools and a Secondary School to serve the SUE
        •   A primary health care centre to include GP surgery, pharmacy and dental surgery as well as social care facilities
        •   A library / information centre / life long learning access point
        •   An urban fringe country park / community woodland, linked to green corridors to connect the SUE with existing urban
            areas and countryside and overcome the barrier effect of the M1 and M69
        •   Stepping Stones Community Woodland Green Space Project; Tree Survey in proposed areas of growth; strategic
            river corridors; ecological and geological resources; assessing historic buildings and archaeology in growth areas
        •   Protection of the mediaeval settlement and sites of biodiversity importance
        •   Ensuring the employment sites are suitable for promoting enterprise and technology

A2.G5   In order to promote travel by sustainable means, capital works should be undertaken to improve Narborough Railway
        Station (including enhanced parking facilities). A feasibility study is required to assess the prospects of a new passenger
        railway station at Blaby (which was included in DfT’s East Midlands Franchise document). Both stations could serve
        existing and proposed housing requirements in Blaby and Hinckley & Bosworth, outside the SUE.

A2.G6   A major constraint is the timetable of planned works by the Highways Agency to widen the M1. The potential site for this
        new community is beyond the M1 and M69 motorways, and unless a set of access routes are in place, the development
        will simply not come forward. Any further delay in the Highways Agency programme will cause us delivery problems.




                                                               35
Sustainable Urban Extension adjoining Leicester in Charnwood Borough                                                   Annex H

A2.H1   There is developer interest and available land in this area, in Charnwood Borough directly adjoining the PUA, for
        substantial development. Subject to further studies and the Local Development Framework deciding the most
        sustainable format, this could come forward in 2011 or 2012, although 2016 is more likely. There will be a necessity to
        protect and interpret the site of the abandoned medieval village of Hamilton, and there is scope for enhancing green
        infrastructure and providing safe greenway cycle and walking routes.

A2.H2   There is an identified need to improve the local road infrastructure, and further investigation and definition of sustainable
        transportation infrastructure is required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. There will be other links with
        the existing City development of Hamilton, which may impact on the infrastructure needs of the Hamilton district centre.

A2.H3   As with all SUEs, there is a need for planned development of the new communities to give them their own identity, and
        make them self sufficient to ensure that they do not overburden existing local services. There is a need to improve
        cycling and walking links with the nearby Watermead Country Park to provide extensive informal recreation, and to
        enhance other infrastructure to accommodate the growth:

        •   Improvements to South Charnwood Leisure Centre to accommodate the new population will cost some £1.6m capital,
            of which Charnwood Borough Council has identified £1.1m approx;
        •   A Visitor/ Interpretation Centre at Watermead Country Park will help increase use (also supports Ashton Green)
        •   Plans for an arts and media centre at Longslade School, Birstall, will be brought forward
        •   Feasibility study for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) scheme, coupled with district heating and the potential use of
            locally grown fuels to help achieve low carbon use
        •   Enhancing social capital and building community cohesion
        •   The existing community centre on Silverdale Drive, Thurmaston, will need renovation and extension (perhaps
            replacement in a more central location?) to meet the increased needs




                                                                36
Sustainable Urban Extensions to Loughborough                                                                           Annex I

A2.I1   The draft RSS proposes a SUE adjoining Loughborough at a rate delivering 4,875 homes by 2026. The RSS EiP will
        consider alternative proposals for SUEs adjoining Loughborough which could deliver up to 8,000 new homes together
        with 25ha of employment land and an extension to the Science Park. Subject to the RSS, options will be examined
        through the Charnwood LDF Core Strategy. To support the assessment of options for the SUEs, in 2008-11 funding will
        be sought for:

        •   Strategic Flood Risk Assessment studies (£17k commissioned, £15k outstanding)
        •   Feasibility study and basic Masterplanning to define the infrastructure requirements of the development
        •   Improvement of local Green Infrastructure and protection of local sites of biodiversity importance
        •   Feasibility study for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) scheme, coupled with district heating and the potential use of
            locally grown fuels
        •   Further investigation and definition of transportation infrastructure is required to mitigate the impact of the proposed
            SUE
        •   Enhancing social capital and building community cohesion, initially through work with communities where growth is
            planned

A2.I2   Loughborough is the major sub-regional centre in Leicestershire, supporting a world-class university as well as a thriving
        private sector science and technology research and development sector. It is likely to be able to provide local high
        quality employment for the majority of new residents, as well as rail commuting to the 3 city centres.

A2.I3   Regeneration initiatives in Eastern Loughborough would support SUEs to the east of the town, and include:

        •   A community building associated with the Windmill Road development. Consultants have identified potential costs
            including £35,000 for a feasibility study and potential capital costs of £1.28m;
        •   Creative industries managed workspace as part of the Windmill Road development. Potential costs involve £30,000
            for a feasibility study;
        •   New Park and Gardens to serve east Loughborough. Potential costs involve £25,000 for a feasibility study;
        •   Skills Centre to provide local access to training linked to Loughborough College. Potential costs include £25,000 for a
            feasibility study and capital costs of £3m;
        •   Development of ecology park on Allsopps Lane Tip;


                                                               37
        •   Support to deliver Eastern Gateway proposal including provision of link road (estimated £3m) from Meadow Lane to
            Nottingham Road and land remediation works;
        •   Flood alleviation works to enable release of Local Plan employment allocation at Dishley Grange.

A2.I4   Feasibility and appraisal work on a non-site-specific basis will inform the location of the SUEs and their progress through
        the statutory planning process; and there is also work to be carried out to deliver a second Science Park to reinforce the
        knowledge economy and university spin-out cluster.




                                                               38
Sustainable Urban Extensions to Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton                                                                            Annex J

A2.J1       This proposal is subject to phasing because of Highways Agency concerns about the capacity of the A5 at Longshoot,
            and it is likely that the initial focus in 2008-11 will be on continued improvements to Hinckley, Earl Shilton and Barwell
            Town Centres, feasibility studies and supporting green infrastructure.

            •   Undertaking a green infrastructure study and preparing an implementation plan
            •   Bringing forward proposals which contribute to delivering regeneration in Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton
            •   Further investigation and definition of transportation infrastructure is required to mitigate the impact of the proposed
                SUE
            •   Feasibility study for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) scheme, coupled with district heating and the potential use of
                locally grown fuels
            •   Enhancing social capital and building community cohesion
            •   Linking in with future strategic road building programmes such as the A47 Earl Shilton Bypass

A2.J2       Specific transport issues to be addressed3 include:

            •   Understanding the flows and potential effects of changes on the M69 and A5, and what the intentions / aspirations of
                the Highways Agency and Highways Authorities are;
            •   The feasibility of either upgrading M69 J2 to a full junction or constructing a new junction to serve the SUE
            •   Tackling the constraint of the railway line for Hinckley, with the two road crossings restricting the towns access to the
                strategic highway network; and making better links for Hinckley to the M1 and M6;
            •   Improve access to the strategic rail network and the Midland Main Line and West Coast Main Line stations (Leicester,
                Market Harborough, Rugby, Nuneaton);
            •   Examine the potential for reopening Elmesthorpe Railway Station with a park and ride site, to encourage sustainable
                commuting
            •   Achieving a transport modal shift by improving bus services – new bus stations and stops, equipping them with the
                Star Trak real time transport information displays

3
  (Both M69 Junction 2 and Elmesthorpe Railway Station are located in Blaby District. Blaby District Council has long-standing concerns about the impact
that the additional traffic using south-facing slip roads may have on the settlements of Sapcote and Stoney Stanton. Blaby District Council, in principle,
supports the re-opening of Elmesthorpe Station for passenger use and would wish to be involved in any proposals to achieve this objective.)


                                                                             39
A2.J3   Current work being carried out by Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council on the Local Development Framework suggests
        that the choice of a growth location to the east of Hinckley and closer to Earl Shilton and Barwell will have the following
        infrastructure needs:

        •   A facility - a youth café - will be required in Earl Shilton for the provision of alternative educational and training
            opportunities for young people at risk of exclusion from mainstream education
        •   Enhancement to Earl Shilton town centre post bypass improvements (including landscaping and public open space)
        •   Barwell Cemetery space for burial land will run out by 2010, additional development proposals will impact further,
            Land and infrastructure acquisition will be required, £0.5-1m dependent on land costs
        •   Weaver Springs Community Park - providing the potential to support a community park to meet the needs of future
            housing development
        •   Healthy Living Centre – The potential to develop a healthy living centre in Earl Shilton to support the demands of new
            development (to include a GP surgery, community centre, child care provision) providing the ability to act as a
            community hub.
        •   Depot/waste transfer station- Increased development in the SRC is likely to render the current depot capacity
            inadequate. There is likely to be a need to acquire a new site in addition to considering future treatment capacity.
        •   Community Point Building- to be located in Earl Shilton (£250k).
        •   New Primary School provision (240 place primary school for each 1000 dwellings of 2 bed or more)
        •   New Middle and Upper School requirements- new build or extensions to existing (800 place secondary school for
            each 4000 dwellings of 2 bed or more)
        •   New or improved library facilities
        •   Burbage Common improvements required to visitor facilities to meet both existing as well as future capacity £80k




                                                               40
Sustainable Urban Extensions to Coalville                                                                              Annex K

A2.K1    North West Leicestershire District Council will seek to bring forward the delivery of the Coalville SUEs as quickly as
         possible. However, there is no existing allocation, and the selection of the sites for development will be done through the
         Local Development Framework process. Further investigation and definition of transportation infrastructure is required to
         mitigate the impact of the proposed SUE and to ensure the creation of sustainable communities, and this will inform the
         final decision.

A2.K2    It is likely that the initial focus in 2008-11 will include

         •   Making a start on creating more employment land and bringing more jobs to Coalville
         •   Implementing Coalville’s Town Centre Masterplan
         •   Masterplanning the SUEs
         •   Undertaking a green infrastructure study and preparing an implementation plan to ensure improved access to local
             green space as well as the National Forest for informal recreation
         •   Enhancing social capital and building community cohesion
         •   National Forest planting.

A2.K3    Given the scale of growth compared to the existing town, substantial infrastructure improvements will be need to made to
         Coalville Town Centre. These include:

         •   Proposals for the enhancement of Coalville Town Centre in line with the Town Centre Masterplan to help expand
             mixed use development, including retail, through an expansion of the quality and range of services available
         •   Delivering supporting public realm improvements
         •   Improved public transport facilities
         •   Community and recreational facilities; especially for children and young people, for example promoting a cinema
         •   Improvements to A511 and junctions through Coalville – substantial upgrades will be necessary whichever sites come
             forward

A2.K4    Masterplanning the SUEs will include the delivery of:

         •   Local centre for the SUEs, incorporating retail and local services


                                                                       41
        •   Appropriate educational facilities, including if necessary the provision of a new school
        •   Amenity open space
        •   Bardon Link Road (if Grange Road site selected)

A2.K5   Any site selected will require substantial improvements and major upgrade of public transport to Coalville (including
        looking again at reopening the National Forest line to passenger traffic) to offset commuting pressures, especially to
        Leicester, and to minimise any adverse impact on M1 Junction 22 with the A511.

A2.K6   In preparation for the 2011-14 and subsequent spending rounds, feasibility and other studies will be needed to develop
        proposals for:

        •   The re-opening of the National Forest Line for sustainable public transport
        •   Provision of Bridge Road link road in Coalville Town Centre
        •   Central bus station for Coalville
        •   Employment incubation units
        •   “Affordable employment” (i.e. small units in employment areas)
        •   Necessary community infrastructure, for example developing the main public leisure facility at Hermitage Leisure
            Centre
        •   Ashby Canal restoration project
        •   Developing “All our Futures: Snibston”; a programme of development to improve and create a high quality sustainable
            visitor attraction at the existing museum and educational facility at the former Snibston Colliery




                                                                42
Other opportunities in the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area                                        Annex L

         Melton Mowbray

A2.L1    Draft East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 14 makes provision for 160 houses a year over a 25 year period in Melton
         Borough. The Three Cities Sub-Regional Strategy says that 50 of those should be in the form of a sustainable urban
         extension to Melton Mowbray i.e. an extension of 1,250 houses. Although smaller than the other 5 urban extensions in
         the HMA, there are good reasons for this:

         •   Melton Mowbray is relatively remote within the HMA and is the most self-contained district in the region with little in
             the way of commuting or household migration. Too much housing could lead to long-distance commuting to larger
             centres - a fear recognised by the Panel which examined the Structure Plan
         •   Melton Mowbray is a traditional market town and the scale of development proposed is proportionate and compatible
             with its character;
         •   The town’s economic characteristics do not suggest that there is a need for significant development-led regeneration;
         •   In many ways we are well advanced with our LDF and we have identified significant constraints to development,
             particularly with respect to flooding and land ownership which limits the size of an urban extension;
         •   Larger-scale development does not fit comfortably with an ‘Urban Concentration and Regeneration’ strategy;
         •   Grantham, which is about 15 miles from Melton Mowbray, is also identified as a New Growth Point;
         •   We believe that this scale of development will still help us achieve wider benefits for the community such as
             affordable housing and support the construction of a much needed bypass for the town that is referred to in Appendix
             6 of the Regional Plan.

A2.L2    Nevertheless, the Melton Mowbray sustainable urban extension will be contributing to the housing growth proposed by
         the New Growth Point programme. Furthermore, because a significant amount of work has already been invested in
         bringing forward the urban extension proposal through the Melton LDF, there is a chance that construction could start
         within the 2008-2011 period. We propose that:

         •   The Melton Mowbray sustainable urban extension will be supported by early (2008-2011) masterplanning activity;
         •   A capital allocation be made to help bring forward the Melton Mowbray bypass. A traffic model of the Melton Mowbray
             area has been prepared and used to assess the possibility of a bypass and a number of options have been
             considered. All options would significantly reduce traffic on the roads into Melton Mowbray, depending on which side


                                                                43
           of the town the bypass would be located. The overall case for a bypass and viability of the different options could be
           significantly affected by the way new development is distributed around the town. A complete ring-road would have
           major benefits by reducing traffic in the town centre by nearly half, but would be so expensive that it could only be
           possible in the long-term and after the construction of a bypass. The Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 aims to develop
           proposals for a bypass between 2012 and 2015 and a Melton Mowbray ring road in the long-term. There is a now a
           significant local campaign to bring forward that scheme, supported by both Melton Borough Council and
           Leicestershire County Council, and the NGP programme provides such an opportunity.

A2.L3   Notwithstanding the RSS ‘Urban Concentration and Regeneration’ strategy, rural areas will continue to play an important
        role in providing for Leicester and Leicestershire HMA housing growth. We are keen to use the NGP Programme to
        support the sustainability of rural communities in accommodating this growth.

A2.L4   The Draft RSS allocates Melton Borough 160 dwellings per year, which is considered deliverable. Recent discussions
        with a developer suggest that the Melton SUE could potentially deliver 120 dwellings per year, with an earlier start than
        2011 possible.




                                                               44
                              Total HMA Trajectory

25,000




20,000                                                          Melton Mowbray
                                                                Coalville
                                                                Hinckley
                                                                Loughborough
                                                                Leicester North SUE
15,000                                                          Leicester West PUE
                                                                Leicester Ashton Green
                                                                Birstall Hallam Fields
                                                                Leicester Hamilton
                                                                LRC St George's North
10,000                                                          Waterside
                                                                Abbey Meadows
                                                                Other Greenfield Development
                                                                Further Capacity
                                                                Planned Development
 5,000                                                          Past Completions




    0
         2001/6   2006/11   2011/16         2016/21   2021/26
               Total Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Trajectory 2001-
2026
                                                                              Total       Beyond
                                     2001/6   2006/11 2011/16 2016/21 2021/26 2006/26     2026
Past
Completions                          15,500                                      15,500
Planned
Development                                    12,000   6,000    3,000           21,000
Further
Capacity                                        4,000   6,000    4,000   4,500   18,500
Other
Greenfield
Development                                      500    1,000    1,000    500     3,000
LRC
Intervention       Abbey
Areas              Meadows                       500    1,000    1,500     500    3,500
                   Waterside                     500      500    1,000   1,000    3,000
                   St Georges                                      500   1,000    1,500
SUEs within        Leicester
PUA                Hamilton             500     1,000   1,000                     2,500
                   Birstall Hallam
                   Fields                        500     500                      1,000
                   Leicester
                   Ashton Green                  500    1,000    1,000   1,000    3,500
SUEs adjoining
PUA                West                                          2,000   2,000    4,000
                   North                                1,000    1,500   2,000    4,500
SUEs adjoining
SRCs               Loughborough                          500     2,000   2,000    4,500     3,500
                   Hinckley                                      1,500   1,500    3,000     1,500
                   Coalville                            1,000    1,500   2,000    4,500
                      Melton
                      Mowbray                                           500          500                    1,000
Total Past
Completions                                 16,000                                                        16,000
Total Projected
Completions                                        0    19,500       20,000      21,000      18,000       78,500        5,000
Cumulative
Completions                                 16,000      35,500       55,500      76,500      94,500
PLAN -
Strategic
Allocation
(annualised)                                18,900      18,900       18,900      18,900      18,900       94,500
MONITOR - No.
dwellings above
or below
cumulative
allocation                                  -2,900          600       1,100       2,100         -900             0
MANAGE -
Annual
requirement
taking account
of
past/projected
completions
Footnotes
1. The value in each cell is rounded to the nearest 500 dwellings. This means that any value less than 250 dwellings will appear as zero, and
that totals may not sum.
2. Rows labelled Planned Development, Further Capacity and Other Greenfield Development, are in addition to the specific sites detailed
in the green highlighting below.
            25,000




            20,000




            15,000
Dwellings




                                                                      Past Completions
                                                                      Projected Completions
                                                                      Plan - strategic allocation

            10,000




             5,000




                0
                     2001/6   2006/11   2011/16   2016/21   2021/26
                             Monitor


3,000




2,000




1,000




    0
         2001/6   2006/11   2011/16    2016/21   2021/26
                                                           Monitor

