east midlands councils executive board meeting board papers 23 september 2011.… · east midlands...
TRANSCRIPT
East Midlands Councils Executive Board Meeting Friday 23rd September 2011, 10.00am
Guthlaxton Room, Leicestershire County Council
AGENDA
Page No
1. Apologies
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting held on 17th June 2011 1
4. Sector Improvement and Self Regulation in the East Midlands (Joint paper with LGID) 7
5. EM Improvement and Efficiency Partnership Board Report 11
6. EMC Regional Employers’ Board Report 14
7. EMC Strategic Migration Partnership Board Report 18
8. Local Government and the Growth Agenda: Presentation by Mark Carroll, DCLG
9. National Planning Policy Framework: Agreement of EMC Consultation Response 22
10. Local Government Resource Review and implications for the East Midlands Presentation by Paul Raynes, Local Government Group
11. Campaign for Midland Mainline Electrification and enhancement 36
12. Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change 50
13. EMC Governance: District Representation
14. EMC Review: Process and Timescales
15. Management Group Papers 53
16. Any other Business (previously notified to Chair)
17. Date of Next Meeting: 16th December 2011
Item 3
1
EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17TH JUNE 2011
AT LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Present: Cllr David Parsons CBE (Chair) – Leicestershire County Council Cllr Roger Begy OBE – Rutland County Council
Cllr Neil Clarke – Rushcliffe Borough Council Cllr Martin Hill OBE – Lincolnshire County Council
Cllr Ernie White – Blaby District Council Cllr Lewis Rose OBE – Derbyshire Dales District Council
Cllr Martin Suthers – Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Andrew Lewer – Derbyshire County Council
Cllr Chris Millar – Daventry District Council Cllr Philip Hickson – Derby City Council Cllr Joan Kirkbride – Northamptonshire County Council
Cllr Fiona Martin – EMC Liberal Democrat Group
Cllr Robert Parker- EMC Labour Group Cllr Michael Rook – Harborough District Council David Kennedy – Northampton Borough Council
Professor David Walker – NHS East Midlands Jan Sensier – East Midlands Councils Andrew Pritchard – East Midlands Councils
Alison Neal – East Midlands Councils Sarah Short – East Midlands Councils Lisa Hopkins – East Midlands Councils (Minutes)
Apologies Cllr Jon Collins (Vice-Chair) – Nottingham City Council Cllr Kay Cutts – Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Jim Harker - Northamptonshire County Council Sir Peter Soulsby – Leicester City Council Cllr Gary Porter – South Holland District Council
Tony Favell – Peak District National Park Cllr Jeremy Webb – EMC Independent Group
Steve Atkinson – Chief Executive, Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Jane Todd – Chief Executive, Nottingham City Council John Sinnott – Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council
Item 3
2
ACTION
1. Apologies and Introductions
1.1
1.2
Cllr David Parsons CBE welcomed Members to the meeting.
Apologies were received as noted above.
2. Declarations of Interest
2.1
None.
3. Minutes of Executive Board Meeting held on 18th March 2011 & Matters
Arising
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
The minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record.
The future of ERDF Administration in the East Midlands
Chris Millar stated that the District Leaders had indicated support for Cllr Lewis Rose
for the position of Deputy Chair of the ERDF Local Management Group.
Jan Sensier confirmed that each LEP had been asked to nominate a representative
which she had only received one nomination by the deadline. CLG have now moved
to a more formal process and Jan will forward the information to Cllr Rose.
JS
4. East Midlands Councils Governance Review
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Jan Sensier, Executive Director East Midland Councils, introduced this report.
Jan confirmed that the EMC Management Group had discussed and agreed the
proposals included within the report.
Cllr Neil Clarke introduced appendix 1 in relation to increased District representation
on the Executive Board.
Whilst the importance of effective district representation was recognised, a number of
concerns were expressed about the Executive Board becoming too large to function
effectively. After some discussion, was agreed to establish a small working group to
develop proposals for district representation for further discussion.
Resolution:
� Members endorsed no changes to the composition of East Midlands Councils;
JS to arrange
Item 3
3
ACTION
� Members endorsed no changes to the composition of the Executive Board at
this stage, but agreed to establish a working group comprising Cllr Parsons,
Cllr Collins and Cllr Clarke to consider district representation and make
proposals for further discussion;
� Members endorsed new terms of reference for the Management Group at
Annex 2 which include the addition of the vice chair as a member of the group.
� Members endorsed no changes to the Strategic Migration, Regional Employers
Board and East Midlands Improvement and Efficiency Boards other than the
annual refresh of membership;
� Members endorsed disbanding the European and International Board but
creating instead a sounding group;
� Members endorsed establishing the new role of Member Champion with Cllr
Jim Harker asked to take this role on the issue of Strategic Infrastructure.
5. EM Improvement and Efficiency Partnership Board Report
5.1
5.2
5.3
Cllr Martin Hill OBE introduced the EM IEP Board Report.
He noted that £2million of funding is still to be allocated. Another bidding process is
being arranged.
Resolution:
� Members noted the contents of the report.
� Members approved the revised Terms of Reference for the EM IEP Board that
reflects their role in sector led support.
6. EMC Regional Employers’ Board Report
6.1
6.2
6.3
Jan Sensier, Executive Director East Midlands Councils, introduced this report.
In relation to Conditions of Service, it was confirmed that Sam Maher, Director of HR
& Councillor Development, has held a meeting with HR Directors.
Resolution:
� Members noted the contents of this report.
7. EMC Strategic Migration Partnership Board Report
7.1
Sarah Short, HR & Development Manger East Midlands Councils, introduced this
report.
Item 3
4
ACTION
7.2
7.3
7.4
She stated that a key concern of the SMP Board was the impact of cuts to funding for
‘English for Speakers of Other Languages’ (ESOL) services. As a result, the Executive
was asked to endorse the ‘Action of ESOL Campaign’
Following discussion members asked for further information prior to endorsement for
the support of Action for ESOL Campaign
Resolution:
� Members noted this report.
� Members asked for further information prior to endorsement for the support
of Action for ESOL Campaign.
SS
8. HS2 – an East Midlands Councils response to the consultation
8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4
Andrew Pritchard, Director of Strategy East Midlands Councils, introduced this report. Following a wide ranging discussion, the Executive Board voted not to endorse the draft EMC response to the HS2 consultation set out in Appendix 2 of the report, as it did not fully reflect the concerns of Members about the:
� strength of the business case for HS2; � impact HS2 could have on investment in existing transport infrastructure; and � need for EMC not to support or oppose the principle of HS2, but to focus on
key issues of common concern. Cllr Philip Hickson proposed that the answers to questions 2 and 3 of the draft response should be amended to reflect these concerns. Members voted in favour of this proposal. Cllr David Parsons CBE abstained from the vote. Resolution:
� Members endorsed the draft EMC response to the HS2 consultation set out in Appendix 2 of the report, subject to amendment of the answers to questions 2 and 3.
AP
9. An Update on Housing and Planning Reform
9.1
9.3
Andrew Pritchard, Director of Strategy East Midlands Councils introduced this report.
Resolution:
� Members endorsed an EMC consultation response objecting to the
Government’s proposals to allow employment premises to be converted to
housing without the grant of planning permission based on the concerns set
Item 3
5
ACTION
out in paragraphs 2.2-2.4 of the report;
� Members endorsed the actions EMC is taking to support local planning and
housing authorities;
� Members endorsed the allocation of £154,900 to Efficiency East Midlands from
the Housing Policy Implementation and Delivery Fund; and
� Members noted the rest of the report
10. Health Reforms – and update on the responses to the Listening Exercise
and Next Steps
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
Professor David Walker gave Members a verbal update on the Government’s Health
Reforms
The NHS Futures Forum report is due to be published on 20 June 2011 and Professor
Walker highlighted some of the emerging key points.
The NHS Bill will now go to the Lords in October 2011. The Secretary of State will
retain responsibility and ultimate accountability for the NHS. Strategic Health
Authorities are to be retained until April 2013 to oversee the transition, however these
are to be reduced from ten to four by October 2011.
Resolution
� Members noted the key points in EMC’s response to the Listening Exercise on
NHS Reform
� Members noted the rest of the report
11. East Midlands Councils and West Midlands Councils – Opportunities for
Collaboration
11.1
11.2
11.3
Jan Sensier, Executive Director East Midlands Councils, introduced this report.
Jan informed Members that West Midlands Councils are keen to invite East Midlands
Councils Members to a reception being held at the LGA Conference. Jan agreed to
email details to Members.
