Regional Spatial Strategy Report to the Panel

AGENDA ITEM

REPORT TO JOINT

STRATEGY COMMITTEE

28TH SEPTEMBER 2006

REPORT OF DIRECTOR

OF THE JOINT STRATEGY

UNIT

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY – REPORT TO THE PANEL

ISSUES FOR THE TEESVALLEY

1.0SUMMARY

1.1This report sets out the recommendations of the report of the Panel examining in public the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Panel have supported for the most part our representations. There are however three areas of concern: housing allocation for Darlington, 2016 - 21, the deletion of the Faverdale site as a site for logistics and the failure to include Redcar as an urban centre. The Committee is asked to support making further representations on these issues.

2.0RECOMMENDATION

2.1The following are key positive recommendations in support of our strategy. They are:

a)Support for the city region concept;

b)Reinstatement of the East Middlesbrough Corridor and its protection but the primary focus on resolving traffic issues should be on public transport schemes;

c)No objection to Middlesbrough’s proposal to deallocate 50% of the Hemlington Grange site from employment use and its reallocation to residential use;

d)Include a green wedge and strategic gaps policy. Recommends two strategic gaps Eaglescliffe to Middleton St George and Middleton St George to Darlington to prevent urban coalescence and sprawl; also include reference to green infrastructure network;

e)The next RSS should adopt a city region approach to the analysis of employment land and set criteria for defining a 25 year land supply;

f)Give priority to the development of regional mixed use brownfield sites; ensure that adjacent town centres are not adversely affected by town centre uses associated with the mixed use scheme, and will not put at risk a town centre strategy or regional brownfield mixed use site Master Plan:

g)Accepted Lingfield Point in Darlington as a regional mixed use brownfield site insofar as reference to Central Park be deleted and replaced with ‘brownfield opportunities in Darlington’;

h)Develop a policy in presumption of favouring the regeneration and upgrading of existing employment sites, before bringing forward new, greenfield employment land. Also office development will only be considered outside a city/town centre or regional brownfield mixed use site if it cannot be accommodated on such sites;

i)As a result of this policy the panel recommends that Netpark will be limited to the phase 1 consent of 13 ha. No further consent for offices should be granted at Wynyard, and large scale opportunities should be maximised, and no justification for retaining Heighington Lane Newton Aycliffe or land south of Seaham as reserve sites;

j)No further development of Metro Centre to be permitted and no further provision of new urban and suburban out of centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance;

k)Recommend adoption of 112,000 houses for the plan period i.e. 33,100 for the TeesValley. We asked for 33,650 and the plan only proposed 29,000. This issue is considered in more detail. Furthermore development on sustainable brownfield sites, and windfall sites within guidance set out in urban capacity studies, cannot be refused on the grounds that the housing targets are exceeded;

l)Acceptance of our approach to deferring housing market supply via urban capacity studies;

m)Support for Teesport as a deep sea container port and gauge enhancement;

n)Deletion of proposal for freight terminal at Tursdale;

o)Add the development of a segregated rail based metro system in the TeesValley as a priority;

p)Queried the priority given in the Regional Funding Allocation to the Bowburn – Wheatley Hill link and the Pegwood/North Morpeth bypass;

q)Accepted the allocation of land for airport related development at DurhamTeesValleyAirport.

r)support for sustainable indigenous growth in regeneration areas of Saltburn, Brotton, Skelton and Loftus to meet local needs without impacting on regeneration initiatives in the conurbation.

3.0REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1The Panel's recommendations on the housing allocation for Darlington 2016-21 are impractical.

3.2The Panel's recommendations on Faverdale hinder the development of the logistics sector in the TeesValley which is identified as a major area for growth in the economy.

3.3The Panel's non-inclusion of Redcar in the list of urban centres could hinder its future development.

4.0MEMBERS' INTERESTS

4.1Members (including co-opted Members with voting rights) should consider whether they have a personal interest as defined in the Council’s code of conduct (paragraph 8) and, if so, declare the existence and nature of that interest in accordance with paragraph 9 of the code.