-1,000




-2,000




-3,000




-4,000
                                 Leicester PUA Trajectory

8,000



7,000



6,000


                                                                      SUEs adjoining PUA North
5,000
                                                                      SUEs adjoining PUA West
                                                                      SUEs within PUA Leicester Ashton Green
                                                                      SUEs within PUA Birstall Hallam Fields
4,000
                                                                      SUEs within PUA Leicester Hamilton
                                                                      LRC Intervention Areas St Georges
                                                                      LRC Intervention Areas Waterside
3,000
                                                                      LRC Intervention Areas Abbey Meadows


2,000



1,000



   0
        2001/6   2006/11   2011/16         2016/21          2021/26
                  Leicester PUA Trajectory 2001-
2026
                                                                                                Total         Beyond
                                        2001/6     2006/11     2011/16    2016/21    2021/26    2006/26       2026
Past Completions                           4,000                                                      4,000
Planned
Development                                            3,500      3,000      1,500                   8,000
Further Capacity                                       2,000      2,000      1,500      1,500        7,000
Other Greenfield
Development                                                        500        500        500         1,500
LRC Intervention      Abbey
Areas                 Meadows                            500      1,000      1,500        500        3,500
                      Waterside                          500        500      1,000      1,000        3,000
                      St Georges                                               500      1,000        1,500
                      Leicester
SUEs within PUA       Hamilton              500        1,000      1,000                              2,500
                      Birstall Hallam
                      Fields                             500       500                               1,000
                      Leicester
                      Ashton Green                       500      1,000      1,000      1,000        3,500
SUEs adjoining
PUA                   West                                                   2,000      2,000        4,000
                      North                                       1,000      1,500      2,000        4,500
Total Past
Completions                               4,500                                                      4,500
Total Projected
Completions                                            8,500    10,500     11,000       9,500       39,500
Cumulative
Completions                               4,500       13,000    23,500     34,500     44,000
PLAN - Strategic
Allocation
(annualised)                              8,900        8,900      8,900      8,900      8,900       44,500
MONITOR - No.
dwellings above or
below cumulative
allocation                               -4,400          -400      1,600       2,100        600           -500
MANAGE - Annual
requirement taking
account of
past/projected
completions
Footnotes
1. The value in each cell is rounded to the nearest 500 dwellings. This means that any value less than 250 dwellings will appear as zero,
and
that totals may not sum.
2. Rows labelled Planned Development, Further Capacity and Other Greenfield Development, are in addition to the specific sites detailed
in the green highlighting below.
6,000




5,000




4,000



                                                         SUEs adjoining SRCs Melton Mowbray
                                                         SUEs adjoining SRCs Coalville
3,000
                                                         SUEs adjoining SRCs Hinckley
                                                         SUEs adjoining SRCs Loughborough



2,000




1,000




   0
        2001/6   2006/11   2011/16   2016/21   2021/26
                  Leicester and Leicestershire HMA outside the PUA trajectory 2001-2016
                                                                                                        Total        Beyond
                                           2001/6     2006/11     2011/16     2016/21       2021/26     2006/26      2026
Past Completions                             11,500                                                         11,500

Planned Development                                       8,500       3,000       1,500                    13,000
Further Capacity                                          2,000       4,000       2,500         3,000      11,500
Other Greenfield
Development                                                 500         500         500                     1,500

SUEs adjoining SRCs       Loughborough                                  500       2,000         2,000       4,500       3,500
                          Hinckley                                                1,500         1,500       3,000       1,500
                          Coalville                                   1,000       1,500         2,000       4,500
                          Melton Mowbray                                500         500                     1,000
Total Past
Completions                                  11,500                                                        11,500
Total Projected
Completions                                      0       11,000       9,500      10,000         8,500      39,000       5,000
Cumulative
Completions                                  11,500      22,500      32,000      42,000        50,500

PLAN - Strategic
Allocation (annualised)                      10,000      10,000      10,000      10,000        10,000      50,000
MONITOR - No.
dwellings above or
below cumulative
allocation                                    1,500       1,000        -500             0      -1,500           0




MANAGE - Annual
requirement taking
account of
past/projected
completions
Footnotes
1. The value in each cell is rounded to the nearest 500 dwellings. This means that any value less than 250 dwellings will appear as zero,
and
that totals may not sum.
2. Rows labelled Planned Development, Further Capacity and Other Greenfield Development, are in addition to the specific sites detailed
in the green highlighting below.
HOUSING TRAJECTORIES
Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Housing Trajectories
Introduction
Completions to 2006 indicate an imbalance between the PUA, where there
has been underprovision relative to the annualised allocation, and the rest of
the HMA, where there has been overprovision.
The draft Regional Plan’s strategy of urban concentration and regeneration
turns this around, so that by the five years ending 2016, the focus is on
development in and adjoining the existing Leicester PUA, where significant
growth can be accommodated if the barriers to development are overcome.
As part of the overall strategy of the draft Regional Plan, substantial growth is
also proposed outside the PUA particularly at three Sub-Regional Centres to
provide continued growth capacity for the HMA to 2026 and beyond.
At this stage, the trajectories are indicative, split into five year stages, and
numbers of dwellings in each cell being rounded to the nearest 500. This
means that any value less than 250 dwellings will appear as zero, and that
totals may not sum. More detailed trajectories will be worked up in
discussions with individual district councils.
Total HMA Trajectory
This trajectory is derived from:
      •   The revised Appendix 2 to the draft Regional Plan, which sets out a
          trajectory for planned development and further capacity;
      •   The Housing Land Availability Assessment1 which sets out the
          trajectories for LRC intervention areas and SUEs within the PUA;
      •   Trajectories for individual SUEs adjoining Sub-Regional Centres; and
      •   an additional small element to allow for new greenfield development in
          other parts of the HMA.
Completions to 2006 are below the strategic allocation, due to the
underperformance in the PUA. However, substantial increases are anticipated
through to 2021.
Leicester Principal Urban Area Trajectory
This trajectory is derived from The Housing Land Availability Assessment
which sets out the trajectories for LRC intervention areas and SUEs within the
PUA.
The Housing Land Availability Assessment suggested an indicative average
annual trajectory for PUA housing completions of:
             •   2006-2011 – 1,570 per annum
             •   2011-2016 – 2,090 per annum
             •   2016-2021 – 2,200 per annum
             •   2021-2026 – 1,950 per annum

1
    Roger Tym & Partners May 2007
Of these, an average of 1,260 homes a year will be required to be built in
Leicester City over the next 20 years to meet the draft Regional Plan
allocation of 1,180 dwellings per year over the whole Plan period. This is a
50% uplift on the average completion rate of 850 dwellings a year over 2001-
2006.
There is evidence of a market preference for delivering several smaller sites
simultaneously at an annual sales rate of no more than 350, in order to give
buyers choice of location and type. Market deliverability is a key factor in
phasing.
Growth in the LRC Intervention Areas continues throughout the Plan period,
whilst the emphasis in growth in SUEs shifts progressively from those inside
the PUA (Hamilton, Hallam Fields and Ashton Green) to those adjoining the
PUA. This latter reflects the need to prioritise development within the PUA as
much as possible, and the effect of infrastructure constraints west of
Leicester, as set out below.
Comments on SUEs adjoining PUA
West
Housing provision at a SUE west of the M1 could not commence before the
M1 widening works are completed; the current programme is that widening
would be carried out in the period 2011 to 2016.
Analysis by both Ptolemy and the Central Leicestershire Transport Model,
particularly looking at public transport, to examine potential and existing
services and their potential extensions, could provide sufficient comfort to
allow a limited amount of housing to proceed rather earlier. However, the
Highways Agency is reassessing the costs of the Contract 2 scheme and this
may have implications for delivery.
It is therefore concluded that no provision for housing west of Leicester should
be included in the period 2011/16.
North
No additional comments.
Leicestershire Trajectory outside the PUA
This trajectory is derived from the numerical difference between the HMA
trajectory and the PUA trajectory.
It shows a progressive reduction from the overprovision up to 2006 to a
smaller amount of growth towards the end of the Plan period. This reflects a
high level of completions to 2006 and existing commitments to 2011.
Development of SUEs is anticipated to start after 2011, and in the case of
Loughborough and Hinckley, to continue after 2026. It should be noted that
provision after 2026 is additional to the 2001 to 2026 Regional Plan housing
provision total.
Comments on SUEs adjoining SRCs
Loughborough
Because of the scale of infrastructure required, no more than 500 dwellings
could be provided before 2011. In addition, to accommodate the revised
advice submitted by Leicestershire County Council in December 2006, the
additional 3,500 dwellings to achieve the total of 8,000 dwellings are phased
beyond 2026.
Hinckley
The revised Appendix 2 of the Regional Plan shows that once urban housing
capacity and existing commitments and completions have been taken into
account there is a requirement to find 3,600 dwellings in Hinckley and
Bosworth to 2026. Part of the SUE is therefore phased post 2026.
Coalville
North West Leicestershire District Council is likely to receive an application
shortly in respect of the Grange Road local plan allocation. This raises the
possibility that there could be some development prior to 2011, albeit probably
quite small scale. Additionally, a build rate of 300 dwellings per annum is very
ambitious and may be difficult to justify.
Melton Mowbray
The actual phasing suggested by Melton Borough Council is as follows:
2006-2011        6%
2011-2016        32%
2016-2021        32%
2021-2026        30%
This is because of doubts whether the local housing market could sustain
higher growth, and practical difficulties in obtaining higher output from a single
site.
It should be noted that because of the relatively small numbers involved, the
rounded figures in the trajectory do not adequately deal with the proposed
provision at Melton Mowbray.
            3 CITIES & 3 COUNTIES
             NEW GROWTH POINT

      DRAFT PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH
  PROGRAMME OF DEVELOPMENT 2006-2026
and indicative investment priorities for 2008-2011



  Appendix 3 – The Nottingham Core HMA


                       VERSION 3.0
                     14th August 2007
                 DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CLG


                            1
Contents




Summary and overview of Nottingham HMA Growth Proposals                               Page 3

The Nottingham Principal Urban Area (PUA) Housing Trajectory                          Page 4

Growth Priorities – Key Themes and Delivery Process                                   Page 14

Local Governance                                                                      Page 15

Local Stakeholder Participation                                                       Page 15

Indicative Phasing                                                                    Page 16

Indicative Programme and Projects by Theme, Phase with Indicative Funding requirements Page 18

Indicative Funding Summary                                                            Page 52

Plans                                                                                 Page 53




                                                      2
A3.1     Summary and overview of Nottingham HMA Growth Proposals

A3.1.1   Nottingham is a strong, vibrant compact city which is well supported by effective transport networks and which is enjoying
         a period of buoyant housing growth. Nottingham is well placed to respond to the new priority of advancing housing and
         economic growth. The new Government emphasis on integration of Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies places
         Core cities such as Nottingham with its surrounding partner authorities at the heart of a once in a generation opportunity.
         The Nottingham partners seek to respond to this challenge by building on our track record of delivery and accelerating
         sustainable housing provision by delivering 46,000 new homes within or adjoining the PUA between 2001 and 2026 (this
         compares with 64,750 across the Housing Market Area). These figures will be refined as the current Regional Spatial
         Strategy (RSS) process is concluded and the new Integrated Regional Strategy and Implementation plans emerge and,
         more importantly, through rigorous site assessment, feasibility and masterplanning work which will establish realistic unit
         numbers, deliverability and infrastructure dependencies.

A3.1.2   Nottingham’s programme, therefore, sets out the overall aspiration for growth and indicative projects. Due to the current
         phase within the Local Development Framework cycle and the overarching RSS, a number of the more substantial
         proposals have not matured through the statutory planning process but the Nottingham Growth Point Partners confirm
         through this programme their commitment to delivery. Further detailed site specific information (and costings) will be
         developed in the early phases (although this is provided where possible) and future versions of the programme will
         become more specific as proposals are developed. The partners wish to prioritise supporting infrastructure which has
         the potential to maximise sustainable housing delivery on locations where, without CLG support, housing growth would
         be delayed or impossible to achieve, or where the highest sustainability criteria would not be met for Sustainable Urban
         Extensions. Should proposals fall short of these objective (and subject to other sources of funding being unavailable),
         the partners will seek CLG support to deliver best practice in terms of sustainable remediation, construction, design,
         energy efficiency, green infrastructure, community services and accessible public transport.




                                                                3
A3.2     The Nottingham Principal Urban Area (PUA) Housing Trajectory

A3.2.1   The scale and rate of growth anticipated for the Nottingham PUA (extent of the PUA is indicated on Plan 1) is set out in
         three key housing trajectories and tables - Figures 1 to 3 and Tables 1 to 3 (net housing figures are shown). The overall
         Housing Trajectories are based on the housing figures in the September 2006 draft Regional Spatial Strategy. The
         Partners accept and understand that the housing figures for the Nottingham PUA will be likely to change from the draft
         figures once the RSS is finalised. Once the final figures are known, the Housing Trajectory and programme will be
         amended to take these into account.

A3.2.2   Figure 1/Table 1 indicates housing delivery across the whole of the Nottingham PUA including potential SUEs (including
         Erewash District).

A3.2.3   Figure 2/Table 2 indicates housing anticipated to be accommodated within the Nottingham City Council area.

A3.2.4   Figure 3/Table 3 illustrates housing growth outside the City Council area, within Nottingham PUA (including Erewash
         District).

A3.2.5   The overall programme for growth seeks to:

         •   Maintain the momentum to deliver existing allocations, brownfield land and proposals for the Regeneration Areas;

         •   Establish the potential contribution of and requirement for SUEs, and identify and remove barriers to their delivery;

         •   Build capacity for Neighbourhood Transformation though the development of Strategic Regeneration Frameworks;

         •   Underpin proposals for growth though the provision of a broad range of supporting infrastructure.




                                                                 4
Figure 1

                                                                  Housing Trajectory (Nottingham PUA)
     3,000
                                                                                                         2,713 2,743

                                                                                                                               2,549 2,556 2,515
                                                                                                                       2,504
     2,500
                                                         2,355
                                                 2,273                                   2,305
                                                                                 2,229           2,234



     2,000                               1,860                   1,893                                                                             1,893
                           1,750 1,775



     1,500 1,363                                                         1,413
                                                                                                                                                           1,333
                   1,244


                                                                                                                                                                               945   952
     1,000                                                                                                                                                         868                     899
                                                                                                                                                                         837




      500




           0
                   /2

                   /3

                   /4

                   /5

                   /6

                   /7

                   /8

                   /9


                    0

                    1

                    2

                    3

                    4

                    5

                    6

                    7

                    8

                    9

                    0

                    1

                    2

                    3

                    4

                    5

                    6
                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                 /1

                /1

                /2

                 /2

                /2

                /2

                /2

                /2

                /2
               01

               02

               03

               04

               05

               06

               07

               08

              09

              10

              11

              12

              13

              14

              15

              16

              17

              18

              19

              20

              21

              22

              23

              24

              25
            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20
                                                                  Past Completions
                                                                  Projected completions in SUEs
                                                                  Projected completions outside of SUEs
                                                                  PLAN - Strategic Allocation (annualised)
                                                                  MANAGE - Annual requirement taking account of past/projected completions




                                                                                                           5
Table 1




Trajectory figures (Nottingham PUA) – Page 1

                                        2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Past Completions                         1,363   1,244    1,750    1,775    1,860    2,273          -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -
Outside SUEs                                 -        -        -        -        -          -   2,355   1,893   1,413   2,229   2,305   1,734   1,713   1,743   1,504
SUEs                                         -        -        -        -        -          -       -       -       -       -       -    500    1,000   1,000   1,000
Total projected completions                  -        -        -        -        -          -   2,355   1,893   1,413   2,229   2,305   2,234   2,713   2,743   2,504
Cumulative Completions                   1,363   2,607    4,357    6,132    7,992 10,265 12,620 14,513 15,926 18,154 20,459 22,693 25,407 28,150 30,654

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(annualised)                             1,840   1,840    1,840    1,840    1,840    1,840      1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840   1,840

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(cumulative)                             1,840   3,680    5,520    7,360    9,200 11,040 12,880 14,720 16,560 18,400 20,240 22,080 23,920 25,760 27,600

MONITOR - No. dwellings above or
below cumulative allocation               -477   -1,073   -1,163   -1,228   -1,208       -775    -260    -207    -634    -246    219     613    1,487   2,390   3,054


MANAGE - Requirement taking
account of past/projected completions   46,000 44,637 43,393 41,643 39,868 38,008 35,735 33,380 31,487 30,074 27,846 25,541 23,307 20,593 17,850
MANAGE - Annual requirement
taking account of past/projected
completions                              1,840   1,860    1,887    1,893    1,898    1,900      1,881   1,854   1,852   1,880   1,856   1,824   1,793   1,716   1,623




                                                                                     6
Table 1 continued




Trajectory figures (Nottingham PUA) – Page 2

                                                2016/17   2017/18   2018/19       2019/20   2020/21   2021/22   2022/23   2023/24   2024/25   2025/26   2001/26
Past Completions                                      -         -         -             -         -         -         -         -         -         -    10,265
Outside SUEs                                      1,549     1,556     1,515         1,664     1,333      868       837       945       952       899     29,006
SUEs                                              1,000     1,000     1,000          229          -         -         -         -         -         -     6,729
Total projected completions                       2,549     2,556     2,515         1,893     1,333      868       837       945       952       899     35,735
Cumulative Completions                           33,203    35,759    38,273        40,166    41,499    42,367    43,204    44,149    45,101    46,000    46,000


PLAN - Strategic Allocation (annualised)          1,840     1,840     1,840         1,840     1,840     1,840     1,840     1,840     1,840     1,840    46,000


PLAN - Strategic Allocation (cumulative)         29,440    31,280    33,120        34,960    36,800    38,640    40,480    42,320    44,160    46,000    46,000

MONITOR - No. dwellings above or below
cumulative allocation                             3,763     4,479     5,153         5,206     4,699     3,727     2,724     1,829      941         0         0


MANAGE - Requirement taking account of
past/projected completions                       15,346    12,797    10,241         7,727     5,834     4,501     3,633     2,796     1,851      899          -
MANAGE - Annual requirement taking account of
past/projected completions                        1,535     1,422     1,280         1,104      972       900       908       932       925       899          -