Resolution:
� Members noted the report and agreed to provide any further steer for this
work as it develops
JS
12. Resource Review
12.1
Andrew Pritchard, Director of Strategy East Midlands Councils, introduced this report.
Item 3
6
ACTION
12.2
12.3
Members requested a presentation from Steven Jones on business rate re-localisation
for the next meeting.
Resolution:
� Members noted the contents of the report.
� Members requested a presentation from Steven Jones on business rate re-
localisation for the next meeting
JS
13. Any Other Business (previously notified to the Chair)
13.1
13.2
13.3
Bombardier contract
Cllr Philip Hickson expressed concerns that the Government have awarded the
£1.4billion Thameslink contract to Siemens rather than to the Derby based firm of
Bombardier This could result in major redundancies across the East Midlands. Cllr
Hickson has requested an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the
situation.
Resolution:
� Members agreed that East Midlands Councils send a letter to the Prime
Minister backing calls for a meeting with Derby City Council.
� Members agreed that East Midlands Councils should issue a Press Release in
support of the City Council’s position and highlighting the implications for the
East Midlands.
JS
Item 4
7
SECTOR SELF REGULATION AND SELF IMPROVEMENT IN THE EAST
MIDLANDS
Summary
This paper sets out proposals for how local authorities in the East Midlands can
develop a system of self regulation and sector led improvement to support the drive
towards excellence in local service delivery and local leadership.
Recommendation
Members of the Management Group are invited to consider the issues and agree the
recommendations set out in the report as follows:
• Endorse the intelligence sources and escalation routeways identified in
section 2
• Consider the options in section 3 and give a steer in any they wish to take
forward.
Item 4
8
1. Background
1.1 Following representations from the Local Government Group via its “Freedom
to Lead” campaign, the coalition government has abolished many of the tools
set up by the previous administration to monitor local authority performance,
including the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), Local Area Agreements
(LAAs) and the Places Survey. Those bodies responsible for implementing
these tools have also been abolished including Government Offices and the
Audit Commission.
1.2 On 25 August 2010, the Department for Communities and Local Government wrote to all local authorities stating that the Secretary of State believes that
the local government sector should have responsibility for its own improvement needs, and therefore supporting the Local Government Group’s proposals that there should be a single top slice of the Revenue Support
Grant to help achieve this. One of the key objectives to achieve with this allocation is a single system of self-regulation, not expensive silo improvement
1.3 Following this, the Local Government Group conducted a widespread
consultation to develop its “Taking the Lead” programme, based on three
underlying principles:
� Principle 1: Councils are responsible for their own
performance
� Principle 2: Councils are accountable to their local
communities
� Principle 3: Councils have collective responsibility for the
performance of the sector
1.4 At the same time. East Midlands Councils has been developing its Regional
Improvement and Efficiency legacy programme designed to build on the work
of the past three years in supporting councils to improve, and to add value to
the national offer. The EMC Executive Director and the Local Government
Group Principal Adviser have been working closely to eliminate duplication
and ensure coherence between the two programmes. In addition, the terms
of reference for the RIEP Board have been strengthened, particularly
highlighting the role of the RIEP in supporting self regulation.
1.5 Local Government Group together with EMC have held two events on 20 July
and 19 September to promote the new offer and the additional support of the
East Midlands RIEP, and to discuss with representatives from authorities
across the East Midlands how best we can support each other in taking
forward sector improvement and self regulation.
Item 4
9
2. Sharing intelligence in the East Midlands
2.1 One of the key issues discussed at these events is the identification of
councils potentially in difficulty, or in danger of “coasting”. There are a
number of potential sources of intelligence to aid this identification and these
include:
� Councils identifying themselves that they are struggling
� Inspection or audit report
� Performance data where available
� Neighbouring councils identifying potential cause for concern
� Results of peer challenge highlighting issues
� Political intelligence via Local Government Group’s political peer
reviewers
� Political intelligence via EMC’s political group leaders
� RIEP Board members identifying issues through RIEP programmes or
delivery issues
� Intelligence from Local Government Group’s Principal Adviser for the
East Midlands, including feedback from LGG’s Performance Support
Panel
� Discussions with EMC Executive Director
� Information from the delivery of EMC services in councils
2.2 It will be important to use all these sources as appropriate to identify when to
escalate concerns and when to provide support to the authorities in question.
It is important to emphasise that it is the role of neither Local Government
Group nor EMC to “police” the system, but rather to help the sector support
itself through collaboration and peer challenge. To this end, once there is
clear evidence of concern, it is suggested that the following routeways are
used to support this:
� RIEP Board Chair, RIEP Officer’s steering group chair, EMC Executive
Director and LGG Principal Adviser at their quarterly meetings prior to
RIEP Boards to review intelligence received and consider appropriate
action, if any
� Where appropriate, RIEP Board alerted and RIEP funds requested to
support improvement activity
� Where political routes appropriate, EMC Management Group alerted
and political peer support requested, including via the LGG Principal
Adviser and LGG’s Lead Political Peers
� Major issues affecting numbers of councils, or where there are major
concerns with one council, issues are escalated to the EMC Executive
Board.
� LGG Principal Adviser to request national support through LGG
Performance Support Panel where appropriate.
Item 4
10
Recommendation 1: Members are asked to endorse the use of the
intelligence resources listed in 2.1 above, and the escalation
routeways listed in 2.2 above.
3. Role of EMC in promoting self regulation
3.1 Whilst the Local Government Group and East Midlands RIEP legacy
programme between them have a comprehensive package of support for
local authorities, one major difference from previous top-down systems is
that take up is voluntary. At the events held in Nottingham, delegates asked
questions about steps to be taken where a council chooses not to engage.
Members are asked to consider to what extent they want EMC to promote the
engagement of councils in the East Midlands in these processes. Options for
taking this forward include:
o An annual conversation with each council to discuss performance and
capacity to meet the challenges ahead. This could be through a peer
Leader and Chief Executive, supported by EMC and the LGG Principal
Advisers
o A regular roundtable discussion potentially using the RIEP officer and
member groups to discuss performance, capacity and reputation of
councils across the East Midlands, identifying opportunities for mutual
support and collaboration
o Targeted conversations with those authorities not engaging in support
tools to identify why, and whether this is an indication of concern.
Recommendation 2: Members are asked to consider the above
options and give a steer on any they wish to be taken forward.
Jan Sensier Mark Edgell
Executive Director LGG Principal Adviser
Item 5
11
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
EAST MIDLANDS IMPROVEMENT AND EFFICIENCY PARTNERSHIP REPORT
Synopsis
This report provides an update on the work of the EM IEP Board.
Recommendation
Members note the contents of this report.
12
1. Progress 1.1 At the EMC AGM, on 22nd July, EMC members were provided with a summary of how
the EMIEP has met the challenge of supporting local authorities across the East Midlands to improve service delivery and generate efficiencies during 2010/11.
1.2 EMC members were also informed of the progress of commissioning the EMIEP Legacy
Programme 2011/13, which is now integrated into EMC. The EMIEP Board next meet
on 14th October 2011, where they will be addressing a number of issues raised at their Board meeting on 7th July and finalising the legacy programme. The following bullet points provide an overview of the EMIEP Board’s agenda for 14th October:
• The Board will receive progress reports on the delivery of the approved legacy projects/programmes with a sanding agenda item for one of the regional programmes to present directly to the Board at each meeting. In addition the Board will also receive a presentation from Kettering BC to showcase their ‘best practice’ in improving service delivery / delivering efficiency savings
• The Board will receive a presentation on the EM Jobs Portal, developed through national RIEP funding. The aim of the presentation is to outline the current functionality of the Portal and the proposed developments of the associate improvement advisor and talent pool functionality, which will be funded through
additional ring-fenced (£35k) under spend from the national RIEP LIA programme
• Four sub regional efficiency projects were asked to resubmit bids in July/Aug through the EMIEP Board’s scheme of delegation. The four revised bids that have been approved will be presented to the Board for endorsement. The Board will also be reviewing their scheme of delegation to reflect their strengthened role in sector led support
• The Board requested a review of member development support across the region to ascertain whether additional support is required through the EMIEP to ensure that there is consistency of provision across the region
• At their meeting on 7th July the EMIEP Board approved the framework for the Sector Led Improvement and Business Transformation Programmes. During July and August EMIEP have been consulting on the activities that will ‘shape’ these programmes. The Board will be reviewing the outcome of the consultation to inform their decision on the investment into these activities
• The Board will receive the first draft of the ‘New Ways of Working’ - a review of EM LAs responses to the central government grant reductions – Report, for review and comment. The Report will be presented to Members and Chief Executives from across the region at the ‘New Ways of Working’ event to be held at Pera on 29th November 2011.