4.2Where a Member regards him/herself as having a personal interest in the item, he/she must then consider whether that interest is one which a Member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest (paragraph 10 of the code of conduct).

4.3A member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must withdraw from the room where the meeting is being held, whilst the matter is being considered; not exercise executive functions in relation to the matter, and not seek improperly to influence the decision about the matter (paragraph 12 of the code).

1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1As members will recall an Examination in Public into the North East Regional Spatial Strategy was held in the spring. The Panel have now reported. This report sets out the Panel's conclusions and recommendations, the implications for the TeesValley and the key points to be made in a letter to the Government Office.

1.2It is important to recognise that the Panel has supported 95% of our policies and representations. In general, it is fair to say that the TeesValley has benefited most from the recommendations of the Panel.

2.0KEY POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1The following are key positive recommendations in support of our strategy. They are:

a)Support for the city region concept;

b)Reinstatement of the East Middlesbrough Corridor and its protection but the primary focus on resolving traffic issues should be on public transport schemes;

c)No objection to Middlesbrough’s proposal to deallocate 50% of the Hemlington Grange site from employment use and its reallocation to residential use;

d)Include a green wedge and strategic gaps policy. Recommends two additional strategic gaps Eaglescliffe to Middleton St George and Middleton St George to Darlington to prevent urban coalescence and sprawl; also include reference to green infrastructure network;

e)The next RSS should adopt a city region approach to the analysis of employment land and set criteria for defining a 25 year land supply;

g)Accepted Lingfield Point in Darlington as a regional mixed use brownfield site insofar as reference to Central Park be deleted and replaced with ‘brownfield opportunities in Darlington’;

j)No further development of Metro Centre to be permitted and no further provision of new urban and suburban out of centre retail and leisure development of regional or sub-regional significance;

l)Acceptance of our approach to deferring housing market supply via urban capacity studies;

m)Support for Teesport as a deep sea container port and gauge enhancement;

n)Deletion of proposal for freight terminal at Tursdale;

o)Add the development of a segregated rail based metro system in the TeesValley as a priority;

p)Queried the priority given in the Regional Funding Allocation to the Bowburn – Wheatley Hill link and the Pegwood/North Morpeth bypass;

q)Accepted the allocation of land for airport related development at DurhamTeesValleyAirport.

r)support for sustainable indigenous growth in regeneration areas of Saltburn, Brotton, Skelton and Loftus to meet local needs without impacting on regeneration initiatives in the conurbation.

3.0NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OR AREAS OF CONCERN

3.1The following concerns are the only negatives. They are:

a)No acceptance of Faverdale Reserve Site as a logistics site;

b)A net housing figure of 75 dwellings/year in Darlington for the period 2016 – 21 is not sustainable;

c)No acceptance of any flexibility for non airport related uses at DurhamTeesValleyAirport and a new airport uses condition;

d)A strong demand management policy and a recommendation for the Assembly to draft maximum parking standards for non residential uses.

e)Employment land figures unchanged despite JSU submitting updated data. However Panel support priority for review of employment land supply throughout region.

4.0HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

Table 1 shows the figures for the 4 sub regions

Draft RSS / Panel’s proposals
Durham / 19,975 / 19,243 / -732
Northumberland / 13,005 / 13,228 / +223
TeesValley / 29,030 / 33,153 / +4123
Tyne and Wear / 44,965 / 46,448 / +1483
107,015 / 112,072

We have therefore been the biggest beneficiary of the increase in housing numbers raising our share from 27 to 29% of the regional total.