                                                                              7
Figure 2
                                                                    Housing Trajectory (Nottingham City)

  1,400
                                              1,272 1,267

                                                                                                                                          1,197
  1,200                                                                                               1,151
          1,118                                                           1,112 1,128
                        1,093
                                1,049                                                                         1,039
                                                            1,028                             1,016                         1,019 1,013
                                        981                                                                           991
  1,000                                                                                                                                           966


                                                                                        835
                  791
   800
                                                                    719

                                                                                                                                                                    613   620
   600                                                                                                                                                                          567
                                                                                                                                                        536
                                                                                                                                                              505


   400



   200



     0
             /2

             /3

             /4

             /5

             /6

             /7

             /8

             /9


              0

              1

              2

              3

              4

              5

              6

              7

              8

              9

              0

              1

              2

              3

              4

              5

              6
           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /1

           /2

           /2

           /2

          /2

          /2

          /2

          /2
         01

         02

         03

         04

         05

         06

         07

         08

        09

        10

        11

        12

        13

        14

        15

        16

        17

        18

        19

        20

        21

        22

        23

        24

        25
      20

      20

      20

      20

      20

      20

      20

      20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20

     20
                                                            Past Completions
                                                            Projected completions
                                                            PLAN - Strategic Allocation (annualised)
                                                            MANAGE - Annual requirement taking account of past/projected completions




                                                                                               8
Table 2




Trajectory figures (Nottingham City) – Page 1

                                2001/2   2002/3   2003/4   2004/5   2005/6   2006/7   2007/8   2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Past Completions                 1,118     791     1,093    1,049     981     1,272        -        -        -        -        -        -        -        -        -
Projected completions                -        -        -        -        -        -    1,267    1,028     719     1,112    1,128     835     1,016    1,151    1,039
Cumulative Completions           1,118    1,909    3,002    4,051    5,032    6,304    7,571    8,599    9,318   10,429   11,557   12,392   13,409   14,560   15,599

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(annualised)                      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945      945

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(cumulative)                      945     1,890    2,835    3,780    4,725    5,670    6,615    7,560    8,505    9,450   10,395   11,340   12,285   13,230   14,175
MONITOR - No. dwellings
above or below cumulative
allocation                        173       19      167      271      307      634      956     1,039     813      979     1,162    1,052    1,124    1,330    1,424

MANAGE - Requirement
taking account of
past/projected completions      23,625   22,507   21,716   20,623   19,574   18,593   17,321   16,054   15,026   14,307   13,196   12,068   11,233   10,216    9,065
MANAGE - Annual
requirement taking account
of past/projected completions     945      938      944      937      932      930      912      892      884      894      880      862      864      851      824




                                                                                  9
Table 2 continued




Trajectory figures (Nottingham City) – Page 2


                                   2015/16   2016/17     2017/18   2018/19    2019/20      2020/21   2021/22   2022/23   2023/24   2024/25   2025/26   2001/26
Past Completions                         -           -         -         -             -         -         -         -         -         -         -     6,304
Projected completions                1,039        991      1,019     1,013         1,197      966       536       505       613       620       567     17,321
Cumulative Completions              15,599      16,590    17,609    18,621        19,818    20,784    21,320    21,825    22,438    23,058    23,625    23,625

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(annualised)                          945         945       945       945           945       945       945       945       945       945       945     23,625

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(cumulative)                        14,175      15,120    16,065    17,010        17,955    18,900    19,845    20,790    21,735    22,680    23,625    23,625

MONITOR - No. dwellings above or
below cumulative allocation          1,424       1,470     1,544     1,611         1,863     1,884     1,475     1,035      703       378         0         0

MANAGE - Requirement taking
account of past/projected
completions                          9,065       8,026     7,035     6,016         5,004     3,807     2,841     2,305     1,800     1,187      567          -
MANAGE - Annual requirement
taking account of past/projected
completions                           824         803       782       752           715       634       568       576       600       593       567          -




                                                                             10
Figure 3


                                             Housing Trajectory (Nottingham PUA exc. Nottingham City)
     1,800
                                                                                                 1,697

                                                                                                         1,592
     1,600                                                                                                               1,558 1,537
                                                                                                                                       1,502
                                                                                                                 1,465
                                                                                         1,399
     1,400

                                                                                 1,177
     1,200                                                               1,117
                                                     1,088
                                             1,001
     1,000
                                       879                   865

      800                        726
                                                                   694                                                                         696
                           657

      600
                     453
                                                                                                                                                     367
      400                                                                                                                                                  332   332   332   332   332
               245

      200


           0
                   /2

                   /3

                   /4

                   /5

                   /6

                   /7

                   /8

                   /9




                    0




                    2

                    3

                    4

                    5

                    6
                    0

                    1

                    2

                    3

                    4

                    5

                    6

                    7

                    8

                    9




                    1
                /1




                /1

                /1

                /1

                /1

                /1

                /1

                /1

                /2

                /2

                /2

                /2

                 /2

                /2

                /2
                /1

                /1
               01

               02

               03

               04

               05

               06

               07

               08




              24

              25
              09

              10

              11

              12

              13

              14

              15

              16

              17

              18

              19

              20

              21

              22

              23
            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20




           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20
           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20

           20
                                                             Past Completions
                                                             Projected completions in SUEs
                                                             Projected completions outside of SUEs
                                                             PLAN - Strategic Allocation (annualised)
                                                             MANAGE - Annual requirement taking account of past/projected completions



                                                                                                  11
Table 3




Trajectory figures (Nottingham PUA exc. Nottingham City) – Page 1

                                        2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Past Completions                          245      453      657      726      879     1,001          -        -        -        -       -       -       -       -       -
Outside SUEs                                 -        -        -        -        -          -   1,088      865      694    1,117    1,177    899     697     592     465
SUEs                                         -        -        -        -        -          -        -        -        -        -       -    500    1,000   1,000   1,000
Total projected completions                  -        -        -        -        -          -   1,088      865      694    1,117    1,177   1,399   1,697   1,592   1,465
Cumulative Completions                    245      698    1,355    2,081    2,960     3,961     5,049    5,914    6,608    7,725    8,902 10,301 11,998 13,590 15,055

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(annualised)                              895      895      895      895      895         895     895      895      895      895     895     895     895     895     895

PLAN - Strategic Allocation
(cumulative)                              895    1,790    2,685    3,580    4,475     5,370     6,265    7,160    8,055    8,950    9,845 10,740 11,635 12,530 13,425

MONITOR - No. dwellings above or
below cumulative allocation              -650    -1,092   -1,330   -1,499   -1,515   -1,409     -1,216   -1,246   -1,447   -1,225    -943    -439    363    1,060   1,630


MANAGE - Requirement taking
account of past/projected completions   22,375 22,130 21,677 21,020 20,294 19,415 18,414 17,326 16,461 15,767 14,650 13,473 12,074 10,377                           8,785
MANAGE - Annual requirement taking
account of past/projected completions     895      922      942      955      966         971     969      963      968      985     977     962     929     865     799




                                                                                     12
Table 3 continued




Trajectory figures (Nottingham PUA exc. Nottingham City) – Page 2

                                                2016/17   2017/18   2018/19   2019/20   2020/21   2021/22   2022/23   2023/24   2024/25   2025/26   2001/26
Past Completions                                      -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -         -     3,961
Outside SUEs                                       558       537       502       467       367       332       332       332       332       332     11,685
SUEs                                              1,000     1,000     1,000      229          -         -         -         -         -         -     6,729
Total projected completions                       1,558     1,537     1,502      696       367       332       332       332       332       332     18,414
Cumulative Completions                           16,613    18,150    19,652    20,348    20,715    21,047    21,379    21,711    22,043    22,375    22,375


PLAN - Strategic Allocation (annualised)           895       895       895       895       895       895       895       895       895       895     22,375


PLAN - Strategic Allocation (cumulative)         14,320    15,215    16,110    17,005    17,900    18,795    19,690    20,585    21,480    22,375    22,375

MONITOR - No. dwellings above or below
cumulative allocation                             2,293     2,935     3,542     3,343     2,815     2,252     1,689     1,126      563         0         0


MANAGE - Requirement taking account of
past/projected completions                        7,320     5,762     4,225     2,723     2,027     1,660     1,328      996       664       332          -
MANAGE - Annual requirement taking account of
past/projected completions                         732       640       528       389       338       332       332       332       332       332          -




                                                                        13
A3.3.    Growth Priorities and Delivery Process

         Priorities - Horizontal Themes

A3.3.1   Nottingham’s proposals for accelerating sustainable housing growth are focussed on four interrelated horizontal themes
         of;

         A    Accelerating delivery on existing allocated sites, brownfield land and sites within the Regeneration Zones
         B    Neighbourhood Transformation
         C    Exemplar Sustainable Urban Extensions
         D    Strategic Infrastructure, Supporting Services, Employment Opportunities, Environment and Community Facilities

         Further detail is provided within the indicative programme.

         Delivery Process - Vertical Themes

A3.3.2   Each of the above horizontal themes will be advanced through progression through the following eight vertical themes
         which will allow the progression of the full range of sites from early conception through to faster implementation of the
         more developed schemes (where relevant) of:

         1.   Baseline Site Assessment (Strategic cross boundary studies and site specific work)
         2.   Feasibility and Masterplanning and Design Guidance (Strategic cross boundary guidance and site specific work)
         3.   Local Services Capacity and Infrastructure Dependencies Assessment/Viability Appraisal
         4.   Partnership/Delivery Mechanism Development, Economic Development Package
         5.   Acquisition/Land Assembly
         6.   Site Investigations
         7.   Remediation
         8.   Infrastructure and Services Provision
         9.   Housing, community and supporting services provision implementation.

A3.3.3   In addition to the above delivery ‘steps’ the Nottingham partners seek to draw on best practice in optimising the impact of
         public sector funding and developer contributions through collaboration across the 3 Cities. In terms of delivery vehicles,
         for some sites local authority facilitation and CLG support will be sufficient to unlock housing opportunities. The recent
         confirmation of Nottingham as one of the first 14 locations in the UK for establishing a Local Housing Company will mean
                                                                14
         that this element of the programme will be expected to evolve substantially. This confirms the partners’ ambition to
         explore innovative approaches involving its land and assets as levers for delivery, and will be one of the main elements of
         Theme B Neighbourhood Transformation involving a range of informal/formal partnerships between the public and private
         sectors. The partners will seek funding support from CLG to develop appropriate site specific solutions and expertise
         and advice via 3 Cities collaboration and English Partnerships/Communities England engagement.

A3.4     Local Governance and Partnership Arrangements

A3.4.1   Nottingham Regeneration Limited is co-ordinating the Nottingham proposals on behalf of the Lead Partners - Nottingham
         City and Nottinghamshire County Council’s. To secure effective co-ordinated delivery across the PUA, support for and
         engagement in the programme at County and District level is essential. The early programme has been developed in
         consultation with all partners but as a priority the Lead Partners will develop a robust local decision making and approval
         structure, reporting to the overall 3 Cities Management Board, and to be responsible for approving the final programme –
         due for submission to CLG in October. The lead partners will seek to optimise and build on existing cross boundary Joint
         Working arrangements and emerging new proposals currently being discussed by the Greater Nottingham Executive. In
         doing so the partners will ensure appropriate representation – for all Districts/partners in the PUA.

A3.5     Early Stakeholder Consultation and Participation to date

A3.5.1   Stakeholder meetings with the Highways Agency, Government Office for the East Midlands, English Partnerships and
         Natural England are ongoing. Further engagement with stakeholders including Severn Trent Water and Nottinghamshire
         Wildlife Trust are in development. NRL’s board includes direct representation from English Partnerships, emda,
         Nottingham City Council and will shortly have District Council representation. NRL and the Environment Agency are
         leading a cross boundary Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (including Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Rushcliffe,
         Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County Councils) for the River Trent and its major tributaries which will directly
         inform the programme for Growth and which will report late summer 2007. The approach to this work, which the EA
         regards as a best practice, has been shared with 3 Cities colleagues.




                                                                15
A3.6         Indicative Phasing

A3.6.1   The draft programme for Nottingham relates to three main phases in line with CLG guidance - 2007/8, 2008/9 – 2010/11
         and later years:

         2007/8

A3.6.2   A number of projects to deliver and advance ‘early wins’ are identified but these are dependant on early funding approval
         and relate to small scale infrastructure provision, public realm improvements and green infrastructure, if necessary these
         will be rolled forward to 2008/9 – 2010/11. This phase primarily relates to themes A and D - Accelerating delivery on
         existing allocated sites, brownfield land and sites within the Regeneration Zones and Provision of Strategic Infrastructure,
         Supporting Services and Employment Opportunities. Across the Nottingham PUA, the draft housing trajectory for this
         period suggests 2,355 homes may be delivered.

         2008/9 – 2010/11

A3.6.3   From 2008 to 2011 the partners will focus on the following key areas:

         •    Advancing early housing delivery on sites with planning permission and less challenging allocated sites (generally
              smaller sites).

         •    Delivery of infrastructure/supporting services/land assembly etc on sites, which for the most part, have already been
              subject to steps 1 to 4 of the delivery process identified above (i.e. have been subject to site assessment, feasibility
              and master-planning etc). Specifically, Growth Point support will be required to unlock opportunities within the
              Regeneration Zones and on major brownfield sites. For these areas Growth Point funding is sought to accelerate land
              assembly, remediation and public realm and improvements around ‘liveability’, hard and green infrastructure provision
              and enhancement of local services (5 to 9 of the development process).

         •    Most importantly, for new housing sites and potential SUE’s, this is a crucial period to commence the first steps of the
              development process and the identification and resolution of infrastructure dependencies. For themes B, C and D –
              which include unallocated sites (including potential urban extensions) funding support will be required to commence
              the early stages of the development process (steps 1 to 7 from site assessment through to early infrastructure

                                                                  16
             provision). In parallel the preparation, consultation and approval processes will be underway for statutory and
             supporting planning guidance.

         •   In addition funding will be sought to build capacity and advance housing growth through the Neighbourhood
             Transformation strand as the new proposals for a Local Housing Company

A3.6.4   Across the Nottingham PUA, the draft housing trajectory for this period suggests 5,534 homes may be delivered.

         Later Years

A3.6.5   Post 2010/11 the Nottingham Growth Point programme is geared to advance the resolution of major obstacles to delivery
         on larger more complex sites (generally 200 units upwards) informed by feasibility work undertaken in the previous
         phase. It is anticipated that this phase will include large scale acquisition, major infrastructure and delivery of supporting
         community services. Delivery of sustainable urban extensions will take place in this phase. Across the Nottingham PUA,
         the draft housing trajectory for this period suggests 27,846 homes may be delivered.




                                                                 17
          DETAILED PROGRAMME

          The programme is presented by theme and phase.

A3.7      THEME A - ACCELERATING DELIVERY ON EXISTING ALLOCATED SITES, BROWNFIELD LAND AND SITES
          WITHIN THE REGENERATION ZONES

A.3.7.1   Potentially the most sustainable locations for growth, Nottingham’s approach will include accelerating delivery of the
          City’s three Regeneration Zones of Southside, Eastside and Waterside, allocated sites and major brownfield
          development opportunities throughout the PUA, such as Gedling Colliery.

A.3.7.2   Nottingham has seen unprecedented growth in the City Centre. At the edge of the City Centre, the regeneration areas
          have the potential to deliver contributions to the growth agenda but this will only be realised if private sector activity is
          supported with sustained investment and improvement by the public sector – particularly in terms of connectivity and
          environmental quality. Growth Point funding offers the potential to support the delivery of a more balanced range of
          residential accommodation with real long term sustainability – integrated with local facilities. Local S106 contributions will
          assist but the nature of sites within the regeneration zones and brownfield land inevitably means high costs of
          development and limited opportunities for off site improvements or innovative approaches.

A.3.7.3   Existing allocated sites within approved plans and on brownfield land in particular represent the best opportunities for
          early delivery to accelerate and complement the Growth Point proposals. CLG support is sought for further assessments
          of those sites with the best prospects of delivery as identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
          (SHLAA) and to identify and remove obstructions to delivery (e.g. through intervention where necessary to assist land
          assembly, address abnormal development problems, access to sites etc). A SHLAA was commissioned from consultants
          to inform the RSS Examination in public and to assist in identifying sites to accelerate the delivery of housing. CLG have
          recently published new guidance on the production of SHLAAs and the Growth Point partners are currently re-casting the
          earlier work to be fully compliant with the new guidance, involving the full range of interests as required by the new
          methodology.

A.3.7.4   A list of significant allocated sites is set out in the table below (this is not exhaustive). Each authority will be reviewing the
          potential for advancement of these allocated sites through the delivery process outlined in section 2 with a view to
          specifying detailed proposals for growth point funding as this process evolves.