• The Board will receive the EMIEP final accounts and Audit Report for 2010/11
13
2. Recommendation
Members note the contents of this report
Key contacts
Cllr Martin Hill OBE
Chair of the EM IEP Board
Nick Hodgson
Chair of the EM IEP Officer Steering Group
Jan Sensier Executive Director of the EMC
Item 6
14
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
REGIONAL EMPLOYERS’ BOARD REPORT
Summary
This paper updates Members on the work of East Midlands Councils’ Regional Employers’
Board.
Recommendation
Members of the Executive Board are invited to note this report.
Item 6
15
1. Introduction
1.1 The Regional Employers’ Board leads the development of employment issues and
forms the Employer’s side of the Regional Joint Council. This report updates
members on the progress and work of the Board to date.
2. Background
2.1 The Terms of Reference for the Employers’ Board were agreed in February 2010.
East Midlands Councils endorsed the continuation of the Employers’ Board at its
AGM in July 2010.
2.2 At East Midlands Councils’ AGM, Cllr Ian Fleetwood from Lincolnshire County
Council was elected as Chair of the Employers’ Board with Cllr Ken Savidge from
North East Derbyshire District Council as Vice-Chair.
2.3 The Board is comprised of 15 members:
� Cllr Ian Fleetwood - Lincolnshire County Council (Chair)
� Cllr Ken Savidge - North East Derbyshire District
Council (Vice Chair)
� Cllr Ted Webster-Williams - Blaby DC
� Cllr David Sprason - Leicestershire CC
� Cllr Simon Spencer - Derbyshire Dales DC
� Cllr Robert Parkinson - Erewash BC
� Cllr Mary Malin - Kettering BC
� Cllr Tony Roberts MBE - Newark and Sherwood DC
� Cllr Brian Montgomery - Rutland CC
� Cllr David Bill - Hinckley & Bosworth
� Cllr Fiona Martin MBE - East Lindsey DC
� Cllr Graham Oxby - Bassetlaw DC
� Cllr John Knight - Ashfield DC
� Cllr Kevin Richards - South Derbyshire DC
� Cllr Ric Metcalf - Lincoln City
3. Employers’ Board Meetings
3.1 Since the last report to the Executive, the Regional Employers’ Board has met
once, on 13th June 2011. At the meeting, the Board received a report from the
Director of HR & Councillor Development giving key information on developments
at European and national level in employment legislation and conditions of
service. The report also summarised activities of East Midlands Councils to
Item 6
16
support local authorities across the region on workforce and councilor
development issues.
3.2 At this meeting, the Board received information on the Member Development
Programme which had been provided to authorities on a sub-regional basis for
councilors in authorities in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. The evaluation of
the programme had been particularly positive and the Board recommended the
programme should be provided across the region. It is therefore being
presented to the REIP Board for consideration as part of its sector-led
programme of support.
4. Regional Joint Council
4.1 The Joint Council is formed by the Employers’ Board and Joint Trades Unions.
Since the last report to the Executive, the Regional Joint Council met on 13th
June 2011. Leicester City Council gave a presentation on how they had achieved
significant savings in relation to the use of agency workers at the authority.
4.2 Mike Brown, Unison, has recently been appointed as the new regional secretary
for the joint trade union side of the Joint Council.
4.3 The Secretaries to the Regional Joint Council have been asked to provide support
relating to a formal dispute which has been registered at an authority in the
region concerning changing terms and conditions of service.
5. National Association of Regional Employers
5.1 The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Regional Employers’ Board attend the meetings
of the National Association of Regional Employers. The meetings enable regional
employers’ organisations from across the country to share practice, information
and resources and to discuss developments on employment matters, including
pay, at national and European level.
5.2 At the meeting on 17th June 2011, an update was provided by Sarah Messenger,
Head of Workforce at the Local Government Group on the revised structures and
resources at national level following the organisation’s recent review. The
reduction in resources to support local authorities on employment and workforce
issues is likely to increase demand for support within regional employers’
organisations.
6. National Pay Developments
6.1 The Director of HR & Councillor Development at East Midlands Councils has been
attending meetings with counterparts from other regions and the negotiating
Item 6
17
teams from the Local Government Group to discuss the approach to national pay
negotiations for 2012, given the context of no pay awards being offered in local
government through national agreements for the last two years.
6.2 A meeting will be hosted on 28th November 2011 by East Midlands Councils to
enable leading councillors, Chief Executives and HR Directors of local authorities
in the region to meet with the national negotiating team to provide input and
views on pay which will be used to inform negotiations over the forthcoming
year.
7. Supporting Professional Development
7.1 This year’s programme of low-cost continuing professional development for
environmental health officers has continued its success of previous years, with
100% of councils with environmental health responsibilities participating in the
programme. The model is now being rolled out to planning professionals, and
seminars offered to date have been extremely well-attended.
8. East Midlands Jobs
8.1 The recruitment portal, East Midlands Jobs, enables Councils to improve and
create efficiencies within their recruitment and selection processes. East
Midlands Jobs is a one-stop website which enables candidates to search for
public sector jobs in the East Midlands. East Midlands Jobs was promoted at a
Jobs Fair held in Derby on 14th September 2011, resulting in over 200
expressions of interest in the portal from job seekers.
8.3 A free seminar is also being held on 20th September, to promote the portal to
other public sector employers who are considering how to recruit quality staff in
a cost-effective way. The seminar will include a case study from Leicestershire
County Council to highlight the benefits they have realised from the portal.
Increasing the number of organisations which use the portal is important to
make the portal cost-effective and financially sustainable in the future. 12 local
authorities in the region are currently using East Midlands Job, with two further
councils soon to participate.
9. Recommendations
8.1 Members of the Executive Board are invited to note the contents of the report.
Sam Maher
Director HR & Councillor Development
Item 7
18
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
EAST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC MIGRATION PARTNERSHIP BOARD REPORT
Summary
This report updates Members on the work of East Midlands Strategic Migration
Partnership Board for the period from May 2011-August 2011
Recommendation
� Members of the Executive Board are invited to note this report.
Item 7
19
1. Introduction
1.1 The East Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership (EMSMP) provides a regional
advisory, development and consultation function for member organisations from
the statutory, voluntary, community and private sectors - for the co-ordination
and provision of advice, support and services for migrants.
1.2 East Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership is funded partly by the United
Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) Enabling Grant. The East Midlands Strategic
Migration Partnership is one of eleven UK partnerships.
1.3 This report updates members on the progress and work to date of the Board.
2. Background
2.1 The East Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership has been in existence since
2007. In April 2010 it became a Board of East Midlands Councils.
2.2 Cllr Simon Galton from Leicestershire County Council chairs the EMSMP Board
with Cllr Geoff Stevens from Derbyshire Dales District Council as Vice-Chair.
2.3 The Board is comprised of 4 members:
� Councillor Simon Galton Leicestershire County Council (Chair)
� Councillor Geoff Stevens Derbyshire Dales (Vice Chair)
� Councillor Peter Robinson Lincolnshire County Council
� Councillor Paul Kenny Boston Borough Council
2.4 Our key partners at the moment represented on the EMSMP Board and standing
sub-groups are:
Local Authorities Public Health Police
EMC Jobcentre Plus ACAS
UKBA Priority Properties One East Midlands
Refugee Support TUC
Refugee Action NIACE
2.5 Others, including service users, attend our general stakeholder forum, ad-hoc
and occasional sub-groups and workshops.
Item 7
20
3. East Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership Board
3.3 3.1 The Board last met on 17th May. The date of the next meeting is 12th
October 2011. The task groups which support the work of the Board are meeting
during September.
3.4 Current planned activity includes a series of workshops supported by UKBA,
ACAS and Jobcentreplus to support small and medium businesses to employ
migrants legally, a presentation to the East Midlands Strategic Housing Group on
the implications of the Localism Bill and service users who have No Recourse to
Public Funds and the launch of an online tool to support health professionals
deliver services to migrants.
3.5 Following the Executive Board in June, Cllr Galton wrote to all East Midlands
Councils Executive board Members asking their views on supporting the Action
for ESOL Campaign. To date no replies have been received.
4. Work Programme and Key Priorities for 2011/12
4.1 The key priorities for 2011/12 are:
� To consolidate the position of EMSMP as the lead body on all aspects of
international migration across the East Midlands.