Table 2 shows the distribution figures

2004 - 11
Draft RSS per annum / TeesValley proposals per annum / Panel Recommendation per annum / Change over draft per annum
Darlington / 475 / 525 / 480 / +5
Hartlepool / 390 / 390 / 420 / +30
Middlesbrough / 300 / 325 / 440 / +140
Redcar & Cleveland / 300 / 320 / 420 / +120
Stockton on Tees / 600 / 600 / 820 / +220
2011 - 16
Draft RSS / TeesValley proposals / Panel Recommendation / Change from draft RSS
Darlington / 245 / 325 / 315 / +70
Hartlepool / 350 / 365 / 390 / +40
Middlesbrough / 370 / 480 / 465 / +95
Redcar & Cleveland / 270 / 315 / 325 / +55
Stockton on Tees / 270 / 550 / 445 / +175
2016 - 21
Draft RSS / TeesValley proposals / Panel Recommendation / Change from draft RSS
Darlington / 150 / 240 / 75 / -75
Hartlepool / 350 / 365 / 290 / -60
Middlesbrough / 370 / 385 / 280 / -90
Redcar & Cleveland / 270 / 300 / 220 / -50
Stockton on Tees / 270 / 400 / 220 / -50
2004 - 21
Draft RSS / TeesValley proposals / Panel Recommendation / Change from draft RSS
Darlington / 310 / 380 / 310 / N/C
Hartlepool / 365 / 375 / 370 / +5
Middlesbrough / 340 / 390 / 400 / +60
Redcar & Cleveland / 280 / 315 / 330 / +70
Stockton on Tees / 405 / 520 / 530 / +125

The main difficulty with the housing figures is that the Darlington figure of 75 dwellings/year for 2016/2021 is not sustainable. In a supplementary addendum the panel have asked for a review of the forecasts for Sedgefield in the light of the substantial Greenfield allocation proposed. Should it be found necessary to reduce these allocations the Panel recommended that any balance should be redirected to Darlington. It is recommended that the Director of the JSU draws up a letter to GO-NE with officers in Darlington Borough Council to make the case for a higher figure.

5.0FAVERDALE STRATEGIC RESERVE SITE

5.1The Panel did not accept the argument that Faverdale should be a site for logistics development. Given proposals elsewhere at Wynyard and the DurhamTeesValleyAirport, the Panel were unconvinced of the case.

The RSS Submission document acknowledges that ‘Darlington has a vital role to play in the TeesValley as a major employment centre and gateway to the region through its East Coast Main Line station, the A1 and the expanding DurhamTeesValleyAirport. Its unique location with its excellent transport links and good environment enables Darlington to attract logistics and other office employment that may not otherwise be attracted to the Tees Valley’ (paragraph 2.112). This is reflected in Policy 7 – Tees Valley City Region item ‘j’, neither of which are recommended for amendment or deletion by the Panel.

Logistics is recognised in the RSS submission as an employment growth sector but no policies identify/allocate land to specifically meet this requirement. Logistics as a sector is currently under-represented in the TeesValley and various studies, and actual development, highlight the recent growth in demand; and the role Faverdale can play in meeting that demand:

Donaldson’s work on Darlington Gateway Strategy identified potential demand at Faverdale to meet the needs of distribution and logistics.
Argos has developed its 60,000sq m distribution centre on the adjacent site, and further distribution units are proposed.
Lambert Smith Hampton – highlight the increasing potential of Darlington to act as a regional hub for the TeesValley and as a gateway to the North East, as an ideal location for the distribution of goods. It concludes that Darlington will attract investment from a national and local level and the Faverdale site is perhaps the most attractive logistics development site in the North East, attracting investment of a level few other sites can match.

Faverdale Strategic Reserve Site has locational/physical characteristics and attributes providing a level of uniqueness for B8 users. Its location adjacent to the A1 motorway gives it excellent strategic access. The Highways Agency indicated at the Examination in Public that they would prefer logistics development to be close to motorway junctions. It is a large, uncontaminated site currently available for development (subject to infrastructure) which could accommodate the increasingly large units required by the users. The site is adjacent to established distribution operators and has been the subject of interest from logistics park developers. A workforce with a proven track record is available. Finally, there may be an opportunity to provide a rail link to the ECML, and with bus services, housing within easy walking and cycling distance, and the site's location on the edge of the town, the site provides a sustainable option for development.