                                                                    18
Allocated Sites

Location   Site Name                                                                    Site Area (m2)
Gedling
           Former Gedling Colliery Site                                                            60000
           Stockings Farm                                                                          106000
           North of Victoria Park                                                                   57000
           Teal Close                                                                              875000
           Ashwater Drive / Spring Lane
           Plains Road / Arnold Lane (south)                                                         20050
           Howbeck Road                                                                              15200
           Wood Lane                                                                                  7300
           Chartwell Grove                                                                           14200
Broxtowe
           Field Lane Chilwell                                                                      14,000
           East of Chilwell Lane, Bramcote                                                          14,000
                                               Eldon Road, Attenborough*                             7,000
                                               West End Street, Stapleford*                          5,000
City
           D6 - Wilford Grove canoe etc storage                                                      4965
           Johnsons Factory (Dye Works)/Sketchley sites                                             40500
           MU8.5 Forest Mills                                                                        9455
           Ellis and Everard                                                                         7875
           Land rear of 52 - 54 Main Street (Spring Road) Bulwell                                     800
           Southern part of playing field between Beckhampton Road and Eastglade Road                8000
           Western part of playing field adjacent to Top Valley Social Club                          8000
           Eastern part of playing field north east of Southglade School                            14000
           Former Padstow School site                                                               64000
           City Link Extended Island Site                                                          137000
           MU3.4                                                                                     6000
           Stanton Tip                                                                             438800
           Alexandra Park, Springfield                                                               9000
           Hine Hall                                                                                 9000

                                                                              19
D5 - Eagle Press island site                                               19200
D3 - Island site bounded by London Road, Ryehill Street and Meadows Way     1950
MU7.2 (Trent Basin)                                                        65000
D7 - West Trent Works                                                       3200
D4 - Arkwright street/Bathley Street Boots Social Club                      3250
D8 - Meadows Bus Depot                                                     11925
D10 - Trent Bridge School                                                   9100
D9 - The Aviary Pub and land to south                                       4300
Former Westbury School                                                     14000
Surface car park                                                            4900
50                                                                           797
MU7.5 Freeth Street                                                        85600
D1                                                                          9500
D2                                                                         20200
D12 - Traffic Street Sites                                                 18200
D14 - Crocus Street Sites                                                  47200
MU3.1 Sovereign House                                                     150000
MU3.3 Meadows Gateway                                                      11900
MU3.5 Nottingham Station                                                   59900
MU3.6                                                                       4300
MU3.7                                                                       5400
MU3.8                                                                        700
MU3.9                                                                      11700
E2.12                                                                      12600
MU1.4 Wollaton Street Car Sales                                             1400
MU1.6 Rear of Central Library                                                800
MU1.7 Odeon Cinema, 8 - 9 Angel Row                                         2500
MU1.8 Mount Street Car Park                                                 1200
MU1.13 Halifax Place/High Pavement                                          1300
MU1.14 Pemberton Street                                                     1400
MU1.15 London road Petrol Filling Station                                   1900
MU1.16 Canal Street North                                                   6700
MU5.1 Victoria Leisure Centre.                                              4600
MU5.2 Bus Depots                                                           25300
MU5.3 Sneinton Market.                                                     13200

                                                           20
          MU5.4 Huntingdon Street/Brook Street.                                                       4100
          MU5.5 Beck Street/Cowan Street                                                              1000
          MU7.1 Eastcroft Depot                                                                      54800
          MU7.4 Iremonger Road                                                                        9400
          MU8.4 Western Boulevard                                                                    15700
          MU1.3 Castle College (formerly Peoples College)                                            14500
          H1.6 Clifton West                                                                          67000
          MU7.3 Meadow Lane                                                                          87400



A3.8     Indicative projects are set out below:


         Theme A - 2007/08 - Potential Early Delivery

A3.8.1   Partnership Development and Initial SUE Scoping

         Funding support has already been made available for a review of potential local partnership structures, delivery
         mechanisms and early broad brush scoping work relating to SUEs.
         Total Cost; £120k (CLG)
         Lead Agency – Nottingham Regeneration Limited

A3.8.2   City Centre, Eastside and Southside Regeneration Areas and Lace Market and Hockley Urban Village

         The development of city centre living has been a success story for Nottingham’s core but further improvements to
         environmental quality are required to ensure that growth is sustained, more peripheral sites delivered and a stable
         residential community created. CLG support is required to secure the attractiveness of the emerging residential
         environments and stimulate sustained private sector activity. (Specific schemes: Howard Street, Station Street, Castle
         Boulevard, Broad Street and Heathcoat Street, St Mary’s Gate.
         Total Scheme Cost £672,000
         Other potential match funding sources - S106 £58,000, LTP tbc
         Lead Agency – Nottingham City Council



                                                             21
A3.8.3   Bulwell Town Centre - Bulwell Market Place Town Centre Improvements

         The draft Bulwell Town Centre Masterplan identifies opportunities for town centre housing but recognises that the
         centre’s existing offer and environmental quality is a detractor to private sector investment. The works are proposed to
         upgrade the central market place – underpinning its role as Bulwell’s key meeting point and heart of the community. The
         proposed works will increase legibility, accessibility and attractiveness of the town centre - improving links to the train
         and Tram stations and increasing private sector confidence to invest in a number of potential development sites along the
         River Leen corridor.
         CLG £80,000 Others GNP
         Other agreed match funding - £70,000 GNP
         Lead Agency – Nottingham City Council

         Theme A – 2008/9 – 2010/11 Indicative Projects

A3.8.4   Accelerating Allocated Sites programme

         Due to the phasing of this submission in relation to the RSS review and the consequent timetable for Local Development
         Framework preparation, the partners consider early potential for advancing delivery can be captured through a robust
         review of existing allocated sites within development plans (see indicative list of site above), with particular emphasis on
         identifying factors which have delayed development such as;

         -   land assembly
         -   reviewing the potential for joint use of Council owned land/assets to advance or unlock development via new
             mechanisms
         -   remediation/contamination requirements
         -   accessibility or other strategic infrastructure
         -   flood mitigation or drainage investments
         -   contextual or adjoining environmental upgrading including public open space/public realm enhancements

         Partners will develop an integrated investment programme to support appropriate schemes.




                                                                22
A3.8.5    Gedling Colliery

A3.8.5.1 Gedling Colliery is a 6 hectare part brownfield site which has huge potential to contribute to the growth agenda. The site
         is allocated for mixed use with the potential to deliver 1,100 dwellings. Support from CLG is required to unlock the
         current barriers to delivery. Development proposals are being drawn up by the East Midlands Development Agency to
         accord with the allocation and policies in the Gedling Replacement Local Plan (in addition to housing the site is likely to
         accommodate other sui generis uses). The Gedling Access Road (GAR) is essential to the delivery of this site. Whilst
         there will be extensive S106 agreements, the vastly increased estimated cost of the GAR has raised serious concerns
         about the financial viability of the development. The GAR is an integral and essential part of the proposals for the
         Colliery site development and the site cannot progress without the development of the road. At the same time the GAR
         is an integral part of the transport infrastructure for the Greater Nottingham area. The Gedling By-Pass, as it was then
         called, was identified as a long term proposal by the County Council in the 1996 Structure Plan Review. However, there
         has always a barrier to delivery in terms of the cost of the scheme. The development of the colliery site allows an
         amended scheme, the GAR, to be progressed. The GAR will, via existing roads, link through to the A60 in the north and
         via the A612 Gedling Transport Improvement Scheme, Colwick Loop Road and Lady Bay Bridge link to the A52 in the
         south. It provides the 'missing link' in the eastern route around the conurbation.

A3.8.5.2 Delay in the delivery of this mixed use site (with the loss of potential relocation space for businesses currently located on
         future development sites) may impact on proposals to bring forward strategic sites within the Eastside and Waterside
         Regeneration Zones

A3.8.5.3 Emda estimate the following costs are associated with delivering the site:-

          £30m for the construction of the Gedling Access Road
          £2m fees
          £5m CPO costs
          £7.5m services
          £7.5m remediation
          Total £52m

A3.8.5.4 Other likely sources of funding include developer contributions, emda and English Partnerships but CLG support may be
         required to cover critical funding gaps to secure delivery. The level of CLG support will be established during early
         development work. The bulk of these costs are likely to be incurred during the period 2011-2016, although some may be
         incurred within the period 2016 – 2026 (see later programme).
                                                                 23
         Total Scheme Cost (associated with delivering the site) £52m
         Other potential match funding sources - S106, emda, EP
         Lead Agency – emda

A3.8.6   Stanton Tip

         Covering an area of 43.88 ha this is one of the largest areas of under-used land in the City, and could make a significant
         contribution to the growth programme and also deliver an improved environment meeting City Council’s social inclusion
         objectives for deprived communities nearby. The 1997 Nottingham Local Plan allocated the tip as a country park but
         funding to implement it has not yet come forward. Funding for ground survey investigations and masterplanning are
         required to inform future proposals for the site. If physical constraints can be overcome, this would enable restoration with
         new open spaces integrated with residential and employment uses. Planning agreements will be sought with the
         developers to facilitate improvements to the access, appearance, security and use of open space. The tip is located in
         the Greenwood Forest, and is one of the few areas in the City capable of making a significant contribution to new tree
         planting. The City Council will review the potential for a partnership approach using its own land/assets via innovative
         delivery mechanisms.

         Total Scheme Cost (associated with delivering the site) TBC
         Other potential match funding sources - S106, emda, EP
         Lead Agency – City Council

A3.8.7   Other Major Brownfield Sites

A3.8.7.1 Gedling Colliery and Stanton Tip above are indicative of the type of issues affecting Nottingham’s brownfield sites. A
         number of other large brownfield sites have potential to support housing growth and supporting employment uses but are
         in early stages of feasibility. Further support for detailed assessments which will establish the nature and scale of
         intervention may be required for a number of sites including for example:

         •   Oakwell Brickworks - a brownfield contaminated site although over many years it has become revegetated in parts
             and has wildlife value as indicated by the existence of Wildlife Sites on large swathes of the site. The site is within the
             urban fabric of Ilkeston and is in a sustainable location. The feasibility of bringing this site forward for development is
             a key study requirement. Subject to feasibility work, CLG support for remediation and infrastructure may be required
             post 2011.
                                                                  24
         •   Boots –subject to further assessment but constraints include contamination, access and possible flooding.

         •   Cotgrave Colliery – brownfield site important for supporting employment uses.

         •   Kimberley Brewery - Likely to be delivered in partnership with the private sector but high costs likely associated with
             contamination and complex heritage issues.

         •   River Leen corridor - a series of brownfield sites (including Bulwell Town Centre) affected by flood risk

         Total Scheme Cost – Unknown but feasibility fund of at least £5m required across the PUA
         Other potential match funding sources – emda, GNP
         Lead Agency – Relevant Local Authorities

A3.8.8   Regeneration Zones

         The Regeneration Zones of Southside, Eastside and Waterside all have masterplans and planning guidance in place.
         Support during this period is required to bring forward planned infrastructure improvements and support the development
         and implementation of detailed Neigbourhood Development Frameworks (where these are not already in progress). For
         the Regeneration Zones the lead partner will be Nottingham Regeneration Limited. Nottingham Waterside – a
         partnership of NRL and British Waterways is the delivery vehicle for the Waterside Regeneration Zone.

         Waterside Allocated Sites:

         MU7.1 Eastcroft Depot
         MU7.2 Trent Lane Basin
         MU7.3 Meadow Lane Site
         MU7.4 Iremonger Road
         MU7.5 Freeth Street

A3.8.9   Waterside - Victoria Embankment/Canal Link




                                                                 25
          Delivery of the ‘missing link’ in the cycle and pedestrian connection between the Waterside and proposed Meadows Zero
          Carbon Community. This project related directly to Meadow Lane, Eastcroft Depot, Freeth Street and Trent Basin
          development sites

          Total Scheme Cost: £1.2 million (detailed design currently being undertaken in 07/08)
          Other potential sources of match funding: LTP, emda, GNP, EP
          Lead Agency – Nottingham Waterside Limited

A3.8.10   Waterside - Cattle Market Road Development Sites

          Land assembly to facilitate comprehensive mixed use development and rationalisation of the road network. Feasibility
          work completed to date suggests scheme will not be delivered without public sector support. (13 ha Trent Basin scheme
          currently under development requires EP gap funding). This project links directly to Meadow Lane, Eastcroft Depot,
          Freeth Street and Trent Basin development sites

          Total Scheme Cost (including delivery of infrastructure and land assembly) est at £3m
          Other potential sources of match funding: LTP, emda
          Lead Agency – Nottingham Waterside Limited

A3.8.11   Waterside District Centre Development Site Framework and Acquisitions

          Key constraints include fragmented land ownership, contamination and flood risk issues. Planning requirement for
          comprehensive mixed use development (residential led) require public sector intervention. 2008/9 support is required to
          develop a neighbourhood framework and to support ongoing land assembly.

          Neighbourhood Framework estimated cost £80,000
          Other potential sources of match funding – EP
          Lead Agency – Nottingham Waterside Limited


A3.8.12 Waterside – Cross River Connections

          The Waterside masterplan identifies a need for improved and new pedestrian and cycling connections across the Trent to
          effectively link new and existing communities to leisure, sporting and employment opportunities. At Lady Bay Bridge an
                                                                26
          improved cycle/pedestrian path is proposed and outline designs are complete. Delivery is linked with Cattle Market Road
          infrastructure (new junctions required). This project relates directly to Meadow Lane, Eastcroft Depot, Freeth Street and
          Trent Basin and potential SUE development sites

          Total Cost - £3m
          Other potential sources of match funding: GNP
          Lead Agency – Nottingham Waterside Limited

A3.8.13 Colwick/National Watersports Centre Pedestrian and Cycling Link

          A bid for feasibility funding submitted to emda. This project relates directly to Meadow Lane, Eastcroft Depot, Freeth
          Street and Trent Basin and potential SUE development sites

          Total Cost - To be established through the above work but estimated at £3m
          Other potential sources of match funding: emda
          Lead Agency –Nottingham City Council

A3.8.14   Southside/Eastside – Allocated Sites with Potential to be brought forward

          MU3.1 Sovereign House
          MU3.3 Sheriffs Way /Arkwright Street
          MU5.1 Victoria Leisure Centre
          MU5.2 Bus Depots
          MU5.3 Sneinton Market
          MU5.4 Huntingdon Street / Brook Street
          MU5.5 Beck Street / Cowan Street
          MU5.6 Pennyfoot Street
          MU3.5 Midland Railway Station
          MU3.6 Station Street
          MU3.7 Waterway Street
          MU3.8 Carrington Street
          MU3.9 Arkwright Street East


                                                                27
A3.8.15 Bus Depot and Sneinton Market

          Funding support will be required to assist the delivery of two of the above mixed use strategic sites – the bus depot and
          Sneinton Market. A Neighbourhood Development Framework will be completed in 08/09 to confirm the implementation
          strategy. A feasibility study undertaken on the bus depot indicates a potential gap funding requirement of around £5m
          largely due to contamination and relocation costs. The development of this site is directly linked with the development of
          Gedling Colliery.

          Total Cost – not known at this stage but estimate at £5m for bus depot
          Other potential sources of funding – emda
          Lead Agency – Nottingham Regeneration Limited

A3.8.16   Eastside – Integrated Transport Strategy

          The Eastside Transport Strategy, as set out in the second Local Transport Plan, has been devised to facilitate and
          stimulate the redevelopment of the regeneration area and bring forward developments and allocated sites listed above.
          Key elements of the strategy include;

          •   Focusing north/south through traffic movements onto a single route via A60 Huntingdon Street/Lower Parliament
              Street to improve legibility, generally adopting 2 lanes in each direction and minimising right turns from the route.
          •   Downgrading Bellar Gate, Belward Street and Cranbrook Street for local access only, incorporating a southbound
              contra-flow bus lane.
          •   Facilitating the introduction of Primary Pedestrian Routes at King Edward Street, Beck Street and Fisher Gate.
          •   Facilitating and serving new development and regeneration integrating with the Eastside Island Site access
              proposals.
          •   Accommodating bus services on an eastern loop to create a more effective bus network and enhance bus priority.
          •   Building on the principles and success of the Clear Zone and Turning Point schemes through roadspace reallocation.
          •   Creating a network of local access/circulatory loops to serve on-street/off-street parking and deliveries.
          •   Reducing the severance effect of through traffic on Bellar Gate, Belward Street and Cranbrook Street




                                                                28
A3.8.17   Phasing of Strategy and Funding Sources

          The Eastside Transport Strategy will be implemented in six phases between 2007/08 and 2013/14, with contributions to
          be sought from the Growth point programme, together with a combination of Local Transport Plan 2 & 3, developer
          contributions and possibly EMDA/GNP funding. The works around the Ice Centre are part of Phase 4 of the strategy, with
          this phase provisionally identified to occur between 2009 and 2011.

            Phases                     Year                        Cost Estimates (all         NGP Contribution
                                                                            £000s)
            Phase 1                    2008/09                     2,500k                      £500k
            Phase 2                    2009/11                     7,000k                      £2000k
            Phase 3                    2011/13                     2,000k                      £1,000k
            Phase 4                    2013/14                     450k                        -
            Total estimated cost                                   11,950k                     £3,500k

          Total Cost - £11,950,000 (all phases)
          Other potential sources of funding – LTP
          Lead Agency – Nottingham City Council


A3.8.18 Theme A – Later Years

          It is anticipated that complex infrastructure required to support the priorities in them A will be delivery during this phase.
          For the most part the detailed costs of these projects are unknown but would for example include remediation and access
          improvements to Gedling Colliery, Eastside Transport Strategy, acquisitions, relocation and infrastructure, and flood risk
          solutions.




                                                                  29
A3.8.19   Theme A - CLG Funding Summary

Project                         2007/08       CLG Support           2008/9 – 2010/11    CLG          Later Years     CLG
                                Total Cost    Required              Total Cost          Support                      Support
                                                                                        Required                     Required
  Partnership Development           120,000   120,000 (approved)
     City Centre Liveability        672,000              614,000

 Victoria Embankment Link                                                   1,200,000      600,000
        Cattle Market Road                                                  3,000,000    1,500,000           TBC             TBC
           Acquisitions and
               Infrastructure
          Waterside Centre                               80,000               40,000
       Neighbourhood Plan
           Lady Bay Bridge                                                  3,000,000    1,500,000
 Colwick/Holme Pierre Pont                                                  3,000,000    1,500,000
                         Link
   Bus Depot and Sneinton                                                   5,000,000    2,500,000
                      Market
         Eastside Transport                                                 9,500,000    2,500,000      2,450,000       1,000,000
                    Strategy
Gedling Colliery                                                    52,000,000 (some        TBC              TBC             TBC
                                                                      costs may fall in
                                                                        later years but
                                                                                  TBC)
Allocated Sites and                                                        £6,000,000 £3,000,000             TBC             TBC
brownfield feasibility and
early implementation pot.
Total (excluding                    672,000             694,000           82,740,000     9,050,000      2,450,000       1,000,000
approved funding)                                                                            (min)     other costs    (other costs
                                                                                                         yet TBC)        yet TBC)


                                                               30
A3.9     THEME B - NEIGHBOURHOOD TRANSFORMATION

A3.9.1   Nottingham City Council is embarking on an ambitious programme of estates transformation – tackling areas of
         deprivation, poor quality housing and low environmental quality. This programme will deliver the qualitative requirements
         expected of Growth Point but is also anticipated to result in a net gain of housing units through redevelopment and
         increased density. It is proposed that Strategic Regeneration Frameworks (SRFs) be brought forward to integrate
         existing and emerging strategies and create a long-term vision (10-15 years). This vision will build on the City’s strengths
         and stability and guide public and private investment to secure the renaissance of the whole of Nottingham and which
         can.