� In order to deliver the core objectives of the enabling function outlined in the
Enabling Grant Agreement (EGA), the EMSMP team will undertake a number
of key work objectives. Our core aims for the year are:
a) Work to support UKBA to promote returns for those no longer entitled to
remain in the UK.
b) Work with partners to provide accurate and timely information to those
seeking financial support and compliance with the process.
c) Work to dispel any myths around the asylum process with
agencies and the public.
d) To support agencies in referring vulnerable children and adults to
the correct agencies for advice and support.
e) To continue to develop relationships between the EMSMP and UKBA at a
regional and national level.
Item 7
21
f) The development of an online toolkit to support practitioners working
with migrants. The toolkit has been developed with funding obtained
from the Department of Health and has received positive feedback from
practitioners who have been involved in the early stages of
development. It is envisaged that the toolkit will be launched at an
event in September.
g) The impact of the UKBA decision to withdraw from previous
accommodation contract arrangements in the West Midlands and
managing the consequent impact on local authorities and service
providers in the East Midlands.
h) To monitor the impact the end of the transitional arrangements of A8
country migrants will have on migration in the East Midlands
i) The conclusion of the recent survey into migrant destitution
In addition, discussions are taking place with UKBA about the future of Strategic
Migration Partnerships when the current funding period comes to an end in March
2012. A final decision about the future of the enabling grant that supports the
EMSMP is expected in September. Following a recent meeting with the UKBA
Regional Director, early indications are that funding will be continued albeit with a
reduction in the overall grant. UKBA will exercise more control of funding than has
been the case to date with also the potential for increased partnership working with
the West Midlands and East of England Strategic Migration Partnerships. Officers
are currently preparing a report for UKBA on the role that East Midlands Councils
can play in shaping future work on migration issues.
5. Recommendations
5.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
Sarah Short
HR & Development Manager
Item 9
22
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:
AGREEMENT OF EMC CONSULTATION RESPONSE
Summary
This report summarises the Government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) and sets out a draft EMC response to the consultation.
Recommendation
The Executive Board is invited to:
� Endorse the proposed EMC response to the NPPF consultation set out in Appendix
1 of this report, subject to any amendments agreed by Members, and in addition;
� Send the final agreed response to the DCLG Select Committee as written evidence
for the forthcoming inquiry into the NPPF
Item 9
23
1. Introduction
1.1 This report summarises key aspects of the Government’s Draft National Planning
Policy Framework (NPFF) and sets out a proposed EMC response for the
consideration of Members.
2. The Draft NPPF
2.1 The NPPF is designed to replace the current system of Planning Policy Statements
and Planning Policy Guidance Notes, and some (but by no means all) existing
Circulars and letters to Chief Planning Officers. National Policy Statements for
strategic infrastructure will remain separate from the NPPF. The final NPPF will
also replace Regional Strategies as the basis against which local plans are to be
assessed for ‘conformity’ purposes.
• The full draft of the NPPF is available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf
• The DCLG Impact Assessment on the draft NPPF is available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951736.pdf
• Interim Guidance from the Planning Inspectorate on the draft NPPF is available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/advice_for_inspectors/nppf_consult.pdf
2.2 The proposal to establish the NPPF originated in the Conservative Party’s Green
Paper ‘Open Source Planning’ and featured prominently in the Coalition
Government’s ‘Plan for Growth’ published in March 2011. The ‘Plan for Growth’
highlighted reform of the planning system as a major element of the Government’s
approach to stimulating economic recovery. Earlier this year, a Government
appointed ‘Practitioners Advisory Group’ (PAG) published a suggested draft of the
NPPF. This has been used as the basis for the Government’s ‘official’ draft, which
was published for 12 weeks public consultation in July 2010.
2.3 The Draft NPPF is basically a simple précis of existing planning policy, but with
some important changes designed to liberalise planning controls outside of
statutory environmental designations. Central to this approach is the introduction
of a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which is proposed as the
‘golden thread’ running through all aspects of the planning system. As a result,
the Government’s stated intention is that in future, the default answer to
development should be ‘yes’ (although under the present system, well over 80% of
applications are granted – 88% in the East Midlands in the quarter to March 2011).
Item 9
24
2.4 Reaction to the Draft NPPF has been mixed. It has been broadly welcomed by
business interests and the development industry, but vehemently opposed by
many environmental groups, in particular the National Trust and the CPRE, and
some national newspapers, in particular the Daily Telegraph. At times the public
debate between opponents of the NPPF and Ministers has become acrimonious.
2.5 There is no doubt that Draft NPPF gives greater weight to economic considerations
in making planning decisions than current policy, and that it will make it harder for
councils to refuse development or impose planning conditions, particularly in the
absence of an adopted local plan. The extent to which these changes will deliver
the kind of development that both local communities and wider country needs is
less certain. Nor is it clear that the changes to the planning system proposed are in
themselves capable of stimulating the kind of long term economic recovery that
the Government wants.
3. Proposed EMC Consultation Response
3.1 The proposed EMC consultation response is set out in Appendix 1 has been
informed by an ongoing dialogue with local authority planning officers from across
the region, and highlights a number of concerns of particular relevance to local
communities in the East Midlands.
3.2 The DCLG Select Committee has also announced an inquiry into the NPPF. As a
result, it is proposed to submit the final version of the EMC consultation response
to the Select Committee as written evidence.
4. Recommendations
4.1 The Executive Board is invited to:
• Endorse the proposed EMC response to the draft NPPF consultation set out in
Appendix 1 of this report, subject to any amendments agreed by Members, and
in addition;
• Send the agreed final response to the DCLG Select Committee as written
evidence for the forthcoming inquiry into the NPPF.
Andrew Pritchard
Director of Policy & Infrastructure
Item 9, Appendix 1
25
Draft EMC Response to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework 1 General Comments 1.1 The draft NPPF represents a simple précis of existing planning policy
currently set out in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs), with some important changes that are discussed in more detail below. However, the proposed function of the document raises a number of more general concerns about the form and content of the current draft.
Other national policy The consultation document states that the NPPF will cancel all existing PPSs and PPGs, but also 2 Circulars and 15 letters to Chief Planning Officers (CPOs). However, this still leaves 34 Circulars and 36 CPO letters apparently extant according to the DCLG web-site. It will be important that the final NPPF is clear not just about those Circulars/CPO letters that have been cancelled, but the status and purpose of those that remain. A full list of National Policy Statements for infrastructure should also be included.
Localism verses de-regulation The term ‘localism’ is not mentioned at all in the draft NPPF. The dominant ethos appears to be one of de-regulation, albeit within the context of a plan-led system. At times, the draft also appears more prescriptive than the policy statements it aims to replace. For example, by attempting to limit the grounds on which planning permission can be refused through the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and by adding an extra 20% to the requirement for a 5 year supply of available housing land. The gap between the Government’s rhetoric on localism and the reality of the NPPF is likely to lead to conflict in many local communities across the East Midlands.
Understanding the collective impact of the NPPF Whilst is accepted that the NPPF does not constitute a plan or programme under the EU SEA Directive and therefore does not require a formal appraisal under the SEA regulations, it is designed to have a powerful impact on local planning decisions particularly in the absence of an adopted local plan. As with National Policy Statements for major infrastructure, some form of ‘appraisal of sustainability’ should be undertaken on the impact of the document as a whole – not just the highlighted policy changes set out in the accompanying ‘impact assessment’. This would help ensure greater internal coherence (the key benefit of combining previously separate policy statements into one document), and highlight the extent to which the Government’s aspirations for the NPPF can realistically be met through current policies.
Item 9, Appendix 1
26
Greenfield verses brownfield Related to the previous point, the draft NPPF removes all targets and apparently any priority for the re-use of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land. Whilst protection for greenbelts and statutory environmental designations appear to remain largely intact, the net effect of the NPPF is likely to be an increase in greenfield development elsewhere. The resulting impacts on the natural environment, food production and patterns of development and movement could have significant impacts for local communities which should be acknowledged and better understood by the NPPF.
Definitions and terminology The NPPF is a significantly shorter than the collective length of the documents it will replace, resulting in a general reduction in detail and specificity. As a result, the draft is littered with qualifications to policy statements such as ‘where appropriate’, ‘where practicable’, ‘proportionate’ and ‘normally’, with little discussion as to how and in what circumstances these terms would apply. Whilst this may be intended to give flexibility to decision makers, it will also introduce a further element of uncertainty into the planning system until precedents are set through EiPs, the appeals process or in some cases by the courts. As a result, there will still be a need for additional guidance to be produced on different aspects of the NPPF, if not by Government then by other appropriate bodies.
