Major update on development proposals

Hi all –

I had the long-awaited meeting with Nottingham Regeneration Limited
today.

A bit of a dilemma: several hundred of you have signed up
specifically to get information about this issue, and I've got a lot
more information now. But there is some other interesting stuff to
say as well, and I don't want to put people off from seeing it by
first writing reams about development. Solution: two messages this
week – and this one is *only* about the housing development issue. If
you don't care about that, read no further! It's long, it's dry, it's
technical - but it has important consequences for the future of most
of Broxtowe.

The meeting was with the only other MPs who have expressed concern to
NRL, Paddy Tipping and Vernon Coaker, and in addition to NRL's
executives had a number of County Council planning staff and a wide
range of representatives from environmental groups whom we'd invited
(notably the Ramblers and CPRE were there in force, plus the Notts
Wildlife Trust).

Here are my notes, with a Q&A at the end for readers who would like
more detail.

1. What is the estimated need for housing?

It's generally agreed that there will be a need for a significant
number of additional homes (probably 60-70,000) over the 20 years
from 2006-2026 (some of them have already been built, of course,
since we're now in 2008 – in Broxtowe alone, the number already
approved, built or under construction since 2006 is more than two
thousand).

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which contains these estimates is
currently being updated, and will be published next month. It's
expected to have a figure in the above range, and may propose figures
for each borough to share out the numbers. However, that's subject to
change – the boroughs can get together as they're doing, and propose
a different share-out. The RSS won't discuss any specific sites.

2. What will the NRL study do?

The NRL study that I've been lobbying to influence will look at
specific sites around the conurbation with a view to reducing the
number. Two dozen large ones and a number of smaller ones have been
proposed. It will list each one, and note advantages and
disadvantages of each. Some will have so many disadvantages that it
will be possible to rule them out without further ado. As you know,
this has always been my primary objective: to get the clearly
unreasonable proposals dismissed at an early stage, so we can forget
about them and get on with life. The NRL study will not approve any
sites, but simply note that some have fewer drawbacks than others.

They expect to finish the first part of this study in May, but are
likely to need further work to assess details. We can expect to see
it in full by September, though I hope to be able to get some
indications before then, probably by July. It will appears with notes
from the councils on issues and options to weigh up. If, for
instance, one site is brownfield but would cause traffic congestion,
while another is greenfield but has good transport, NRL won't try to
tell us which is best. There will then be extensive public
consultations on the choices.

3. What about communities?

An important new factor is that the Government expects all councils
to produce assessments of community viability before proceeding with
any new housing approach. This hasn't really been done before.

Let me give an example: the Toton development on part of the Army
depot site was a pretty good one in classic planning terms – it was
brownfield, near major shopping, and on a good bus route. But
although I supported it when it was built, I urged that there should
be a community centre with facilities for different age groups, and
that hasn't happened, so there really isn't as much community life as
there is in, say, Beeston.

Apart from leisure facilities, the Government wants to see a host of
other issues addressed as part of the process: school availability,
doctors, local employment, transport connections (e.g. new bus
routes) and access to green space (an important argument in our
context, as we want to protect such access for the communities
already in place). This will all slow down the process for those
sites not ruled out by the NRL study, since the developer won't just
have to show that the site is OK for housing, but that it fits with
the council's wider community concept.

4. What about stability?

I pointed out that it's only four years since the last time we fought
over the Watnall issue. How could we avoid going round the same
issues again every few years? They said the objective of planning
through to 2026 is to avoid that. Each council will be expected to
have a rolling five-year overview of which sites are coming up for
potential development, but only within the long-term framework, so if
an area is said to be unsuitable in the current review, it will stay
that way unless there are really major unforeseeable changes.

5. What next?

We agreed to meet again in September, by which time we should have
both the overall numbers and a pretty good idea of which areas are
still in question. I proposed that NRL should add to its governing
board a representative of the environmental groups who were present,
and they promised to look at doing that – apparently it has never
been suggested before, since up to now NRL has mainly been looking at
brownfield sites where environmental issues had been less prominent.
I also urged early publication of proposals (*before* the planners
had made up their minds what the wanted to do) so that there was the
maximum opportunity to debate them before anyone made up their minds:
the process so far had, I said, made a lot of people worried that
there would be a fait accompli and we would simply not accept that.

I hope this is helpful. Many thanks to everyone who helped get this
early meeting with NRL. Please see the Q&A below for when I'm likely
to be asking you to help with further action to protect the future of
our communities.

Best wishes

Nick

Q&A

What is the expected timeline? When can you next influence it?

APRIL 2008: Specific site planning applications expected in
Rushcliffe. If approved, these will take away a significant part of
the housing demand, but Rushcliffe will want to delay decisions if
possible to fit in the overall picture.

Announcement of short-list for eco-towns – this will tell us whether
the Rushcliffe proposal is still a possibility.

MAY 2008: Consultants' report on individual sites received by NRL
with pros and cons for each site. Councils assess it and draw up
issues for consultation, including initial outline of community
strategies.

Revised RSS study with overall numbers projection published.

3RD QUARTER 2008: Consultation on community strategies under way.
I'll report regularly on this as it emerges and let you know how and
where to give input.

Councils publish NRL report and initiate public consultation on
options for assessing specific sites. At this point, I'll be asking
you to mobilise to oppose anything we think unreasonable.

I'll report back from the further meeting with NRL.

4TH QUARTER 2008: By then we should know the decision on the tram,
which is likely to be relevant to the debate. The initial
consultations should be concluded.

2009: Possible specific planning applications for any sites that have
survived the process.

What sort of homes are needed? How is the figure arrived at?

The estimate is a demographic extrapolation of long-standing trends
in how long people live, the tendency to split up into smaller units,
and so on: the trend has been upwards, which is why we now have long
waiting-lists and people struggling to get on the housing ladder.
It's reflecting a number of different types of need, from the basic
accommodation (typically small flats) to get people out of near-
homelessness, to `starter homes' for couples, to family homes once
couples have children. It allows for the fact that some existing
homes (up to 6% in some areas) are currently vacant – councils are
keen to nudge people into filling them, but some are the wrong size
or in the wrong place for the need: an empty four-bedroom house in
Trowell doesn't help a couple starting out in Chilwell. The city will
take much of the growth, but some will need to spread around the
conurbation.

What are the main issues for our area?

The most controversial proposals in our area are Watnall-Kimberley-
Moorgreen (the Moorgreen Fair site and onwards up to the edge of
Moorgreen and Kimberley), Trowell/Stapleford/ Cossall (e.g. Field Farm
reaching up to the edge of Cossall), and Chilwell/Bramcote – e.g. the
area all around Bardills reaching up towards Bramcote Village) – see
my earlier updates for details. There is also a proposal near the
Nottingham Business Park off the B6002 which could have serious
consequences for Nuthall roundabout congestion (already horrific at
peak times).

The issues I've been raising on your behalf are principally these:

• Impact on green belt for leisure (walking, sports, etc.),
visual attractiveness and impact on wildlife

• Impact on traffic, with a knock-on effect on the environment –
the Nuthall Island is a particularly obvious problem, but there are
others too.

• Impact on flooding. This is particularly an issue with the
Field Farm and Chilwell proposals – building on flood plains and
disrupting water courses has very significant risks which I'm anxious
to ensure that NRL's study properly reflects

• Impact on local infrastructure and communities. See the
issues raised in point 3. In particular, Government policy is to
maintain Green Belt separation between Nottingham and Derby, and some
of the proposals would affect that quite strongly.

If there are issues which you feel I've overlooked, please let me
know!