A3.9.2   2008/9 – 2010/11

         During 2008/9 to 2010/11, a rolling programme of three SRFs will be prepared with finer detail set out in neighbourhood
         action plans. These documents will guide priorities for action and requirements for supporting services, infrastructure and
         indicate the potential net gain of housing units. These frameworks will involve and engage local communities and key
         stakeholders within the business sector and the full range of public sector agencies. At the same time it is proposed to
         increase the strategic capacity of the Regeneration and Adult Services, Housing & Health to effectively integrate this
         process with a more Corporate Housing Strategy both Citywide and locally. Estates transformation will focus on creating
         mixed and balanced communities with a range of house types and tenures. The programme will address and remodel
         radburn style layouts and create new communities with a real sense of place with natural surveillance and attractive and
         well supervised play areas and public realm. Growth Point support is required in 2008/9 – 2011/12 to support the
         development of the SRFs and to advance early implementation. It is anticipated that a number of major interventions in
         neighbourhoods will result in a net increase of at least 800 homes to 2021.

         The three SRFs are programmed as follows:

         SRF1 – 07/08
         SRF2 – 08/09
         SRF 3 – 09/10




                                                                31
          Support will be required to assist in the delivery of SRFs and Neighbourhood plans including revenue support to progress
          legal, CPO and supporting delivery processes to be negotiated with CLG.

          Total Scheme Cost: £1,050,000 – (£300,000 per SRF and £50,000 pa for 3 years to support the delivery process).
          Other potential sources of funding – EP
          Lead Agency – Nottingham City Council

A3.9.3    Later Years

          It is anticipated that the Neighbourhood Transformation Agenda will be delivered in partnership with the private sector.
          However, there may be requirements for support on more complex and challenging sites to ensure an exemplar standard
          of development is achieved. The SRF development process will inform the strategy and additional public sector funding
          required for later years. It is anticipated though, that CLG support may be required to ‘uplift’ the standard of development
          in terms of sustainability (construction, whole life and community facilities) and green infrastructure to secure exemplar
          development.

          Total Cost – not known at this stage
          Lead Agency – Nottingham City Council

A3.9.4    Theme B - CLG Funding Summary

Project                       2007/08        CLG Support              2008/9 – 2010/11   CLG           Later Years
                                             Required                                    Support       TBC
                                                                                         Required
SRF 1                              300,000               100,000
SRF 2                                                                          300,000       100,000
SRF 3                                                                          300,000       100,000
Delivery Support                    50,000                 50,000              100,000       100,000
(Revenue)
Total                              350,000                 150,00              700,000       300,000




                                                                 32
A3.10     THEME C - EXEMPLAR SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION(S)

A3.10.1   Depending on the outcome of the RSS, urban extension site(s) are likely to be required to accommodate additional
          housing to meet the overall aspirations for growth. The SHLAA includes a number of potential opportunities for SUEs.
          The broad locations for the SUEs identified through the SHLAA are set out on plan 3. For most of these sites little
          feasibility work has been undertaken and their constraints and capacity require detailed analysis. The reworking of the
          SHLAA may reveal further potential for SUE sites. However the overall scale of growth which could potentially (if required
          by the RSS) be accommodated outside of Nottingham City Centre and within urban extensions is indicated in the housing
          trajectory within Figure 3.

          2007/8

A3.10.2   During 07/08 the partners anticipate that the required scale and distribution of housing to be provided through SUEs will
          be informed by the RSS process. During 07/08 work on Strategic Flood Risk will completed and if funding is available
          early site assessment work will commence (see full indicative programme for 2008/9 – 10/11. Using existing approved
          funds work will continue on partnership development and broad brush scoping of SUE sites.

          2008/9 – 2010/11

A3.10.3   The partners early work will focus on site assessments/feasibility/masterplaning to review the merits of each site in terms
          of sustainability, integration with existing urban areas, services and deliverability. Should SUEs be required the partners
          intend that these will be exemplar communities in terms of sustainability and will draw on national best practice for
          design, construction and green infrastructure provision – it is likely that CLG support will be required to secure
          appropriate standards of development. For new communities CLG support will also be sought to review the most
          appropriate delivery body/mechanism. Potential sites identified with the SHLAA include:

          •   Stanton Ironworks
          •   Land North of Papplewick Lane
          •   Top Wighay Farm
          •   Land South of Clifton
          •   Land West of Sharphill
          •   Edwalton site
          •   Melton Triangle

                                                                 33
          •   Golf Course East of Melton Road
          •   Gamston Gateway

      NB – the sites above are not listed in any order of priority for development

A3.10.4   The nature of work required on each site will vary. The strategy for Stanton Ironworks is perhaps the most advanced and
          is set down below.

          Stanton Ironworks

A3.10.5   Erewash District Council is currently progressing an Area Action Plan as part of the Erewash Borough Council LDF on
          this site. Taylor Young were commissioned in December 2005 to undertake a masterplanning exercise on the
          regeneration site. The Council is currently at Preferred Options stage and have delayed submission at the advice of
          Government Office due to the need to bring the Core Strategy forward first. The AAP will therefore be progressed in
          parallel with the Core Strategy.

A3.10.6   The Stanton site is a wholly brownfield site within the ownership of one land owner and is proposed as a major mixed use
          sustainable urban extension as part of the Ilkeston SRC to include community facilities such as health, retail, school,
          open space and high levels of affordable housing all designed to a high standard encompassing efficient construction
          methods. A Sustrans cycle route runs through the site (Nutbrook Trail) and the Erewash Canal on the edge of the site -
          these could be significantly improved as part of the green infrastructure/biodiversity within the area. A freight railway line
          running into the site offers potential opportunities for sustainable development. The Ilkeston Town Centre Masterplan
          currently under preparation offers the potential to ensure the site is fully integrated into wider services and opportunities.

A3.10.7   Through Growth Point, further work will be undertaken to address constraints to delivering the site including detailed
          transport and accessibility assessment to supplement limited work undertaken as part of the masterplanning process –
          due to the constraints on the existing transport network, the site can only be developed if significant new infrastructure is
          brought forward for the site. The site is contaminated and mine shafts are present.

A3.10.8   Further feasibility work is required to establish detailed options and costings for remediating the site, resolving access
          issues and maximising opportunities for waterside green infrastructure. Supporting community infrastructure - including
          enhanced town centre facilities will be required to ensure the long terms sustainability of the project (see theme D)


                                                                  34
Ilkeston Railway Station - Feasibility Study

A3.10.9   Linked with the potential development of Stanton Ironworks, the feasibility of developing a railway station in Ilkeston will
          be pursued. This desire is linked to the economic regeneration of the town and is embedded in the Erewash Local Plan.
          If the proposed sustainable urban extension on the edge of Ilkeston at Stanton occurs there is an even greater need to
          consider the feasibility of such a proposal. CLG support is required to undertake the study.

Package of Work Required for each SUE site

A3.10.10 It is unclear at this stage what the requirement for growth via urban extensions will be until the RSS process is
         concluded. To inform future options and scenarios for growth, potential SUE sites will require a comprehensive package
         of assessment – following the vertical themes of the development process. For 2008/9 – 2010/11 it is anticipated that the
         following will be required:

          Baseline Site Assessment
          Feasibility and Masterplanning and Design Guidance
          Local Services Capacity and Infrastructure Dependencies Assessment/Viability Appraisal
          Partnership/Delivery Mechanism Development, Economic Development Package
          Acquisition/Land Assembly
          Flood risk solutions
          Site Investigations

A3.10.11 A cross boundary Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is already currently underway for the River Trent and its major
         tributaries. This will inform the approach to several SUE sites. The partners will focus particularly on ensuring that SUEs
         are satisfactorily integrated with existing communities and that ‘host’ communities are fit to accommodate growth. This
         will inevitably require support, for example for town centre enhancements, leisure and transport (see Theme D). A
         package of infrastructure, remediation and community services support may be required depending on the results of the
         early phases – but it is anticipated that the bulk of this will fall in later years.

          Total Cost – not known at this stage but estimate at least £3.5m across the sites to enable full package of site
          assessment and studies
          Other potential sources of funding – GNP, emda, EP
          Lead Agency – Local Authorities/ Nottingham Regeneration Limited

                                                                 35
           Later Years

A3.10.12 As set out above, depending on the results of detailed assessments, the later years will focus on the delivery of key
         infrastructure and services to facilitate housing growth (see details for Stanton Ironworks). Subject to the results of
         ongoing flood studies, flood storage (focussing on Making Space for Water) and defence works may be required. It is
         anticipated that for the SUEs securing high level strategic infrastructure (eg NET/Station Hub) will be significant in
         securing success (see Theme D).

A3.10.13 Theme C - CLG Funding Summary

Project                                     2007/08        CLG Support          2008/9 – 2010/11       CLG        Later Years
                                                           Required                                    Support    TBC
                                                                                                       Required
   Baseline Site Assessment                                                     Initial Cost            3,000,000
   Feasibility and Masterplanning and                                           Estimate for
   Design Guidance                                                              feasibility/
   Partnership/Delivery Mechanism                                               masterplanning
   Development, Economic Development                                            phase
   Package                                                                                 3,500,000
   Acquisition/Land Assembly
   Flood risk solutions
   Site Investigations

   Total                                                                                 3,500,000      3,000,000 TBC




                                                              36
A3.11     THEME D - STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SUPPORTING SERVICES, STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT
          OPPORTUNITIES, ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

A3.11.1   The rational for Nottingham’s Growth Point proposals is embedded in underpinning the attractiveness, sustainability and
          function of the existing PUA. The partners proposals for growth, whether on existing brownfield sites or urban extensions
          will be tested against the sites potential to effectively integrate with the existing urban area.

A3.11.2   Nottingham’s Growth proposals will seek to optimise and support existing and planned infrastructure and service
          provision. However the Growth Proposals will inevitably require additional infrastructure support. As much of the growth
          is likely to occur within the PUA, improvements to existing infrastructure, employment opportunities, public realm and
          town/district centres will be required to successfully support growth and ensure that existing communities are fit to ‘host’
          increased housing numbers. A number of indicative projects are set out – most are in development and estimated
          costings are not yet available.

          Theme D Indicative Projects

          i) Strategic Infrastructure


A3.11.3   The partners will seek to develop a number of cross boundary projects which support the Growth Point proposals at local,
          sub-regional and regional level. Whilst Growth Point may not, in some cases, be the primary funder, supplementary
          support will be required to ensure fit to the Growth Point proposals and to guarantee/secure delivery. Nottingham
          benefits from one of the best- developed public transport networks outside London. The ambitious growth plans set out
          in this programme will require a substantial investment to build on these networks to ensure that new development
          patterns will allow people to live within their environmental limits as set out in the Sub National Review.


          Accessibility and Connectivity: Contributions/Prioritisation sought from the Growth Point Programme

A3.11.4   Contributions to these measures will be required from the Growth Point Programme dependant upon how vertical
          delivery theme progresses. The table excludes transport infrastructure referred to as part of site- specific projects above.
          (e.g Gedling Access Road, Eastside Transport Strategy, Cattle Market Road etc, Ilkeston Station).


                                                                 37
A3.11.5   In order to present a more focused programme for 2008-11 and future years it is planned to undertake a more detailed
          substantial planning and prioritisation exercise in consultation with CLG, DfT, and GOEM to refine and specify the
          transport elements of the programme with particular reference to:

          •   Progress on site identification as the statutory planning process and programme clarifies, with particular reference
              ensuring any Sustainable Urban Extensions are appropriately served by strategic transport networks and services
          •   Developer discussions and S106 negotiations
          •   The outcomes of the 6Cs Transport Innovation Fund road pricing project in particular the authorities’ decision in
              response to the Pump Priming Feasibility work due to report in March 2008
          •   The 2nd round Regional Funding Allocations process
          •   The new Integrated Regional Spatial/Economic Strategy to be developed with emda.
          •   Negotiations with new rail Franchisees
          •   Future Local Transport Plan (LTP3) or Integrated Transport Strategy


          Public Transport Infrastructure and Service Enhancements: Initial Draft programme

          Objectives

A3.11.6   The primary objective is to support the growth put forward in this proposal by providing better transport access and
          choice. The focus of the Bid will be to ensure that planned development is prioritised in locations best placed to support
          and build upon Nottingham’s existing integrated public transport network.

A3.11.7   Rail schemes are included within this table as partners consider rail investment to support growth areas as being highly
          important in national, regional and sub regional terms, as well as providing high quality accessibility enhancements at the
          city region level. The partners recognise, however that due to the cost and complex delivery mechanisms for such
          schemes there will need to be wider dialogues with key stakeholders on how these elements will be progressed. Major
          strategic infrastructure, existing and proposed, is indicated on Plan 3.

A3.11.8   The main Growth Point transport packages promoted to achieve these objectives will be:

          •   Substantially improved bus services and supporting infrastructure to attract additional patronage from new
              developments and better serve existing residents/businesses

                                                                 38
          •    Extensions to the existing comprehensive Park and Ride provision (bus, tram and heavy rail)
          •    Exploration of further phases of Nottingham Express Transit including the potential extension of NET Phases 1 and 2.
          •    Improvements in rail services
          •     Travel planning, investment in intelligent transport systems and ‘smarter choices’ behavioural change initiatives


Bus Priority Measures

A3.11.9   A comprehensive programme of bus priority measures will target areas where congestion has created significant levels of
          service unreliability. An outline of such measures is shown below;

          •    Explore feasibility of potential Guided bus schemes (Daleside Road in advance of a possible NET Phase 3 to
               Gedling/Colwick)
          •    Roadspace reallocation where appropriate (may extend beyond the Ring Road)
          •    Focus on helping buses to travel at the same speed as other traffic by greatly reducing the amount of time spent at
               stops.
          •    Intelligent Transport Systems investment

     Bus Proposals in Outline

Improvement area                      Proposals
Frequency                             • Enhanced frequencies to evening and Sunday services
Faster reliability and faster         • Bus priority measures at Daleside Road, Wollaton Road and Hucknall Road*
journey times                            (*subject to NET impact assessment) and A60 (linked to Leapool Park and Ride
                                         – see note below).
                                      • Interchange facilities at district centres/facilities (e.g. Bulwell, QMC and the City
                                         Hospital) with comprehensive passenger information and direct bus to bus
                                         movement allows for ‘seamless’ journeys.
                                      • Review of signals and crossings to reduce delay, ensuring most up-to-date
                                         signal control software is used
                                      • Integrated ticketing and promotion
High Quality                          • Upgrading capacity of services (frequency and size of vehicles)

                                                                  39
                                     •   Electronic information and other system support infrastructure
Accessible and Affordable            •   Explore discounted travel schemes for under 16s.
                                     •   Subsidised multi-operator tickets.
Network Development                  •   Suburban bus development to serve Sustainable Urban Extensions and
                                         regeneration/Neighbourhood Transformation programmes
                                     •   Extension of network coverage to areas not served commercially or by
                                         subsidised services, particularly ‘Worklink’ extensions and expansion
                                     •   Explore feasibility of fixed lint to East Midlands Airport
                                     •   Rail station bus services running directly from the north of city via City Loop
                                         proposals.


     Park and Ride

A3.11.10 Additional Park and Ride sites would be located on main routes into the urban area and would provide high quality public
         transport services and facilities that are dedicated to the needs of the park and ride customers at the following locations:

          •   Gedling (Bus, Heavy or light rail based-500 spaces)
          •   Gamston (Bus based- 500 spaces)
          •   Bingham (heavy rail based- 500 spaces)
          •   Wheatcroft Island*
          •   Leapool (Bus based- 500 spaces) - NB Park and Ride at Leopool is not included within the Gedling Borough Council
              Replacement Local Plan and will be the subject of further discussions with Gedling BC/Notts County Council.

          * dependent upon SUE/RSS process

          Improvements in Light and Heavy Rail Services

A3.11.11 Heavy and Light rail schemes have significant potential to complement and accommodate the major Growth proposals
         contained in this submission. Rail investment to support growth areas is highly important in national, regional and sub
         regional terms, as well as providing high quality accessibility enhancements at the city region level and Nottingham is
         uniquely positioned to capitalise on current and planned investments. The partners recognise, however that due to the
         cost and complex delivery mechanisms for such schemes there will need to be wider dialogue with key stakeholders on
                                                                  40
          how these elements will be progressed, in the wider context of TIF, RFA and other significant transport budget setting
          processes.

A3.11.12 Nottingham’s status within the 3 Cities Growth Point however should be a key factor in prioritising the case for such rail
         investment as well as direct financial contribution through this programme.

A3.11.13 Recent announcements and current proposals affecting Nottingham offer significant opportunities including:

          NET Phase 2 Programme Entry
          East Midlands Parkway
          Replacement Rail Franchises
          Progress on Nottingham Station Masterplan
          Extension of the Robin Hood Line to Bingham (A52 MMS)
          Strong case for Midland Mainline Linespeed Improvements
          Trent Signalling Scheme
          Beeston Station improvements

A3.11.14 It is recommended that a Growth Point Rail Investment Programme is funded via the Growth Point programme to identify
         and progress the deliverability of short, medium and longer term investment in heavy and light rail to support the Growth
         Point proposals in Nottingham. It is proposed that this plan will be developed in partnership with key Stakeholders
         including Network Rail, DfT, Stagecoach, NET and others. It will however need to be co-ordinated with the emerging RSS
         examination findings and Sustainable Urban Extension work identified elsewhere in the programme.

          Further NET Phases / and or Extensions to Phases 1 and 2

A3.11.15 Proposals for NET Phase 3 lines to Gedling and West Bridgford and extensions to Phase 1 have been previously
         provisionally identified although a number of significant issues require resolution and further exploration.

A3.11.16 NET Development resources are currently heavily committed on delivering NET Lines 2 and 3 to Clifton and Chilwell,
         with Transport and Works Act Order Public Inquiry programmed for November 2007.