2 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (PFSD) 2.1 The PFSD is described as the ‘golden thread’ running through both plan
making and decision making. Planning must encourage growth and not act as an impediment. As a result, the draft NPPF requires planning authorities should approve proposals that accord with the local plan without delay, and grant permission where the plan in silent or out of date:
‘…unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as whole’.
2.2 Taken at face value, this would appear to indicate that the only basis for
taking a planning decision will be the local plan and the NPPF. However, this is clearly inconsistent with Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, which requires to local planning authorities to have regard to ‘other material considerations’ as well as the plan. The NPPF will be a strong material consideration - but not the only one. There will be many other considerations that could be material to a given decision, not least one or more the remaining 34 Circulars and 36 CPO letters. To avoid
Item 9, Appendix 1
27
confusion, the section describing the PFSD should be redrafted to fully reflect the legal basis for making planning decisions.
2.3 Leaving aside legal issues, on a practical level it may be very difficult to
prove that any individual proposal would significantly conflict with the NPFF, given the breadth and generality of the current draft. Whether or not this is the intention of Government, the proposed primacy of the of the NPPF when the plan is silent will place pressure for local planning authorities to include plan policies that cover all eventualities – which may slow the plan making process down and lead to less succinct documents.
3 Conformity with the NPPF 3.1 Local Plans will be required to be in conformity with the NPPF. This will
be one of the tests of soundness considered at Examinations in Public. It will also be open for local planning authorities to seek a ‘certificate of conformity’ with the NPPF. This appears to be optional (presumably aimed at those authorities that already have an adopted plan under the current regime), but similar to the arrangement by which Regional Planning Bodies were required to give a ‘statement of general conformity’ for emerging LDF documents based on the RSS.
3.2 Whilst there is some logic to this proposal, it also raises a number of
questions. In particular:
• Who will issue the certificate and how will conformity be assessed? It may be difficult for a Whitehall based civil servant to fully understand the local circumstances that led to the development of the adopted core strategies for Leicester or South Kesteven, for example.
• Will the test apply to individual policies or to whole documents? It may be difficult for any existing core strategy to demonstrate complete conformity with all aspects of the NPPF.
• What happens if all or part of an adopted plan is not granted a certificate of conformity? Is the plan ‘down graded’ as a result?
• Similarly, will adopted plans that have a certificate of conformity have a higher status than those that do not?
3.3 Without some clarification on these issues there is a danger of conflict with
local councils and communities leading to further uncertainty in the planning system. More generally, greater consideration should be given to transitional arrangements to prevent further delays to the pace of developing local development documents.
Item 9, Appendix 1
28
4 Housing 4.1 Whilst Ministers have made much of the removal the national housing
target and the proposed removal of local housing targets set out in Regional Strategies, the NPPF is clear that the Government wants to see a ‘significant increase in the delivery of new homes’. But what is meant by a ‘significant increase’, and between what periods should delivery be assessed to determine a figure? Without any metrics, the Government’s ambition lacks any meaning.
4.2 Although the thrust of the NPPF is broadly consistent with current Policy in
PPS 3 (Housing), a number of changes are proposed:
• Removing the national brown-field target for housing development (set at 50% when introduced in 1995, and increased to 60% in 1998);
• Requiring councils to allocate an additional 20% of sites against 5 year housing requirement (effectively making it a 6 year supply);
• Removing the national minimum threshold for requiring affordable housing (currently 15 units) to be delivered; and
• Removing the ‘rural exceptions sites’ policy for affordable housing. 4.3 These changes are intended to increase the amount of land available for
housing development, and thus increase housing supply. However, this is based on the assumption that lack of developable land has been the major barrier limiting housing delivery.
4.4 In the East Midlands, housing delivery increased year on year between
2001 and 2007, before being hit by the credit crunch and then the recession. Even now, there is still sufficient land with planning permission in the East Midlands to build 85,000 new houses – over 4 years supply against the Regional Plan target. This is in addition to allocations in local plans which do not yet have planning permission. DCLG statistics indicate that over 80% of all planning applications made over the last decade have been approved in the East Midlands - including 82% of major residential applications in the year to March 2011.
Item 9, Appendix 1
29
Housing Completions East Midlands 2001/02 - 2009/10
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10
Net Additional Dwellings
(minus affordable)
Affordable Dwellings
adopted RSS target
draft RSS target
Source: East Midlands RSS Annual Monitoring Reports
4.5 However, the requirement for councils to add at least 20% to added to
their 5 year supply of available housing land (effectively making it a six year supply) will place additional pressure on authorities in heavily built up urban areas where ‘windfall’ development has traditionally made an important contribution to housing supply. As it stands, the requirement would also appear to apply to areas of restraint, such as the Peak District National Park Authority and authorities with a high proportion of land in flood risk zones, which would seem to be incompatible with other objectives of the NPPF.
4.6 Taking a longer term national perspective, figures from DCLG indicate that
whilst the delivery of market housing has remained broadly stable since the 1970’s, new social housing has plummeted since the end of mass council housing in the 1980’s and has been the major factor in the overall decline of housing delivery. The Government’s proposals in the Draft NPPF to reduce the national requirements to provide affordable housing (including the ability to allocate exceptions sites in rural areas) would appear to reduce the scope to address this situation.
Item 9, Appendix 1
30
Housing Delivery in England 1950-2010
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's
Average per annum
Dw
ell
ing
s
Social
Market
Source: DCLG
4.7 Attempts to extend home ownership to lower income groups through the
development of new mortgage products in both the UK and US was the major contributor to the banking crisis that led to the credit crunch and subsequent recession. In short, the evidence suggests that the nation’s long term failure to meet housing need is not primarily a planning issue, but relates far more to the dysfunctional nature of the housing market, persistent income inequalities and a severe shortage of social housing. As a result, however the Government’s ambition to ‘significantly increase the delivery of new homes’ is defined, it cannot be realised through changes to the planning system alone. A much broader and deeper approach is required.
5. Economy 5.1 The Draft NPPF seems broadly consistent PPS4 (Planning for sustainable
economic growth). However, it is proposed to remove office uses from the ‘town centre first’ policy (which will still apply to retail and leisure development). This is likely to lead to more ‘out of centre’ office developments and may result in adverse impacts on traffic flows and public transport usage. In the light of the Government’s current proposals to allow change of use from office development to housing without planning permission, it could also lead more housing in unsustainable locations remote from local services.
5.2 The Draft NPPF requires councils to
‘…avoid long term protection of employment land and floorspace and applications for alternative uses for designated land or buildings should be treated on their merits.”
Item 9, Appendix 1
31
However, if existing employment designations can be justified through a well evidenced and up to date employment land review (as set out in Policy 20 of the East Midlands Regional Plan), then it is considered that councils should be able to safeguard sites from alternative development, particularly through the bottom of the economic cycle and in areas in need of job creation. Failure to maintain an adequate supply of available employment land could undermine sustainable development in many parts of the East Midlands.
5.3 The Draft NPPF also makes only very limited reference to ‘regeneration’
and the challenges of delivering sustainable economic development in deprived communities or where there has been market failure. The Governments approach appears to assume that the planning system’s main role in boosting the economy is to reduce the regulatory burden on business. However, the East Midlands contains a number of places with low demand where this approach will not work, including parts of region’s main urban centres, the former coalfields and on the Lincolnshire Coast (which is also constrained by flood risk). The NPPF needs to acknowledge more clearly the challenges facing such places and highlight the need for broader multi-agency approaches to regeneration that go beyond the planning system and make links into other Government initiatives such as the ‘Work Programme’ - similar to the approach set out in Policy 19 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.
6. Natural Environment 6.1 The Draft NPPF appears less certain than PPS7 or the East Midlands
Regional Plan about the importance attached to National Park Landscape and fails to refer to the continued relevance of the National Park Vision and Circular 2010 on National Parks. Nor is it clear that local circumstances in a National Park may well justify planning solutions and policies that vary from those applied elsewhere in order to deliver statutory National Park purposes.
6.2 Without a stronger statement to clarify these points, there is a real danger
that the NPPF will dismantle rather than maintain the carefully developed approach towards sustainable development in the Peak District National Park. The Government should look carefully at detailed points made by the Peak District National Park Authority which aim to make delivery of the NPPF more compatible with statutory national park purposes.