The Panel dismissed Faverdale partly on the grounds that other sites are available to meet the requirements of the logistics sector in the TeesValley. Of the three alternatives mentioned, the Airport is a medium/long term proposal which could not meet immediate/short term demand. TeesPort is considered particularly appropriate for post related users, and therefore not directly comparable with Faverdale. The only other alternative is Wynyard, which has a role to play in meeting logistics demand in the TeesValley. A speculative distribution warehouse has been developed recently and another is planned.

Although the RSS Submission Document acknowledged the role Darlington could play in the logistics market, this is not reflected in the RSS policies. Consequently, the Committee should seek the support of GONE in proposing an addition to Policy 7 of the Strategy, by including reference to logistics opportunities at Faverdale in Darlington. This would also require an amendment to the employment land figures (Policy 18) to reflect the additional land.

6.0DURHAMTEESVALLEYAIRPORT

6.1The Panel accepts that the airport is an economic driver but feel that the paragraph should be tempered to reflect the fact that current growth expectations of air traffic will be lower due to the rise in the price of oil and possible future taxes on emissions. We will therefore need to look carefully at the wording of any modification. The 80 ha south of the airport is accepted for development. The Panel has produced a definition of airport related uses and state they consider the terms freight handling facilities and warehousing are adequate to meet any logistics needs of the airport. As things stand Peel Holdings’ initial view is the condition and policy to be liveable with. We will however need to consider carefully any redefined wording the Government propose to include in the final document.

7.0DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND PARKING STANDARDS

7.1The Tees Valley authorities have been trying to resist the Assembly developing a detailed demand management strategy and maximum parking standards on the grounds that they are more appropriate for local authorities to decide. The Panel unfortunately are supporting the Assembly and so we will find this difficult to resist. Again we will need to watch the exact modification to the policy carefully.

8.0EMPLOYMENTLAND

8.1The Panel did not include our updated employment land figures largely because we were the only sub region to propose them. It is of no consequence.

9.0OMISSION OF REDCAR IN THE LIST OF URBAN CENTRES

9.1The Panel criticised the hierarchy of urban centres in the draft by saying that it should include smaller towns. They particularly mentioned Redcar and South Shields but did not think there was enough evidence to include Redcar in the same category as Stockton and Hartlepool. It may be something we can have included in the modification.

10.0THE IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AT WYNYARD, NETPARK AND TURSDALE

10.1The Panel were opposed to B1 uses at Wynyard and in their view development of these uses would pose a considerable threat to town centres and regional brownfield mixed use developments in the area. The amount of B1 will therefore be limited on the Stockton part of Wynyard to the existing consent. However, they accept the Hartlepool’s local plan designation for North Burn for B1/B2/B8 for electronics but they want to see the planning consents restructured to limit the B2 and B8 uses to large developments. There is therefore no possibility of further B1 consents at Wynyard. However the existing outline consents are so large for B1 uses that the recommendation is of little practical consequence.

10.2With regard to Netpark, in addition to the development present the 13 ha limit will allow the construction of:

a)A phase 2 business incubator comprising a 20,000 sq ft building with 42 units managed by RTC North;

b)A Plastic Electronics Centre of Excellence;

c)A business village housing five new buildings with a range of laboratory/office space;

On completion of the scheme no new development will be allowed.

10.3The concept of a freight terminal at Tursdale has been rejected which is good news for the port, the Freightliner Depot at Wilton and EWS at Thornaby.

11.0IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NEXT RSS

11.1The Panel have made recommendations for the future in terms of the next RSS. The initial points are:

a)Endorsement of the city region basis for housing, employment land and retail hierarchy analysis. Teesdale and WearValley should be included in the Tees Valley City Region;

b)Employment land should be based on a 25 year supply in the future;