A3.11.17 As the picture with regard to the need/prioritisation and deliverability potential of the Sustainable Urban Extensions is
         clarified through the Growth Point Process, the potential contribution of NET will need to be tested, namely through:

                                                                  41
              Consideration of the potential to extend Lines 1, 2 and/or 3
              Review of previous network extension plans
              Review of potential new NET opportunities

A3.11.18 It is envisaged the bulk of this work will follow on from implementation of NET Lines 2 and 3,
         i.e. beyond the immediate 2008-2011 focus of the Growth Point programme, but will feed into LTP 3 and future RFA
         rounds

          Strategic Highway Infrastructure

          Objective

A3.11.19 This element of the package will require justification largely dependent upon careful assessment in relation to emerging
         proposals through the planning and Growth Point processes, in particular the possible location of Sustainable Urban
         Extensions. A further objective is to consider the potential for viable alternative route for strategic traffic movements and
         to provide an attractive route for cross-city traffic movements, avoiding city centre streets.

A3.11.20 In the light of the emerging RSS, progress on TIF, the next round of Regional Funding Allocations and the SUE
         assessment work described elsewhere in this Programme, it will be necessary to review the findings of the A52 MMS
         (see box below) to develop an agreed Strategic Highway Infrastructure package to support the longer term elements of
         the Growth Point Programme.

A52 Multi-Modal Study (Bingham to Clifton Bridge) Recommendations to be Reviewed

i)     Fourth Trent Crossing at Radcliffe - Congestion currently occurs on all the main approaches to Trent/Lady Bay Bridges.
         This congestion affects all traffic, including buses and commercial vehicles, and also results in traffic diverting onto
         unsuitable residential roads. Part of the problem arises because of a lack of a direct connection between areas to the
         south of the river and the north-east sector of the conurbation, which increases traffic on routes through the City and
         West Bridgford.
ii)    Grade separation of Gamston Lings Bar, Wheatcrofts and Nottingham Knight junctions - to improve traffic flow
         conditions on the A52 and provide a more attractive route for cross-city traffic movements and;

iii)   A52 Dualling - a major constraint to east/west strategic traffic movements

                                                                  42
          Travel planning, investment in intelligent transport systems and ‘smarter choices’

A3.11.21 Such softer measures to improve access to information provision and improving physical accessibility will be developed
         to encourage modal change, contributing to the scenario of lessened congestion.

          Marketing

A3.11.22 ‘The Big Wheel’ campaign will be instrumental in promoting such bus service enhancements and the wider
         complimentary measures related to road user charging. ‘The Big Wheel’ will use innovative branding, style and approach,
         through media campaigns, local events and websites, to promote such integrated and sustainable interventions.

A3.11.22 Major strategic infrastructure, existing and proposed, together with indicative SUE possible locations, are indicated on
         Plans 2 and 3.




                                                                 43
Transport Summary Programme Cross-referenced to Growth Point Themes

       Theme           2007/08                 2008-2011                                        Post 2011
A) Accelerating        Nottingham     £200,000 Nottingham Station                 £300,000      - Interchange                 TBC
delivery on existing   Station                 Masterplan                                       developments eg Basford       TBC
allocated sites,       Masterplan              Enhanced BQP Programme             3x            Gas Works, Bulwell
brownfield land and                                                               £300,000 =
sites within the                                                                  £1,200,000
Regeneration Zones
B) Neighbourhood                                 Meadows Integrated               £300,000      - Local bus accessibility     TBC
Transformation                                   Transport package to                           improvement packages to
                                                 support implementation of                      meet Accessibility targets
                                                 Ozone Project
                                                 Airport Access (Skylink dev’t)   £100,000
                                                 to link neighbourhoods to
                                                 employment opportunities
C) Exemplar                                      Feasibility work on NET          £100,000      - NET Further Phases          TBC
Sustainable Urban                                Lines 1,2 or 3 Extensions        x2=           Review
Extensions                                                                        £200,000      - Review of A52 Multi
                                                                                                Modal Study Impvts to the
                                               Pump priming Bus QP                £300,000      south and east of
                                               package implementation to          x3=           Nottingham inc 4th Trent
                                               meet accessibility targets         £900,000      Crossing
D) Strategic           Smarter        £100,000 Nottingham Ring Road               £3,000,000    - Park and Ride               TBC
Infrastructure,        Choices: Big            Major Scheme                                     implementation
Supporting Services    Wheel                    A453 Sustainable                  £750,000      - Further Rail connectivity   TBC
and Employment         Expansion               Enhancements package                             enhancements                  TBC
Opportunities                                  Growth Point Rail Investment
                                               programme Dev’t                    £300,000
                                               - RHL Extension to Bingham         £3,000,000

Total                                 £300,000                                    £10,050,000                                 TBC


                                                             44
A3.12     ii) Supporting Services - District and Town Centre Improvements 2008/9 – 2010/11

A3.12.1   Growth proposals will largely rely on services and facilities offered within existing District and Town Centres (shown on
          Plan 1). Although developer contributions will be sought to support improvements where appropriate, CLG support will
          be used address key weakness. The strategy for town centres will be informed by the Greater Nottingham Retail Study
          and district/town centre masterplans (underway or planned):

          Hucknall Town Centre regeneration

A3.12.2   Ashfield District Council is working in partnership with Nottinghamshire County Council to regenerate Hucknall town
          centre to ensure it is viable to provide appropriate retailing provision to cater for the future growth of Hucknall. Substantial
          investment is planned for a new inner relief road, pedestrianisation and bus priority measures to be implemented in
          2010/2011. Investment has been made more recently to improve the Market Place and environs. Further investment to
          ensure the town centre environment and connections to key public transport nodes (Robin Hood Line Train and Tram
          stops) will be required to ensure the
          development of the retail area and housing growth are balanced. Investment will also be required to release brownfield
          land housing and retail redevelopment opportunities. This project is relates to two potential extension sites and to Rolls
          Royce Strategic Employment Site

          Long Eaton and Ilkeston

A3.12.3   A masterplan is approved and is underway for Ilkeston Town Centre (due for adoption by the end of the year).
          Development briefs and commercial expertise are required to secure the regeneration of these town centres and the
          growth point development programme could fast track this process. Linked with this Erewash Borough Council has
          secured funding through the Townscape Heritage Initiative. The Council has successfully completed a Stage 1 HLF bid
          and is now working on its Stage 2 submission which needs to be completed by the end of October. This is a £3 million
          project with potential for just under £1 million of HLF funding. The rest of the funding is proposed to come from the
          Council, local businesses and hopefully DDEP. The Council is working hard to deliver this project in partnership with
          these other organisations but not all funding is as yet available. This project relates to a potential SUE at Stanton
          Ironworks.

          Beeston Town Centre

                                                                   45
A3.12.4   A masterplan has been prepared for Beeston Town Centre and will be progressed through the AAP process. The plan
          seeks to capture the benefits of the planned NET phase two proposals to remodel and revitalise the town centre. Whilst
          private sector funding is likely to support a significant part of the proposals, CLG support may be required to fill any
          viability gaps to ensure appropriate standards to support and attract new residents. This project relates to mixed use (inc.
          residential provision) within the town centre and part brownfield land at Boots.

          Arnold Town Centre

A3.12.5   A masterplan has been prepared for Arnold Town Centre. Whilst private sector funding is likely to a significant part of the
          proposals. CLG support may be required to fill any viability gaps to ensure appropriate standards to support and attract
          new residents. This project relates to housing growth at Gedling Colliery.

          Bulwell Town Centre

A3.12.6   A masterplan has been prepared for Bulwell Town Centre. Whilst private sector funding is likely to a significant part of
          the proposals. CLG support may be required to fill any viability gaps to ensure appropriate standards to support and
          attract new residents and to address flood risk issues (emerging studies suggest there is a need for floor mitigation
          measures to facilitate development). This project relates to development opportunity sites along the River Leen corridor.

          District and Town Centre Improvements Later Years

          Waterside Centre, Clifton and West Bridgford

A3.12.7   Potential assistance to develop new community and retail facilities at Waterside is described in more detail under Theme
          A. Depending on the scale of and location of growth identified through the RSS, district centre enhancements may be
          required at Clifton and West Bridgford to support SUE’s.

A3.13     iii) Strategic Employment Sites

A3.13.1   The PUA has limited opportunities for large strategic employment sites to support growth/provide employment
          opportunities to ensure a stable and balanced communities. Where these are located on brownfield land is likely that
          public sector intervention will be required to secure successful delivery.

          Rolls Rolls Royce Science and Technology Park
                                                                 46
A3.13.2   A multi agency project group including Nottinghamshire County Council, Ashfield District Council and Nottingham City
          Council, and Rolls Royce are currently preparing plans for the redevelopment of part of the Rolls Royce campus in
          Hucknall for a new science and technology park of around 20 hectares. The site comprises predominantly brownfield
          land and will require significant infrastructure investment for site remediation, the creation of a new means of vehicular
          access and substantial green infrastructure. The development would form part of plans for balanced housing and
          employment       growth     in   Hucknall      creating   higher     skilled   jobs   as     a   means    to   regenerate
          this rapidly expanding former coal mining town. Rolls Royce would act as a magnet to 'advanced manufacturing
          industries' and other 'knowledge based' businesses. The concept is embedded in the Nottingham Science City initiative.
          This project relates to two potential SUE opportunities in the north of the conurbation.

          Boots, BioCity, Leengate

A3.13.3   Also linked with supporting the development of employment through the Science City agenda, the partners may see
          support to assist the development of a number of strategic brownfield employment sites to ensure that housing growth is
          delivered in tandem with employment opportunities on accessible sites. The following sites may require public sector
          intervention to secure effective delivery:

A3.13.4   Biocity expansion – requires integrated Eastside Transport Strategy, possible assistance for contamination and site
          assembly. This project links directly with housing growth within the City Centre and Regeneration Zones

A3.13.5   Leengate – possible biomedical focus. Site requires land assembly, decontamination and may be affecting by flooding.
          This project links directly with housing growth within the City Centre and Regeneration Zones

A3.13.6   Boots – likely to be delivered by the private sector but may require intervention to resolve access, contamination and
          flood risk issues. There is potential for employment and residential uses on the site..




                                                                 47
A3.14     iv) Environment and Community Facilities

          Green Infrastructure

A3.14.1   The partners intend to develop an integrated approach to delivery of Green Infrastructure as part of specific growth
          locations, however a number of overarching proposals, which offer opportunities across the PUA, have been identified.
          These include:

          •   Ozone and Victoria Embankment (Relates to housing growth in the regeneration zones and potential SUEs)
          •   Erewash Valley Way (Relates to potential SUE at Stanton Ironworks)
          •   Attenborough Nature Reserve (Destination facility of sub regional and regional importance)
          •   Colwick Country Park (Sub regional importance but relates directly to growth in the regeneration zones)
          •   Bramcote Park Green Visitor Centre (Sub Regional importance)
          •   Holme Pierrepont (Regional importance but directly linked to growth within the regeneration zones and potential SUE)
          •   Beeston Marina (Relates to SUEs)
          •   Trent River Park (Regional importance and links all the regeneration zones, Ozone and strategic brownfield sites and
              several potential SUEs)
          •   Derby – Sandiacre Canal -promoted by the Derby and Sandiacre Canal Trust and Society (Links to Trent River Park
              and relates directly to potential SUE at Stanton Ironworks
          •   Gedling Colliery Country Park (Sub regional importance and relates directly to Gedling Colliery site)
          •   Strategic Cycle Routes (Sub Regional importance)
          •   Landscape Change Fund and Landscape Enhancement Fund (Sub regional importance)

A3.14.2   Natural England have drawn together a number of projects across the 3 Cities (including some of the above). The
          partners welcome the expertise of Natural England in developing an overarching and well integrated 3 Cities approach to
          Green Infrastructure and advice from Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust at a local level. Through Natural England a number
          of potential ‘early win’ green infrastructure projects for 2007/8 have been identified including

A3.14.3   City Parks

          •   King George V Park - New Recreation zone / Multi use games area
          •   Coppice Park - Landscape and Habitat Improvements, Footpaths and access improvements
                                                                48
          •   Forest Recreation Ground - Security fencing around mufti use games area
          •   Queens Park - Park infrastructure and landscape Improvements
          •   Cost £200,000

A3.14.4   Trent River Park (Clifton Bridge – Queens Drive Section)

          •   The works will involve upgrading a section of the ten-mile long cycle route, with environmental and signing
              improvements, contributing to establish a continuous and legible route – part of much wider network of the Trent River
              Park. Total Scheme Cost: £100,000

A3.14.5   Strategic Cycle Route Development

          •   £50,000

A3.14.6   Clearly implementation of the above projects will be subject to early funding approval – the projects may be rolled forward
          to 2008/9.

          Sports and Leisure Focus

A3.14.7   The River Trent and riparian open space already provides a large range of leisure opportunities for Nottingham and the
          region. Some of the most important regional sporting facilities are here including Trent Bridge Cricket Ground,
          Nottingham Forest’s City Ground, Holme Pierrepont Water Sports Centre and Nottingham Racecourse. The
          Attenborough Nature Reserve, Victoria Embankment and Colwick Country Park are important visitor attractions. Through
          the Trent River Park initiative funding is being sought via emda to establish a coherent and cross boundary vision to
          maximise the benefits of the conurbation’s sporting and leisure assets – to support housing growth and under pin the
          conurbation’s overall offer for inward investment. The Trent River Park corridor in particular, relates directly to a number
          of potential SUE sites and to large strategic brownfield regeneration sites. Support to implement the emerging strategy
          may be sought via CLG from 2008/9 onwards.


A3.15     v) Health, Education and Employment Support



                                                                 49
A3.15.1   There will inevitably be a need to provide new and enhanced services for expanding communities including for example
          health and education and playspace. It is essential that the benefits of growth are captured for local people and where
          necessary CLG support will be sought to ensure existing facilities are improved for the benefit of both existing and new
          residents and where new facilities are provided, these do not have an adverse impact on existing communities.

A3.15.2   The partners will seek to ensure training and employment opportunities delivered through growth point are maximised
          through existing employment pact mechanisms and also by reviewing innovative best practice approaches from other
          Growth Areas.

A3.16     iv) HMA Co-ordinator Support and Cross Boundary Guides/Joint Documents

A3.16.1   The partners recognise the challenge of accelerating growth in Nottingham and the need for HMA Co-ordinators to
          support and guide the programme and in particular to capture the benefits of working across the 3 Cities. The partners
          will be committing significant internal resource to deliver the proposals and will seek on going support from CLG for an
          additional post to support the HMA co-ordinator – and focus on developing site specific partnership solutions.




                                                               50
Theme D - CLG Funding Summary


Project                                        2007/08       CLG Support           2008/9 – 2010/11    CLG Support      Later
                                                             Required                                  Required         Years
                                                                                                                        TBC
   Strategic Infrastructure (only indicative       300,000               300,000 (See info within            10,050,000 TBC
   support required from CLG shown as                                            Strategic
   part of comprehensive strategic funding                                       Infrastructure
   package)                                                                      section)
                                                                                 10,050,000
   District Centre Masterplan                                                    Cost tbc but          Estimated at    TBC
   Implementation                                                                estimated at min      £1,500,000
                                                                                 of £500,000 per
                                                                                 location =
                                                                                 £3,000,000
   Community Facilities, Employment Sites                                        Costs TBC             TBC             TBC
   and Sports and Leisure
   Green Infrastructure                   350,000            350,000               TBC Through 3     TBC Through 3     TBC
                                          (Likely to be      Likely to be rolled   Cities GI Mapping Cities GI
                                          rolled             forward to 08/09)     but at least      Mapping but at
                                          forward to                               6,000,000 for     least 6,000,000
                                          08/09)                                   existing projects for existing
                                                                                                     projects
   HMA Co-ordinator Assistant (Revenue)                                                      135,000           135,000 TBC
   Cross Boundary Guides/Documents                                                           300,000           200,000
   Total                                           650,000               650,000          19,485,000       17,885,000 TBC


NB 3 Cities Green Infrastructure support and Nottingham HMA post are listed within overarching 3 Cities bid.




                                                                51
Indicative Overall Funding Summary for CLG Support


The Nottingham programme seeks early funding to develop detailed costings and proposals. However, where possible the
Nottingham programme includes known costs and reasonable cost estimates. A summary of the funding support likely to be
sought from CLG is set out below. This does not however, include schemes such as Gedling Colliery where work is underway to
establish the scale of support required.

Growth Point Theme                             2007/08                           2008/9 – 11             Later Years    Total

                                     Capital             Revenue           Capital         Revenue
   Theme A                              694,000                             9,050,000                  TBC               9,744,000
   Theme B                              100,000               50,000          600,000          100,000 TBC                 850,000
   Theme C                                                                  3,000,000                  TBC               3,000,000
   Theme D                               650,000                           17,750,000          135,000 TBC              18,535,000
   Total                               1,444,000              50,000       30,400,000          235,000 TBC              32,129,000

   (NB the above costs do not include the Nottingham PUA Co-ordinator, Green Infrastructure Mapping and Joint posts covered in
   the main body of the bid.)




                                                              52
Plan 1




         53
Plan 2




         54
Plan 3




         55
Plan 1




         1
Plan 2




         1
Plan 3




         1
            3 CITIES & 3 COUNTIES
             NEW GROWTH POINT

      DRAFT PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH
  PROGRAMME OF DEVELOPMENT 2006-2026
and indicative investment priorities for 2008-2011



 Appendix 4 – Strategic Green Infrastructure


                       VERSION 3.0
                     14th August 2007
                 DRAFT SUBMISSION TO CLG




                            1
Contents


Introduction and rationale                                                              Page 4

The role of the various partners                                                        Page 5

Delivery mechanisms                                                                     Page 6

Priorities for investment in 2008-2011                                                  Page 8


Draft job description for the green infrastructure development co-ordinator             Annex A

Draft consultants brief for the three cities sub-region green infrastructure strategy   Annex B

Indicative strategic green infrastructure proposals for CLG support                     Annex C

Summary of indicative green infrastructure bids, May 2007                               Annex D




                                                              2
3
Introduction and rationale

A4.1     The complexity of the 3 Cities & 3 Counties growth, involving 17 Local Planning Authorities and 3 County Councils,
         requires a strategic approach to cross-boundary issues. Green Infrastructure takes little account of administrative
         boundaries; indeed the use of rivers as boundaries often leaves important green infrastructure opportunities in limbo as
         no one authority has the control or responsibility to make the most of them.