Item 9, Appendix 1
32
7. Greenbelts and Green wedges 7.1 This draft NPPF’s approach to greenbelt appears generally consistent with
current policy in PPG2. However a number changes are proposed:
• Development of unallocated derelict land in the greenbelt will be permissible;
• Local transport infrastructure, in addition to park & ride schemes, will be permissible;
• Community Right to Build Schemes will be permissible if backed by the local community; and
• Alterations or extensions to all buildings, not just dwellings, will be permissible.
7.2 Although individually relatively minor, in combination these changes may
have a significant local impact in some parts of the East Midlands. However, more extensive planned changes to greenbelts (either to reduce or extend existing designations), will still be very challenging to achieve in practice.
7.3 There appears to be no specific reference in the draft NPPF to the
designation of ‘green wedges’, which have been used successfully as a flexible alternative to greenbelts for controlling patterns of development in a number of areas in the East Midlands (for example Leicester and Lincoln), as set out in the East Midlands Regional Plan and a number of adopted core strategies. The document does propose that Neighbourhood plans include ‘local green space designations’ which will have the similar controls on development to greenbelts. However, these are not intended to cover extensive tracks of land and should be of local significance only, and therefore cannot be used to fulfil the same strategic functions currently performed by green wedges.
8. Climate Change, flooding & coastal change 8.1 The draft NPPF appears to maintain the commitment to support the
transition to a local carbon economy currently set out in PPS. However the wider contribution the planning system can make to the adaptation and mitigation to climate change through improving the quality of new development is not sufficiently emphasised.
8.2 It is proposed to remove the requirement to set local targets for renewable
and low carbon energy generation. To compensate, developers will not be
Item 9, Appendix 1
33
required to demonstrate the ‘need’ for new facilities. However, the document contains no criteria for determining wind turbine applications, other than through a footnote cross referring to parts of the National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy. This renders the document incomplete and silent on a key issue of concern to many local communities. Criteria similar to those set out in Policy 40 of the East Midlands Regional Plan should be retained in the NPPF.
8.3 Similarly in relation to flood risk, the ‘sequential test’ and ‘exceptions test’
(which has been amended to remove reference to brownfield land as an exception), are reduced to footnotes in very small type. Both are crucial to managing development in flood risk areas across large parts of the East Midlands, and should be given greater prominence and explanation in the final document.
8.4 Reference is made to the management of coastal change, but this
appears to be only in the context of realignment rather than areas of risk of inundation, such as along parts of the Lincolnshire Coast (as set out in Policy 5 of the East Midlands Regional Plan). The NPPF needs to give greater recognition to the particular challenges of such areas and to the importance of taking an integrated strategic approach to development and managing flood risk across local authority boundaries.
8.5 Reference is made to giving ‘priority to the use of sustainable drainage
systems’ (SuDS). However SuDS are to become mandatory through the enactment of the Floods & Water Management Act 2010 where development will have an impact on drainage systems. The role of upper tier authorities in approving proposals for SuDs should also be highlighted.
9. Transport 9.1 The Draft NPPF appears broadly consistent with the approach taken in
PPG 13 (Transport), apart from the removal of maximum car parking standards for new development. However the draft states that:
‘…development should not be prevented or refused on transport grounds unless the residual impacts of development are severe…’
9.2 Concerns about traffic generation are one of the major concerns stated by local communities in opposition to new development. Whilst it may be un-realistic for new development to improve existing traffic problems, it is surely reasonable to expect future conditions not to be significantly worse once mitigation measures have been implemented. The test of ‘severe residual impact’ should be reconsidered accordingly.
Item 9, Appendix 1
34
10. Waste 10.1 The Government is proposing not cover planning for waste in the NPPF,
but instead to include relevant waste policies a separate National Waste Plan at some later date. In the meantime, PPS10 on waste will remain. The logic behind this approach is not clear and it is likely to lead to a less coherent and ‘joined up’ approach to waste planning. Waste is not an isolated issue, it is product of the activities addressed elsewhere in the NPPF and should be considered as part of an integrated policy approach.
11. Minerals 11.1 The Government appears to be retaining the system of a managed supply
of aggregates supported by aggregates working parties (AWPs). However, it is not clear if AWPs will remain ‘regional’ (as they have been since they were established in the mid 1970s), or reflect some other geography. Nor is it clear if they will continue to be supported financially by DCLG as they have been to date.
11.2 The draft NPPF states that mineral authorities should:
“...as far as practical, ensure sufficient levels of permitted reserves are available from outside National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites.”
11.3 This implies a lower level of protection for the Peak District National Park
and Lincolnshire Wolds AONB compared to Policy 37 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, which requires a ‘progressive reduction’ in minerals extraction from these areas. The NPPF should be amended to reflect the current regional approach and the requirements of Circular 2010 on National Parks.
12. Neighbourhood Planning 12.1 Neighbourhood plans are required to be in ‘general conformity’ with the
‘strategic policies’ of the local plan. However, the draft NPPF also states that Neighbourhood plans:
• can promote more development than set out in the strategic policies of the local plan; and
• will take precedence over existing local plan policies where they are in conflict.
Item 9, Appendix 1
35
12.2 As a result it is not clear how meaningful the test of ‘general conformity’ will be or how it will be applied, or what will happen if a Neighbourhood Plan comes forward before a local plan has been adopted. Greater clarity on these matters is required in the final version of the NPPF.
13. Infrastructure and viability 13.1 The NPPF requires councils to assess infrastructure requirements and to
plan for timely delivery to facilitate development, making use of planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy. It also requires that the collective ‘burden’ on development should allow developers to make an ‘acceptable’ return on investment and that infrastructure requirements should enable development to take place ‘throughout out the economic cycle’.
13.2 It is not clear how an ‘acceptable’ return on investment should be
calculated, but clearly developers, land owners and shareholders may take a different view from councils and local communities about the outcome. Nor can requirements for essential infrastructure be obviated by economic conditions outside the control of the planning system to address. Further consideration should be given to the approach to viability set out in the Draft NPPF to ensure that development remains sustainable.
14. Duty to Co-operate 14.1 Much of the success of the NPPF will depend on how the proposed ‘duty
to co-operate’ (which is designed to replace Regional Strategies) is implemented. The NPPF appears to reflect the current draft of the Localism Bill and sets out a range of approaches that councils could take to address the new duty, most have which have been established under the present regional system. However, the duty to co-operate is not a ‘duty to agree’, and the only way in which disagreements can ultimately be addressed is on an individual basis through the EiP process. As recent events around Stevenage have illustrated, leaving intervention to the final stages of the plan-making process in this manner can result in significant delay and confusion.
14.2 The NPPF needs to make a much clearer statement about the importance
of joint planning arrangements that reflect Housing Market Areas, similar to that which exists in Policy 17 of the East Midlands Regional Plan. In two-tier areas, a joint approach to infrastructure planning which reflects the statutory roles of upper tier authorities for transport, waste, education and flood risk should also be required.
Item 11
36
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
CAMPAIGN FOR MIDLAND MAINLINE ELECTRIFICATION & ENHANCEMENT
Summary
This report summarises previous and current action to promote the electrification and
enhancement of the Midland Main Line, and sets out proposals for further lobbying to
secure the necessary investment during Control Period 5 (2014-19).
Recommendation
The Executive Board is invited to:
� Endorse the approach to lobbying for the electrification and enhancement of the
Midland Mainline set out in Section 3 of this report, and to offer every support on
both and individual and collective basis over the coming months.
Item 11
37
1. Introduction
1.1 The Midland Main Line (MML) is the principle rail connection between London and
the north for much of the East Midlands. Although well used with growing
patronage, it is slower and less reliable than East Coast and West Coastal Main
Lines and still relies on diesel traction north of Bedford.
1.2 Over the years there have been various unsuccessful campaigns to fully electrify
the MML. At a more general level, the MML has suffered from persistent under-
investment relative to other lines. In the current investment period (Control Period
4: 2008-13), more money will be spent on improving car parking facilities on the
West Coast Main Line than on the entire MML.
1.3 Electrification has clear long term economic benefits for both passengers and
businesses, in terms of speed, capacity, reliability, CO2 emissions and operating
costs (particularly as diesel becomes more expensive over time). Analysis by
Network Rail has indicated that the business case for electrifying the MML is very
strong and indeed better than a number of lines where a commitment to
electrification has already been made. If HS2 is developed as currently proposed,
MML electrification will allow ‘hybrid’ high speed trains to also run on ‘classic’ lines,
widening access to the high speed network.
