Why do we need more housing? The East Midlands Regional Plan is still in force, which requires 510 houses to be built per annum between 2006 and 2026 Although the Regional Plan is soon to be revoked by the Localism Act, the latest Government’s projections which reflect past migration trends suggest there is a need for 584 houses per annum to be built up to 2028 To provide more up to date figures, a Housing Requirements Study for the Derby Housing Market area has been commissioned. It is likely that the figures produced by this study for Amber Valley will not be less than those required by the Regional Plan

How do we calculate how many Strategic Sites to allocate? Housing Requirement for the Borough, minus: All sites that have been granted planning permission since 2008 All undeveloped suitable allocated sites in the existing Local Plan An estimate of how many empty properties will be brought back into use by 2028 All smaller sites that have the potential to be suitable All brownfield sites that have the potential to be suitable for housing, including poor quality employment sites Vacant public houses and associated land, vacant upper floors to town centre properties etc.

Allocating strategic sites for housing The Core Strategy process Previously - All sites that individually or together could form a potential strategic site were chosen from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Consultation on Options for Housing Growth – July/September 2011 Now – Consultation on the potential of a new local settlement at Denby and ongoing technical work on identifying preferred sites Future – Identification of preferred sites for further consultation – Late Spring/early Summer 2012 Plan submitted to central government – late 2012* Examination by an Independent Inspector – early 2013* Adoption of the Plan – mid/late 2013* * Indicative dates

Why does the Core Strategy have to look as far ahead as 2028? Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) requires Local Planning Authorities to put in place policies and strategies to enable a continuous supply of housing for at least 15 years. Local authorities are required to meet and seek to exceed their housing targets

Why does the Core Strategy have to look as far ahead as 2028? cont.. Planning Policy Guidance Statement 12: “The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption” “Core strategies represent a considerable body of work and are intended to endure and give a degree of certainty to communities and investors. In particular they give a guide to where long term investment in infrastructure should be made”… “It is critical that core strategies are produced in a timely and efficient manner. This is essential for the supply of housing and other development to meet need”

What is the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)? Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing requires Local Development documents to be based upon the findings of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments Produced in 2008 following a ‘call for sites’. Renewed annually. Merely a long list of potential housing sites of all sizes, many of which have very little prospect of becoming allocated sites It is not a site allocations document Inclusion of a site in the SHLAA in no way implies any decision by the Council regarding its suitability. A site may have the potential to become a housing site, but there may be many reasons why it is not suitable and other sites are more suitable

Why can’t sites be removed from the SHLAA? CLG SHLAA Practice Guide 2007: “The primary role of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is to: Identify sites with potential for housing; Assess their housing potential; and Assess when they are likely to be developed It should aim to identify as many sites with housing potential in and around as many settlements as possible”

Why Can’t Sites be Removed from the SHLAA? cont … CLG SHLAA Practice Guide 2007: “Except for more clear-cut designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the scope of the Assessment should not be narrowed down by *existing policies designed to constrain development, so that the local planning authority is in the best possible position when it comes to decide its strategy for delivering its housing objectives” *The Green Belt and greenfield policies in the Local Plan are designed to constrain development

What would be the consequences of removing sites from consideration now? Threat of a legal challenge Could actively lead to a developer submitting a planning application, which if refused could be won on appeal It would be very difficult to convince an Inspector at examination that all options for housing growth had been thoroughly explored This would lead to the Core Strategy being found unsound, which would be very expensive for taxpayers and lead to more planning applications being submitted and won on appeal with no proper consideration of what are the most suitable sites

Why are no brownfield sites being considered at present? CLG Planning Policy Statement 12 requires that the Core Strategy only allocates large strategic housing sites (normally 500+) and progress “should not be held up by the inclusion of non strategic sites”. It is not a Site Allocations document. There are no vacant brownfield sites of this size available in the Borough However, those brownfield sites that are considered to be suitable will be allocated in a Site Allocations document that will be produced shortly after the Core Strategy. The amount of housing that can be provided from these brownfield sites will be subtracted from the total amount of housing that is required as determined by the Housing Requirements Study before deciding what strategic sites will be allocated in the Core Strategy.

Why don’t you consider brownfield sites first? We always consider brownfield sites first, and in the past 10 years 85% of the housing in Amber Valley has been provided on brownfield sites. It is due to this success that the number of vacant brownfield sites in the Borough is now very limited. Those brownfield sites we are aware of are being assessed, and the number of houses that these sites can provide up to 2028 will be taken account of when we decide how many strategic sites need to be allocated. We are in discussions with potential developers of sites such as Stevenson’s former Dye Works and Butterley Engineering

What can we do about sites that have permission but have not yet been developed? Not in the control of the Local Planning Authority However, there is the opportunity to re-negotiate when permissions come up for renewal However, to not renew a permission would only increase the demand to allocate other land for housing and it would be highly likely that the site promoter would win an appeal against the refusal of permission

Conclusion The Council has always had a policy of allocating brownfield land first – to not do so would be contrary to existing national policy No decisions have been taken as to how much housing is required and what strategic housing sites should come forward as preferred sites To take any sites out of consideration until all sites have been properly considered would be in breach of government guidance, it would leave the Council open to a legal challenge and could lead to the Core Strategy being found unsound