A4.2     Past reductions in public spending on green infrastructure have led to a reduction in individual authorities’ capacity and
         expertise in making the very most of green infrastructure opportunities. Many of our sites are overworked, whilst others
         lack the modern facilities (such as toilets or disabled access) and interpretation which make them attractive to visit.
         There is an increasing need for informal recreation, linked to the healthy living agenda, where we want to offer people
         opportunities for walking and cycling in pleasant and safe environments. As we increase the densities of housing in our
         urban areas, we need to offer high quality local places where people can relax and recharge their batteries.

A4.3     The original CLG letter of 26th October 2006 announcing our inclusion in the list of New Growth Points set clear
         conditions about planning and developing our green infrastructure. As with good design and sustainable transport, there
         are clear benefits in a collaborative approach to drive up standards and ambitions across the whole 3 Cities sub-area,
         and increase our capacity to deliver green infrastructure effectively and early in the growth programme.

A4.4     This first draft of our Strategic Green Infrastructure programme therefore builds on the work already carried out by the
         East Midlands Regional Assembly in identifying the benefits of and opportunities for green infrastructure in the East
         Midlands – the “Connecting People & Spaces” work published in April 2007. It shows how we need to strengthen our
         evidence base to inform the long-term programme, whilst beginning the investment in specific schemes which we already
         know will be necessary to accommodate the planned growth.




                                                                 4
The role of the various partners

A4.5     The 20 Local Authorities form only part of the picture. Project proposals come from a wide variety of stakeholders, many
         from the voluntary or community sector, and often at a local level. The Partnership therefore seeks to share sources of
         expertise, make available the small sums which make local projects possible, and join up the individual proposals into a
         coherent and attractive network of green infrastructure.

A4.6     The remit of the three statutory agencies, Natural England, the Environment Agency and English Heritage is, at the last
         resort, regulatory. Whilst our partnership very much needs their input, expertise and access to national and international
         sources of best practice; they need to retain their independence and ability to take enforcement action if necessary.
         Delivery mechanisms, such as the proposed 6Cs Strategic Green Infrastructure Programme Board will include their
         representatives, but in a way that does not prejudice their regulatory independence. We are grateful for their enthusiastic
         input into this draft.

A4.7     Green infrastructure has a wealth of voluntary and community groups eager to make the very best of their local
         environment and contribute to its improvement and preservation. These groups often have great resources in terms of
         voluntary labour, local knowledge and ownership of the site; but badly need small amounts of financial help for buying
         materials and equipment. Their local ownership usually provides a safe exit strategy for the investment, in that they will
         be able to maintain the improved site in the medium to long term. They rarely have legal or financial resources in-house,
         and we therefore seek to minimise the contractual obligations necessary to access funding. Even at Parish Council level,
         where a site can effectively be held for public use in perpetuity, we need the lowest possible administrative burden.

A4.8     We also benefit from some existing delivery bodies who have a strong track record in delivering green infrastructure
         projects. With the National Forest Company, Greenwood Community Forest, British Waterways, the Wildlife Trusts and
         Groundwork, we have a strong core of key long-term projects. There is comparatively little National Trust property in the
         3 Cities sub-area, but individual estates such as Kedleston Hall, (north east of Derby) have a dramatic influence over the
         green infrastructure in their vicinity.




                                                                5
Delivery mechanisms

A4.9    The three HMA Programme Boards and the individual Local Authorities will have their own delivery mechanisms for local
        projects; for example in delivering their local Parks & Open Spaces Strategies. The added value for a joint Strategic
        Green Infrastructure Programme Board is to tackle cross-boundary projects and provide a central resource of expertise
        and support. It will focus on preparing a GI strategy initially with implementation through the resulting framework at a
        local level. A GI delivery coordinator will ensure that best practice in GI is delivered across the partnership.

A4.10   The role of the 6Cs Strategic Green Infrastructure Programme Board is to:

        •   Oversee the work of the CLG-funded Green Infrastructure development co-ordinator post, which will be hosted by one
            of the Local Authority partners (draft job description attached at Annex A)
        •   Commission and steer the 6Cs Green Infrastructure Strategy (draft brief attached at Annex B)
        •   Shape and plan not just investment, but also cross boundary assets of sub-regional importance e.g. Charnwood
            Forest and other regional park provision
        •   Ensure the sharing of best practice and the building of local capacity to deliver green infrastructure projects
        •   Manage the spend of the allocated budgets and the use of cross-boundary developer contributions
        •   Set ambitious standards for Green Infrastructure for adoption by all 17 Local Planning Authorities

A4.11   The anticipated composition of the Board is representation from:

        •   6 x HMA reps (including District Councils)
        •   Natural England
        •   Environment Agency
        •   English Heritage
        •   EMRA
        •   National Forest Company
        •   ? x Voluntary & Community Sector reps, National Farmers Union / Country Land & Business Association
        •   Wildlife Trusts
        •   Groundwork
        •   Rural Community Council


                                                              6
A4.12   Local Authorities will remain responsible for co-ordinating their requirements for developer contributions to provide and
        help maintain local green space, play areas, sports and recreation facilities, within the context of the GI strategy. Our
        partnership will seek to adopt common higher standards in all our Local Development Frameworks to ensure that we all
        get the basics right, and one of the roles of the Board will be to assist this process.

A4.13   Local Planning Authorities remain responsible for their PPS9 duties to identify biodiversity sites for protection in Local
        Development Frameworks and prevent them being built on. The LDFs will identify opportunities to create more Local
        Nature Reserves and adopt planning policies which give greater protection to green infrastructure.

A4.14   The role of the New Growth Point funding is to take positive action to conserve and enhance biodiversity sites; and
        protect them from neglect, mismanagement or the effect of natural change. We also intend to use the new funding
        sources to develop such sites (where appropriate) for educational, interpretative and leisure uses.

A4.15   LDFs will also, with the help of the strategic green infrastructure strategy data, identify sites for green infrastructure for
        human leisure use. They will tend not to have great biodiversity importance, but are vital to provide open recreational
        space for the increased population. Major capital projects are required for land acquisition, and the provision of facilities,
        equipment and access. The local example of the River Nene Regional Park shows what can be achieved.

A4.16   We interpret page 60 of the Housing Green Paper as proposing a continuation of the dedication of 10% of New Growth
        Point funding to green infrastructure. While some of this will provide local green space where market failure prevents it
        all coming from developer contributions, we anticipate substantial sums being available for joint strategic projects in
        support of a number of growth locations across our partnership area. Some anticipated projects are listed below and in
        Annexes C and D.




                                                                 7
Priorities for investment in 2008-2011

A4.17    The Strategic Green Infrastructure priorities for the 2008-2011 New Growth Points funding round are:

         •   Necessary specialist fieldwork to complete biodiversity surveys and identification of habitat sites which will require
             protection and enhancement (to inform Local Development Frameworks)
         •   Completion of the 6C GI strategy
         •   Finishing the evidence base to inform future investment (the 6Cs Green Infrastructure Strategy)
         •   Seizing existing opportunities to increase the land available for informal public access; either by land purchase, or by
             negotiating permissive access agreements (and achieving appropriate recompense for the land managers)
         •   Identifying options for linking sites into strategic networks and developing costed action plans
         •   Increasing capacity, facilitating joint working, and sharing commissioning and procurement costs
         •   Starting to deliver noticeable improvements in local green infrastructure

A4.18    Capital schemes

         Some of the schemes which are being worked up are: (see appended spreadsheets at Annex C and D)

         •   Derby and Derbyshire Derwent Riverside Development Project
         •   Derbyshire Shipley Country Park – the lease of the adjoining former American Adventure Theme Park reverts to
             Derbyshire County Council and there is an opportunity to improve both sites
         •   Derbyshire and Leicestershire development of the National Forest – indicative £200k a year, but more could be spent
             effectively in bringing forward the National Forest Company’s work programme (and this also ties in with the East
             Staffordshire / Burton on Trent Growth Point)
         •   Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire National Cycle Network Green Routes - the Great Northern Greenway from Derby to
             Ilkeston Breadsall section (£500k), Midshires Way (£200k), Derwent Valley Way (£200k), Ripley Greenway - NCN 54
             - next section will cost about £150,000 to Station Road at Street Lane
         •   Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Erewash Valley Way
         •   East Midlands Wildlife Trusts biodiversity schemes – indicative £200k a year (habitat creation and conservation
             schemes which will contribute to the targets in the Regional Biodiversity Plan and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy)
         •   English Heritage proposals to improve interpretation and identification of ancient monuments



                                                                  8
          •   Leicester and Leicestershire Green Infrastructure in Charnwood Forest – indicative £250k a year
          •   Leicester and Leicestershire Stepping Stones community woodlands
          •   Leicester and Leicestershire protecting the Rivers Soar, Sence and Wreake as Strategic River Corridors
          •   Leicestershire Ashby Canal restoration work (and other inland waterway opportunities)
          •   Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Trent River Park
          •   Strategic River Corridors – linking up the individual projects, sharing experience and knowledge, taking a strategic
              approach to the river system and the potential for using flood alleviation infrastructure (e.g. washlands) as biodiversity
              opportunities

A4.19     Capital or revenue feasibility studies to prepare for schemes coming forward for 2011-2014

          •   Green infrastructure planning for the three PUAs and their Sustainable Urban Extensions, to complement and inform
              the Local Development Frameworks
          •   Green infrastructure appraisals for the three Leicestershire non-PUA Sustainable Urban Extensions at Blaby,
              Charnwood and Hinckley & Bosworth; which in turn will inform SUE options appraisals
          •   Cross boundary work with the Newark, Grantham and Burton New Growth Points to determine their likely effect on
              green infrastructure

A4.20     Revenue or small capital pot projects

A4.20.1   Green Infrastructure development co-ordinator post – the funding of a three-year strategic delivery post to support the
          6Cs Strategic Green Infrastructure Programme Board, £50k revenue in each of the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,
          total £150k revenue over the three years

A4.20.2   Consultancy support budget – the funding of a pooled budget to pay for particular expertise which the partnership does
          not have in house, £50k revenue in each of the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, total £150k revenue over the three
          years

A4.20.3   Green Infrastructure small capital grants pot - a fund of some £500k over the three years to give small grants (say up to
          £10k) to small voluntary and community organisations (including Parish Councils) for specific local projects




                                                                   9
DRAFT JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CO-ORDINATOR                                      Annex A

                                                     Draft Job Description

Job Title
Green Infrastructure (GI) development coordinator

Job Purpose
To develop and promote GI in the 3C sub region working with, supporting and developing the capacity of Local Authorities and
other agencies.

Key tasks

   1. Reporting to the steering group, oversee the development of a GI strategy for the sub-region
   2. Ensure that GI is fully represented and has a high profile within the LDFs / LAAs within the sub-region
   3. Oversee and monitor the promotion, dissemination and integration of the GI strategy for the sub-region into LA documents,
      plans and policies.
   4. Organise and manage wider stakeholder consultation, public exhibitions and meetings to promote the GI strategy in liaison
      with partner organisations
   5. Identify and recommend funding sources for specific schemes and elements of the GI strategy, involving relevant
      stakeholders and partners.
                                                   Draft Person Specification

Essential
  • Degree in appropriate discipline- environmental/countryside management
  • Experience of public consultation and consensus building
  • Experience of the planning system
  • Managing contracts/consultants/proven project management skills/budget management
  • Securing and managing funding bids
  • Partnership working
  • Experience in producing publicity material and public speaking



                                                               10
DRAFT CONSULTANTS BRIEF FOR THE THREE CITIES SUB-REGION GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY                                    Annex B

                                                 DRAFT- For further discussion

Three Cities Sub-region Green Infrastructure Strategy

Brief to consultants

Aim

To produce a Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy and Action Plan for the 3 Cities sub-region.

Project Management

The 6C’s strategic Green Infrastructure Programme Board will commission the Project. It will be tendered through a lead local
authority from this programme Board following their standing orders.

The project will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the Green Infrastructure Development Co-ordinator who will be assisted and
advised by the Programme Board Members.


Introduction and Background

The 3 cities sub-region and growth point is defined within the Draft East Midlands Regional Plan and is shown in the attached plan.
As well as the Principal Urban Areas of Leicester, Nottingham and Derby it includes the sub-regional centres of Loughborough
(Charnwood), Hinckley (Hinckley and Bosworth) and Coalville (North West Leicestershire) as the focus of growth within their
districts.

Guy Wisbey has been appointed since January this year to coordinate the development of the 6Cs growth point. There has been
close contact with the unitary, county and district authorities in preparing a ‘Programme of Development’ including management
structures, potential projects and housing trajectories. GI projects are an integral part within this.




                                                                11
Derby, Leicester and Nottingham are three of the fifteen largest cities in England and are located within thirty miles of each other.
They represent half the economy of the region and are home to 4.3 million people. Their economies, labour markets, shopping
catchments, travel patterns and housing markets overlap to varying degrees. They are home to some of the most deprived
communities in the country and have areas that need urgent regeneration, both within the city centres and in the outlying housing
estates.

Parts of the sub-region have a rural character with areas such as Charnwood providing significant landscape and biodiversity value
as well as many recreational opportunities. With such a high population in close proximity it is essential that a sub-regional
approach is taken to GI provision, the Three Cities GI strategy will form the bedrock to a co-ordinated and long-term approach. Co-
operation and partnership across administrative boundaries will ensure consistency and give a strong voice for GI investment. An
action based green infrastructure strategy will inform and compliment growth. Opportunities to extend and enhance the green
infrastructure network will be delivered through the Growth Point funding as well as through other programmes and developer
contributions. The strategy will function at different levels, showing the sub-regional scale, through to a finer grained analysis for
the urban areas

Growth Point status is conditional on fulfilling specific conditions, in particular ensuring that growth is sustainable and this involves
Local Authorities developing a Green Infrastructure Strategy using an approach that is consistent across the Growth Point.

The Three Cities GI partnership is currently an informal grouping of relevant stakeholders including Local Authorities, Statutory
Agencies and the Voluntary Sector. A more formal partnership to guide and deliver the strategic GI work across the sub regional
area is being developed. A list of members is included in Appendix… An indicative project portfolio of potential GI projects has been
compiled– see appendix…(to be added)

The development of a GI Strategy is in line with the Draft Regional Plan which requires the development of GI implementation plans
by Local Authorities.

Coverage of the sub-region in terms of GI strategies is currently patchy and local area based. The Regional Assembly led the
development of a Regional Public Benefit GI mapping study (see summary in Appendix) Other data sets cover the region for
environmental, social and economic data however there is a lack of more detailed information in some areas see Appendix… for
existing strategies and data sets.




                                                                   12
Green Infrastructure Definition

Green Infrastructure is defined in the Draft East midlands Regional Plan as “networks of multi-functional green space which sit
within and contributes to, the type of high quality natural and built environment required to deliver “sustainable communities”.

Delivering, protecting and enhancing these networks require the creation of new assets to link with river corridors, woodlands,
nature reserves urban green space historic sites, and other existing assets. “…if properly planned and managed Green
Infrastructure should also contribute to wider Environmental Infrastructure through local climate and air quality amelioration
floodplain management”…

Green infrastructure in this instance is defined as the sub-regional network of protected sites, nature reserves, green spaces and
greenway linkages. Green infrastructure should provide (where possible) multi-functional uses i.e., wildlife, recreational and
cultural experience, as well as delivering ecological services, such as flood protection and microclimate control. It should also
operate at all spatial scales from urban centres through to the open countryside.

Well-designed and integrated green infrastructure improves environmental quality, health and well-being, sense of community and
provides an opportunity for exercise, sport and informal recreation. Green infrastructure should contribute to and enhance the
quality of life of both present and future residents and visitors through:

          Providing a focus and attraction for the increased population proposed within the three cities growth area
          Providing an enhanced environmental backdrop that respects existing landscape character and that will assist in
          attracting and retaining inward investment in the area.
          Protecting and enhancing existing biodiversity, creating new areas for biodiversity and reversing the fragmentation of
          habitats by restoring the connectivity between them
          Providing continued, new and enhanced links to the countryside
          Coordinating the use of green space to optimise its use for leisure, biodiversity, drainage and flood management and its
          other socio economic value




                                                               13
Project Objectives and Scope

The Partnership wants a GI Strategy that can be used within a short period to assist in the preparation of LDF’s planning the growth
point development which encompasses the elements and advantages of Green Infrastructure set out above.

The strategy will need to primarily focus on those areas that will be subject to growth but will also be required to take a broader
view of the development of GI at a sub regional level.

The objectives of the study would be:

   •   To ensure the baseline data across the whole area for a green infrastructure strategy is a common standard and quality
   •   To identify GI deficiencies and surpluses of provision for the area’s existing and future communities.
   •   To evaluate the importance of existing green space in the area and its multifunctional value.
   •   To identify opportunities for further protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat and making the countryside more accessible for
       users especially from deprived areas.

   •   To identify opportunities to extend and enhance the green infrastructure network.
   •   To identify opportunities to create improved linkages within and to the city network by increases in and enhancement of
       green spaces and of the access network.
   •   To identify and evaluate the strategic landscape, biodiversity historic and other environmental heritage in the area.
   •   To identify complementary opportunities with the green infrastructure network for example linking with a Strategic Regional
       Riverside Corridor covering the River Derwent, Soar and Trent and their tributaries.
It is seen that this would be achieved in general by;

   •   bringing together updating and filling gaps in existing data on green infrastructure, including biodiversity, ecological assets
       and geo-diversity and electronically map out and assess existing green infrastructure provision
   •   Identifying a long term (over 20 years) vision for Green Infrastructure including future Green Infrastructure needs of the
       growing population for the three Cities area
   •   Identifying specific future Green Infrastructure needs of the sub-region up to 2026 and beyond. Categorise these needs in
       order of priority and deliverability, with target dates for implementation.


                                                                   14
For the purpose of the tender requirements the elements of the study are split between the existing, urban rural and green field
areas where development is likely to take place, largely by sustainable urban extensions.

Tasks

   i)      Rural / Green field parts of the sub region where development is planned.