1.4 To take full advantage of electrification the track and other infrastructure will need
upgrading to allow higher speeds – there is currently nowhere on the entire MML
where even existing trains can go at their top speeds. Improvements to signalling
around Leicester and Derby will be particularly important.
2. Action to date
2.1 The former East Midlands Regional Assembly worked closely with emda and the
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) to raise the profile of MML
electrification with the previous Government. A joint ‘prospectus’ was produced
(contained in Appendix 1) and widely disseminated. In December 2009, around
100 senior representatives from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire came
together to press the case for electrification at a House of Commons reception -
jointly hosted by Cllr David Parsons CBE, the Chair of the MML Parliamentary
Group, Clive Betts MP, and the Leader of Sheffield City Council - at which the then
Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, also spoke.
2.2 Despite very positive feedback from the event, the proximity of the General
Election meant that no decision was made. Whilst the Coalition Government
Item 11
38
appears to remain positive, there has been no formal commitment to MML
electrification from Ministers to date.
2.3 Officers have continued to press the case for MML electrification as part of a wider
investment programme through meetings with officials from the Department for
Transport and BIS. EMC has actively supported a Regional Growth Fund Bid from
East Midlands Trains to enhance the current modest programme of MML line speed
enhancements through further works at Market Harborough that would also help
to facilitate electrification. In addition, EMCs response to the HS2 consultation
highlighted the importance of electrification to improving existing services and
enhancing connectivity to any new high speed line over the longer term.
3. Future prospects and proposed further lobbying
3.1 Investment priorities for Network Rail’s Control Period 5 (2014-19) are now under
consideration. In contrast to previous control periods, the Government has asked
the rail industry itself to develop initial proposals through an ‘Initial Industry Plan’
(IIP) - although the final investment programme will be determined by the
Government on the advice of the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR).
3.2 The IIP is due to be published on the 30 September 2011. The indications are that
MML electrification is likely to feature as a priority scheme. However, any
commitment must also follow through into the final investment programme, which
is due to be agreed by Government in early 2012. It will therefore be vital for
councils, LEPs, business leaders, MPs and passenger groups to make strong
representations to both the ORR and Ministers in support of MML electrification
during the autumn of 2011. To ensure maximum impact, effective joint working
between the East Midlands and South Yorkshire will also be required.
3.3 The following lobbying measures are proposed:
• On publication of the IPP, EMC and SYPTE (supported by the relevant LEPs) to
issue a joint press release supporting MML electrification, and urging interested
parties to make representations to the ORR and Ministers;
• EMC and SYPTE to undertake a re-fresh of the existing MML electrification
‘prospectus’ to inform partners representations;
• EMC to work with SYPTE to host a political event in London before Christmas
2011 to demonstrate the strength of support for MML electrification to key
decision makers.
Item 11
39
3.4 Whilst EMC will play a co-ordinating role working with SYPTE, active support from
individual member authorities and Leaders will be required to maximise the
chances of success.
4. Recommendations
4.1 The Executive Board is invited to:
• Endorse the approach to lobbying for the electrification and enhancement of
the Midland Main Line set out in Section 3 of this report, and to offer every
support on both an individual and collective basis over the coming months; and
• Note the rest of this report
Andrew Pritchard
Director of Policy & Infrastructure
FUTURE OF THE MIDLAND MAIN LINEThe Case for the Upgrade and Electrifi cation of the Midland Main Line
City RegionS H E F F I E L DS H E F F I E L D
Chesterfi eld Station St Pancras Station © railfaneurope.net
CHAPTER 1.0INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This report by Arup and Volterra sets out the case for the electrifi cation and upgrade of the Midland Main Line (MML). This line is of strategic importance for the cities that it connects, including the Three Cities of the East Midlands (Leicester, Derby and Nottingham), the Sheffi eld City Region and London. However, it is currently the only main line to London that is not electrifi ed.
Electrifying the MML offers the potential to reduce journey times between these places, generating economic benefi ts and improving connectivity. Upgrades to the MML are planned by Network Rail to reduce journey times. Electrifi cation of the line would reduce journey times even further.
The Case for Electrifying and Upgrading the MML
There is a strong case for electrifying and upgrading the MML. It would increase capacity on the line helping to meet growing passenger demand, lead to faster journey times, provide a lower carbon alternative to diesel trains, support the economic and population growth aspirations of the Three Cities and the Sheffi eld City Region, and offer strong value for money.
The case for the upgrade of the MML is based on the size •
and scale of the Sheffi eld City Region and the Three Cities of the East Midlands. The Three Cities of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham and the Sheffi eld City Region contain almost 4 million people and 2.5 million jobs and the MML connects them to the World City of London. The area also includes other important economic centres.
A faster and more reliable train service to London would •
boost the economies of the cities served by the MML and help realise their economic potential. Faster journey times (Leicester to London in under an hour, Derby and Nottingham to London in under 90 minutes, Sheffi eld to London in under 2 hours) will make rail travel a much more attractive option and help relieve congestion on the motorway network. In addition to the standard transport benefi ts, it is estimated that upgrading and electrifying the line would be worth £15 to £19 million per year in
productivity gains to the Sheffi eld City Region, the Three Cities and London.
An improved MML would support the delivery of plan led •
growth, in the East Midlands, England’s fastest growing Region, and in the Sheffi eld City Region. The MML serves the Milton Keynes South Midlands Growth Area, which alone will deliver 224,200 homes between 2001 and 2026. The line also serves the Three Cities and South Yorkshire Growth Point areas. There is a need to deliver the infrastructure to support this growth.
An electrifi ed MML will form a key part of the national •
rail network for the 21st century. As the only main line to London that has not been or planned to be electrifi ed, it is the fi nal component in the creation of an effective national network. It will enhance capacity for rail freight on the line, helping to relieve congestion on the motorway network.
Electrifi cation will reduce current CO• 2 emissions generated by MML trains by around 40%, providing a lower carbon alternative and helping to deliver the challenging targets in the Government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.
Electrifi cation will increase capacity and reliability.• This is essential to cater for planned growth and strong demand. Passenger numbers have already grown by 87% since the 1990s, signifi cantly higher than the growth rate on the Great Western and East Coast Main Lines. By 2019 trains to St Pancras are expected to have fi ve passengers for every four seats.
The track is already electrifi ed as far as Bedford• - further electrifi cation to Nottingham and Sheffi eld would make better use of existing assets; enabling all trains on the route to make use of the existing electrifi cation between London and Bedford.
Electrifi cation will save money.• Network Rail say that electrifi cation of the MML has a ‘net industry cost saving over the appraisal period of 60 years’- effectively meaning that it has as an infi nite benefi t cost ratio.
The MML is the slowest of the main lines to London •
because it has had very little investment for decades. Whereas £9 billion has been recently invested in the West Coast Main Line to enable 125mph operation, only £69 million is allocated for improvements to the MML during the next Control Period (2009-14). More investment is planned for car park upgrades on the WCML compared with the entire MML.
Electrifi cation makes fundamental economic sense.• It is an integral part of ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System’, the latest Government guidance on transport, which aims to ensure that transport supports economic growth, reduce carbon emissions, promote health and social inclusion and improve quality of life.
2
Sheffi eld Station
CHAPTER 2.0THE WORK REQUIRED TO UPGRADE THE MML
Context
Services from the Sheffi eld City Region and the East Midlands to London via the MML are signifi cantly less attractive when compared with other longer distance routes in the UK. Whilst the Derby to Sheffi eld section has benefi ted recently from line speed improvements enabling 125mph operation, other sections are restricted to just 100-110mph. There are parts of the route where line speeds are much lower, for example, around 60mph near Market Harborough and Wellingborough. Some of the tunnels have speed restrictions due to inadequate clearances, for example, Toadmoor Tunnel near Ambergate.
The characteristics of the MML contrast sharply with the East Coast, West Coast and Great Western Main Lines. These routes have benefi ted from substantial infrastructure investment to enable 125mph operation on signifi cant parts of each route. In contrast, the MML received just 1% of the total national investment in track and other infrastructure allocated to long distance routes between 1997 and 2009.
Implications of the Slow Line Speeds
Recent improvements have delivered some benefi ts for the Sheffi eld to London services. Revisions to the timetable to introduce a consistent service pattern for most of the day, along with changes to the stopping pattern (the only intermediate stops are now at Leicester, Derby and Chesterfi eld), and the deployment of modern diesel Meridian trains have cut journey timings to London to 127 minutes. Despite these improvements, Sheffi eld still compares unfavourably with other routes in terms of overall speed.