   Audit, review and collate:
     • existing GI strategies and other relevant plan and strategies reporting on the relevance of their proposals to GI delivery
     • baseline data at a sub regional level. Where gaps of information are identified, collect and digitise where necessary and
          practicable or recommend for further areas of work
     • Gaps in this data would then be identified and field work undertaken to fill the agreed gaps in baseline information.
     • Audit to include:
               1. Landscape character
               2. Strategic non-vehicular access network and key visitor attractions.
               3. Key natural and built heritage features, including Historic Parks and Gardens and Scheduled Ancient
                    Monuments
               4. Strategic transport corridors including long-term rail, highway and road improvement initiatives
               5. Current/ future strategic mineral extraction/ waste disposal sites
               6. Key biodiversity and geological/ geomorphologic sites/ habitats
               7. Indicative floodplain information and areas at flood risk
               8. Strategic green infrastructure based visitor attractions Key land based recreational assets, including Country
                    Parks, Local Nature Reserves, National Nature Reserves and other semi natural areas used for recreational
                    activities

ii) Urban areas

   •    Going into a finer level of detail in urban areas, where the analysis doesn’t already exist and the existing datasets have been
        considered collect and bring the data on existing green infrastructure in the study area up to a common quality base. This
        should ensure that there is in place for all relevant identified urban areas:




                                                                  15
           1. An audit of existing green infrastructure assets including a local assessment of open space generally as defined in
              PPG17 (These should indicate their primary and secondary or potential secondary roles in relation to a green
              infrastructure system.
           2. In relation to public open space the work should cover the necessary elements required for an assessment of
              needs and opportunities as identified in PPG 17 and its Companion Guide, particularly in terms of each area’s
              accessibility, quantity in relation to the local standard of open space provision and Natural Englands ANGST
              standards quality in relation to an agreed set of criteria (Including linkages between open spaces and preferably
              involve local stakeholder involvement. It should provide information, which would provide major elements towards
              the production of a Parks Strategy where this isn’t currently in place. Given the strategic nature of this exercise it
              should cover all public open spaces over 2ha in size, but take into account the roles of smaller spaces (from 0.25
              ha) in the area especially in areas with limited or no open space within this size range.

•   Biodiversity study– Where up to date information does not currently exist, and focussing on areas that are expected to
    receive development, a Phase One habitat survey (with tagged notes) and biodiversity enhancement opportunities of open
    land in the urban area or directly abutting it. It should take particular note of Protected Species and BAP priority habitats

           1. Recreational route network study- Identifying and mapping locations for potential new or enhanced footpaths,
              cycleway and multi-user route links, and extending a network of access routes between and within new and
              existing communities and the countryside as well as delivering other opportunities for network enhancement.
              Particularly those identified in local Rights of Way Improvement Plans.

    •   Produce a map of anticipated development sites through liaison with Local Planning Authorities and undertaking an audit
        of LDF’s/Local development Documents and reviewing existing studies looking at the suitable locations for growth

Analysis

    o From dataset overlays and stakeholder engagement identify existing GI provision, current and future deficiencies and
      opportunities to form the framework of the GI strategy.
    o Analysis should include strategic corridors, biodiversity, heritage, recreational assets, and landscape and development
      sites.

Developing the GI Strategy


                                                               16
The culmination of this process will be the production of a draft strategic plan identifying existing sub-regional green
infrastructure assets and opportunities in spatial terms and a proposed sub-regional green infrastructure spatial framework with
supporting policies and objectives. Thus we would wish to see the data and analysis taken forward to;

•   Develop the analysis into a bold and imaginative strategy and action plan, which builds upon current and future initiatives
    and identifies key issues including those relating to biodiversity, landscape and rights of way and shows potential
    opportunities for enhancement of existing green infrastructure sites including changes in management regimes. These
    should include “early wins” which could be implemented early in any programme.
•   The strategy should be appropriate to different scales from sub regional through to a finer level of detail for the urban areas.
    This should hang together as one strategy but should also function as ’stand alone’ elements at the micro scale. The
    function of this is to ensure that urban areas such as Derby city, Coalville and Loughborough have a comprehensive GI
    strategy for their local area, and that they can use this to go into further detail at a later stage if necessary. An important
    element of this is recommendations for LDDs and local consultation with stakeholder engagement. The urban areas of
    Leicester and Nottingham already have strategies in place to draw on with Hinckley currently preparing their strategy. Please
    see appendix…for GI strategies in the area
•   Identify and initially map in conjunction with key stakeholders potential new and enhanced assets that are required to
    improve the functionality of the green infrastructure network including opportunities for landscape and habitat enhancement
    and the provision of new green spaces and links. This should include the distribution of major strategic corridors,
    environmental, recreational and heritage assets, areas of major development activity and the potential to address
    connectivity needs (for both wildlife and people) of the sub-regional network.
•   Produce a draft Action Plan of projects (new and enhanced existing) including lead partner/partnerships, indicative costs,
    options for how they could be financed, costs of long term management and maintenance of new/enhanced Green
    Infrastructure, post implementation.
•   Produce a set of “ principles for developers outlining what is required for high quality environment associated with new
    development, appropriate mitigation measures and long term management (including ANGST).
•   Identify opportunities in green infrastructure for water management, for example, flood risk management, sustainable
    drainage systems and public water supplies.
•   Key priority areas to be highlighted across the sub-region to allow for prioritisation of funding. A clear methodology or series
    of methodologies should be used, for example the Forestry Commissions Public Benefit Recording System.




                                                               17
Key Outputs

   •   A co-ordinated mapped Green Infrastructure Plan, in electronic format, of existing assets, with collated data sets and
       resulting mapped discrete data sets GIS layers. to help identify sub regional green infrastructure provision, current and future
       deficiencies in provision, and opportunities across the plan area.
   •   Accompanying report setting out process and survey methods and justified methodology.
   •    Plans and reports on the GI proposed in the study, and the implementation strategy/ prioritised action plan, including those
       connected with major development sites embracing and developing the work being carried out by the local planning
       authorities and their partners through the LDFs all as set out above and should include the set of standards on what is
       required for high quality environment and appropriate mitigation measures consistent with the objectives outlined above.
   •   Colour summary document

At each interim stage any draft final report will be discussed in turn, with the partnership, prior to the production of the Final Report.
An Executive Summary of the Study should also be produced. Copies of each report should be provided for the Councils and their
partners by the Consultant in paper and CD-Rom formats in a compatible format for Local Authorities and other partners to use.

The Final Reports, Appendices and supporting background information (databases, photographs and GIS files) are to be supplied
in electronic format on CD in original format as well as Adobe Acrobat format unless otherwise specified. The partnership will hold
the copyright of all presented material and retain the right to distribute the material in part or whole to any organisation or individual
it determines, at no extra cost.

Tender process

Appendices

Existing data sets
Current GI strategies
Steering group member organisations
Indicative Project Portfolio
Regional Public Benefit GI mapping study summary




                                                                    18
INDICATIVE STRATEGIC GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALS FOR CLG SUPPORT                                                                       Annex C

Summary of 3 Cities & 3 Counties projects put forward for support from the CLG Housing and Growth Programmes Fund 2008-2011
Capital Projects                2008-      2009-      2010-   Capital    Revenue Projects             2008-      2009-      2010-   Revenue    Grand Total
                                 2009       2010       2011   total                                    2009       2010       2011   total

6Cs Strategic Green
Infrastructure
Green Infrastructure         £100,000   £200,000   £200,000   £500,000   Green Infrastructure       £50,000    £50,000    £50,000   £150,000
small capital grants ‘pot’                                               development co-
                                                                         ordinator
East Midlands Wildlife       £150,000   £175,000   £200,000   £525,000   Strategic Green           £500,000         £0        £0    £500,000
Trusts (Derbys, Leics,                                                   Infrastructure mapping
Notts) biodiversity
schemes
National Forest planting     £200,000   £200,000   £200,000   £600,000   Consultancy support        £50,000    £50,000    £50,000   £150,000
                                                                         budget
Strategic River              £300,000   £300,000   £300,000   £900,000
Corridors
Stepping Stones              £200,000   £250,000   £350,000   £800,000   Stepping Stones           £300,000   £300,000   £300,000   £900,000
Community Woodland                                                       Community Woodland
(Leicestershire)                                                         staffing / labour costs
Non-vehicular                £160,000   £160,000   £160,000   £480,000
Accessibility
Improvements /
Greenways
Charnwood Forest             £250,000   £250,000   £250,000   £750,000
Green Infrastructure
Hinckley & Bosworth           £50,000    £60,000    £90,000   £200,000
Green Infrastructure
Loughborough Green            £50,000    £50,000    £50,000   £150,000
Infrastructure
Trent River Park                  £1m        £1m        £1m   £3m
Nottinghamshire GI              £1.5m      £1.5m      £1.5m   £4.5m
Derbyshire and               £400,000   £400,000   £250,000   £1.05m
Nottinghamshire
National Cycle Network
Green Routes
6Cs Strategic Green          £4.360m    £4.545m    £4.550m    £13.410    6Cs Strategic Green       £900,000   £400,000   £400,000     £1.7m
Infrastructure totals                                         m          Infrastructure totals                                                   £15.110m




                                                                               19
SUMMARY OF INDICATIVE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BIDS, MAY 2007                                                                            Annex D

This summary list was compiled by Natural England after a quick trawl of known operators in the Green Infrastructure field. In
order to prevent abortive work until more was known about the funding regime, contacts were asked not to work up proposals any
further unless they were part of the anticipated work programme.

Natural England have more details of these projects, plus others of which they have become aware. It is likely that any
assessment process will examine the contribution that projects make to the Three Cities Sub-region Green Infrastructure Strategy
and Action Plan, which is of course a key priority for an early start in 2008-09.


Lead partner      Title                        Application bid £                              Notes                              Contact
                                               (costs as outlined in bid)
Groundwork        Trent River Park and        Revenue £15,000 p/a                             GI improvements along the          Zbig Szulc, Executive Director,
Greater           Gedling route               Capital 200k for individual projects-2-         Trent corridor from                Groundwork Greater
Nottingham        improvements                3million for a work programme                   Attenborough-Gunthorpe             Nottingham,
                                              Improvements to routes in Gedling – 175k        bridge.                            Denman Street East,
                                              (total cost)                                    Gedling improvements to            Nottingham, NG7 3 GX, Tel
                                              Groundwork seek to secure 50% match             complete one of the crucial        0115 9788212
                                              funding from other sources.                     missing links in the corridor
Nottingham City   NOTTINGHAM GREEN            A programme of around £4million through         Restore and create a network       Eddie Curry
                  CITY SPACES                 works identifies in previous strategic works.   of historically important city     eddie.curry@Nottinghamcity.gov
                                                                                              parks for local recreation and     .uk
                                                                                              regional tourism attractions and
                                                                                              enhance important green space      Tel: 0115 9152784
                                                                                              gateways into the city.

Nottinghamshire    Three cities growth area   Total costs                                     Project over 3 years                Nic Broomhead
County Council     within districts of                                                        Matchfunding avail-see bid for
                   Rushcliffe, Ashfield,      2007/08         £126.5K                         detail                              01623 821329
                   Broxtowe and Gedling.      2008/09         £1,426k                         Project has 4 strands and
                                              2009/10         £1,426.k                        encompasses scoping mapping        nic.broomhead@nottscc.gov.uk
                                              2010/11         £1,426k.                        and delivery building on
                                              Total           £4,405.k                        previous work and bringing
                                                                                              together the districts in a
                                                                                              cohesive way.


                                                                         20
Hinckley and       Hinckley & Bosworth Green     £200,000 –total                                    Matchfunding                        Caroline Lambert & Katanya
Bosworth Borough   Infrastructure Study &        Year 1 £45,000 for Green Infrastructure            £20K-                               Barlow
Council            Implementation Plan           Study, including ANGST study                       see proposal for more detail        Hinckley & Bosworth Borough
                                                          £5,000 for the development of                                                 Council
                                                 projects                                                                               Council Offices, Argents Mead,
                                                 Year 2 £60,000 for capital / community                                                 Hinckley, Leicestershire. LE10
                                                 enhancements to GI sites                                                               1BZ
                                                 Year 3 £90,000 for capital / community                                                 Tel: 01455 255782
                                                 enhancements to GI sites

Leics. County      ‘Stepping Stones              Staffing costs-£300k pa 08-11                      Several partners contributing       Sam Forster/Andy Jackson
Council            Community Woodland            Working budget - £200k-08/09                       with match funding                  Tel.0116 2657264 (or 7221)
                   Greenspace project’           250k-0910
                                                 350k-10/11

Leics. County      Tree Survey                   £260,000 to employ survey staff over the 3         Survey of existing tree and         Andrew Shaw 0116 265 7061
Council                                          years                                              woodland      cover of  the
                                                 £40,000 for legal fees relating to                 proposed growth area in
                                                 new/revised Tree Preservation Orders               Leicestershire

Leics. County      Strategic River Corridors     Project Officer – £156,000 (Grade 10 inc on        develop a series of schemes,        Tony Lockley
Council                                          costs)                                             which enhance the areas
                                                 Consultancy costs for specific projects (like      appearance,      accessibility,
                                                 advice to farmers) - £11,500                       recreational and ecological
                                                 Working budget for projects - £90,000              potential.

Leics. County      Charnwood Forest Green        • consultancy fees for baseline studies,           develop proposals for a             Lesley Eddleston, 0116 265
Council            Infrastructure Initiative        feasibility study and action plan -             Charnwood Forest Regional           7067
                                                    £100,000                                        Park or similar green
                                                 • project officer/project assistant on initial 3   infrastructure linked initiative.
                                                    year contracts - £240,000 (£80,000pa)
                                                 • office      accommodation,       managerial
                                                    support, services, telephones, IT support
                                                    – in kind contribution by LCC
                                                 project implementation budget -
                                                 £250,000pa initially for 3 years - £750,000
Leics. County      Non-vehicular Accessibility   £480,000 over three years plus funding for         To address policies and             W.D. Carter
Council            Improvements                  the larger projects like the Sence Valley link     programmes contained within



                                                                            21
                                                                                                   the    Leicestershire   Local
                                                                                                   Transport Plan and the Rights
                                                                                                   of Way Improvement Plan.


Leics. County        Developing and analysing      £15,000 year 1 to support officer costs         In preparation for the large          Graham Walley (Leics County
Council              Leicestershire’s Ecological   a. whole county £270,000 b) SUEs only           scale projects to follow an initial   Council)
                     and Geological Resource –     £90,000 over 3 years.                           scoping exercise is required to
                     scoping phase                                                                 identify and quantify the
                                                                                                   resources available and the
                                                                                                   resources necessary to
                                                                                                   mobilise and analyze them. It
                                                                                                   is expected that one
                                                                                                   ecologist/archaeologist would
                                                                                                   need to be employed for a 6
                                                                                                   month period.
National Forest      Green Infrastructure and      NFC are looking for support of Major            Partners. Matchfunding 33 to          Clive Keble
Company              the national Forest-          projects                                        55%
                     Land acquisition/             from £100,000+                                                                        Tel.01283 551211
                     project development/
                     site development                                                                                                    ckeble@nationalforest.org
Leics Wildlife       Creating and Enhancing GI     £350,000 and 2 members of staff @ £25k          Several partners -contributing        Simon Bentley
Trust                in Charnwood                  each                                            with match funding                    Director
                                                                                                                                         Leicestershire and Rutland
                                                                                                   See bid                               Wildlife Trust
                                                                                                                                         Brocks Hill Environment Centre
                                                                                                                                         Washbrook Lane
                                                                                                                                         Oadby
                                                                                                                                         Leics LE2 5JJ
                                                                                                                                         Tel 0116 272 8852
                                                                                                                                         sbentley@lrwt.org.uk
Derby City Council   Derby Principal Urban Area    estimated cost £200,000-£250,000. The           Several Partners-Matchfunding         David Slinger. Environment
                     Green Infrastructure Study    project could be substantially completed        to be identified                      Team Leader ,Regeneration and
                                                   within 07/8 and so finance is sought for this                                         Communities, Derby City
                                                   year but could be spread over two financial                                           Council
                                                   years.
                                                                                                                                         tel. 01332 256001
                                                                                                                                         david.slinger@derby.gov.uk



                                                                             22
6C GI partnership   Development of a Green         Costs difficult to estimate prior to tendering   Match funding may be available       Dawn.Griffiths@naturalengland.
                    Infrastructure Strategy for    – expected to be around 500k, to include         through project partners             org.uk,
                    the 3 Cities New Growth        towns ( based on RNRP experience)                                                     Tel. 0115 9005403
                    Point,
                                                   GI project Officer with on costs -assuming                                            David.Lepper@naturalengland.o
                    Dedicated GI Co-ordinator      located with a Local Authority. £50k a year                                           rg.uk,
                    post, together with a small    for 3 years,
                    grant scheme.                  Dedicated GI small grant “pot” . £100k year                                           Tel. 01476 584796
                                                   1 £200 k pa years 2 and 3.

Nottinghamshire     Eg.Notts ./Derbys. Wildlife    215,250 over 3 years. Also potential for         Partnership Project, working         Conservation Officer Charlotte
Wildlife Trust      Trust-joint projects /Blue     07/08 spend, 39k                                 closely with LAs in key areas.       Gault
                    Butterfly project. Establish                                                                                         Head of Regional Conservation
                    new sites, contribute to                                                                                             Policy
                    BAP and involve                                                                                                      East MidlandsWildlife Trusts
                    community.                                                                                                           regional.policy@nottswt.co.uk
                                                                                                                                         Tel: 0115 9588242
                                                                                                                                         Fax: 0115 9243175
                                                                                                                                         The Old Ragged School
                                                                                                                                         Brook Street
                                                                                                                                         Nottingham
                                                                                                                                         NG1 1EA
On Trent            Sustainable Washlands          £172,000 over 3 years – see bid for more         4 Partners and Match Funding.        On Trent Project
                    Downstream of Nottingham       detail                                           developing and delivering            Manager-Ruth Needham
                                                                                                    sustainable land use options for     The Wolseley Centre,
                                                                                                    the area that are fully integrated   Wolseley Bridge, Stafford, ST17
                                                                                                    with the changes in the flood        0WT.
                                                                                                    defences.                            Switchboard 01889 880100
                                                                                                                                         Direct Dial 01889 880110
                                                                                                    Wide ranging project that            Mobile 07773 343635
                                                                                                    involves the local community
                                                                                                    and developed partnership
                                                                                                    approach.




                                                                              23

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:1/10/2012
language:
pages:231