A comparison of journey times on the MML from Sheffi eld and the Three Cities to London with other major northern cities reveals the slow speeds achieved on the MML. Table 2.1 illustrates that the off-peak speeds from Leeds are comparable to the results from Sheffi eld. However, the speeds from York are considerably faster, whilst the benefi ts of the upgraded West Coast Main Line (WCML) are evident, given the speeds from Liverpool and Manchester.
Station Distance (km)
Journey Time (minutes)
Average Speed (kmph)
Average Speed (mph)
Sheffi eld (MML) 265 127 125 78
Derby (MML ) 206 93-109 122 76
Leicester (MML) 158 72 132 82
Nottingham (MML) 203 104-121 109 68
Leeds (via East Coast Main Line) 298 135-145 128 80
York (via East Coast Main Line) 302 120-130 145 90
Liverpool (via West Coast Main Line) 310 128 145 90
Manchester (via West Coast Main Line) 314 128 147 91
Table 2.1: Summary of Current Journey Speeds to London
3
Leicester Station Derby Station © railfaneurope.net
CHAPTER 3.0JOURNEY TIME SAVINGS
Line Speed Improvements
Network Rail has identifi ed a package of line speed improvements to help reduce journey times via the MML. These measures are planned to be delivered during Control Period 4 of the Network Rail Business Plan, from 2009 to 2014. The scope of works to achieve the forecast line speed improvements includes measures that will enable line speeds to be increased to 125mph in selected locations, and other works to raise line speeds to at least 80mph. These measures could save eight minutes between Sheffi eld and London, with the majority of savings delivered south of Trent Junction. As part of the recent Cross Country upgrade, some of the line speeds between Derby and Sheffi eld have been increased up to 125mph (this is effectively the maximum speed permitted for the current rolling stock fl eet). This has reduced the scope for further improvements north of Trent Junction.
The package of measures to deliver these savings includes track work and changes to level crossings. A relatively small percentage of the total budget will be invested in signalling improvements. Modest improvements will also be delivered at Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough to raise line speeds to at least 80mph.
The indicative scheme costs to deliver the improvements outlined above are £69 million. This represents a very small proportion of the total committed budget to be invested in longer distance routes during the next Control Period. In comparison, the Great Western Main Line, East Coast Main Line, and West Coast Main Line are due to receive up to eight times more investment than the MML between 2009 and 2014.
Future Drivers of Change
The number of passengers using the MML is lower when compared with other long distance routes, but this situation is changing rapidly. Recent growth generated by the service frequency improvements in 1999 has meant that the total number of trips has increased signifi cantly. Since 1997, passenger numbers have increased by 87%; a rate of growth far higher than that on the East Coast or Great Western Main Lines. The impact of these journey time reductions, together with the frequency improvements to / from Sheffi eld delivered in December 2009, will help to generate new rail trips.
Network Rail has produced recently a range of growth forecasts as part of the Network Rail Scenarios and Long Distance Forecasts workstream. Growth forecasts have been prepared for a number of routes between 2007 and 2036, including the MML corridor. The forecasts take account of the planned housing and employment growth, plus other factors that infl uence demand for travel. Passenger numbers are expected to increase between 35 to 70% by 2036, equating to a 1-2% increase per annum. These growth rates are broadly similar to those for other long distance routes to London. Additional capacity will be required to accomodate the forecast growth. The recent growth achieved during the last 10 years is signifi cantly higher than the Network Rail forecast growth, although the patronage growth since 1997 is linked to the timetable improvements.
The MML plays an important role for freight traffi c. Proposed increases in throughput from the Haven Ports and the improvements between Felixstowe and Nuneaton will lead to freight traffi c interacting with the MML in the Leicester area, and this could affect the timing of passenger services.
4
Sheffi eld Station
Electrifi cation
Modern electric trains would be particularly suited to the MML due to their superior acceleration ability. The nature of the route means that trains change speed relatively frequently and so the ability to accelerate quickly is an advantage. Electrifi cation could reduce the journey times by a further 3-4 minutes between Sheffi eld and London.
The scope to further enhance the MML should also be considered. Other locations on the MML that would benefi t from line speed improvements, include Kettering, Market Harborough and Wellingborough. The existing track would need to be realigned to achieve signifi cant journey time reductions, with these schemes completed prior to the delivery of the electrifi cation proposals. Furthermore, the line speed via the Toadmoor Tunnel is also relatively slow, and there would be insuffi cient clearance in the tunnel to accommodate the overhead wires. The infrastructure revisions needed provide an opportunity to lower the track and would enable overall line speeds to be increased. The sequencing of other infrastructure improvements needs to be considered carefully in conjunction with electrifi cation proposals.
A signifi cant factor posing a risk in the electrifi cation of the MML is the physical capacity of Network Rail to deliver these improvements. The scale of the confi rmed projects to electrify the Great Western Main Line and a scheme between Manchester and Liverpool mean resources will be constrained. Consequently, there may not be suffi cient capacity in terms of staff and equipment to electrify the MML. Consequently, this does indicate the importance of increasing training opportunities to expand the existing skills base, to enable other projects to be delivered.
Description of Proposals Derby Leicester Sheffi eld
Line Speed Improvements 6 4 8
Electrifi cation 2-3 1-2 3-4
Total Saving (mins) 8-9 5-6 11-12
Table 3.1: Summary of Journey Time Reductions
Summary of the Improvements: Line Speed and Electrifi cation
Table 3.1 illustrates the possible reduction in journey times from selected stations in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands to London, via the MML. These journey time savings are an estimate by Arup; they have been informed by discussions with Network Rail. Sheffi eld could benefi t from the largest journey time reductions, and the combined package of line speed improvements and electrifi cation could reduce timings to around 1 hour 56 minutes.
Other Improvements
The scope to identify further infrastructure schemes (beyond the upgrade and electrifi cation proposals set out in the previous sections of this paper) that would achieve further journey time reductions for the MML and offer good value for money will become increasingly diffi cult. Previous studies have examined the business case to deliver more comprehensive packages of infrastructure improvements, whilst the case for tilting electric trains has also been examined. However, these ideas have been rejected, because the benefi ts did not outweigh the high capital and operating costs. Alternative solutions may therefore be required to further reduce London to Sheffi eld journey times below 1 hour 56 minutes.
An infi ll scheme between South Kirkby Junction and Sheffi eld would also be required to allow the small number of trains to / from Leeds via the MML to London to use electric traction. Whilst this document makes the case for the electrifi cation of the MML as far as Sheffi eld, there would also be a strong case to electrify the line as far as Leeds to enable through services. Work undertaken earlier this year for the Leeds and Sheffi eld City Regions illustrated the positive benefi ts of extending the MML service from Sheffi eld to Leeds on the basis of an hourly service. This work concluded there would be substantial annual productivity gains to the Leeds and Sheffi eld City Regions of electrifying and upgrading the main line between Sheffi eld and Leeds.
5
West Yorkshire and the North East
Bedford
Luton Airport Parkway
Luton
Wellingborough
Kettering
Market Harborough
Leicester
Loughborough
Derby
Chesterfi eld
Nottingham
Rotherham (freight only)
Manchester
Sheffi eld
Birmingham
East Midlands Parkway
Matlock
Long Eaton
Nuneaton & Birmingham
Beeston Nottingham
Chesterfi eld
Bletchley
Newark
Peterborough & Haven Ports
Selected line speed
improvements up to 125mph.
Infrastructure works to increase speeds to at least 80mph
Package of improvements to cut journey
times by 6 minutes.
Committed investment delivered by
2014.
Proposed electrifi cation
would deliver a further journey time reduction of 3-4 minutes
between London
and Sheffi eld.
Line speed improvementsto cut journey
times by 2 minutes.
Committed investment delivered by
2014.
Not to Scale
MilfordTunnel
Toadmoor Tunnel
Clay Cross Tunnel
Bradway Tunnel
Dore Junction
Total Estimated Journey Time
Estimated Journey Time
Estimated Journey Time
London
The Upgrade and Electrifi cation of the Midland
Main Line
This diagram shows the proposed interventions
and estimated improved journey time for
the upgrade and electrifi cation of the
Midland Main Line.
6
St Pancras Station St Pancras Station
CHAPTER 4.0BENEFITS AND COSTS
Background
Network Rail published the initial results for electrifying the MML, along with various other potential corridors. The outputs were presented as single benefi t cost ratio (BCR), and did not include specifi c details of the underlying benefi ts and costs. The results indicated the MML electrifi cation could generate an infi nite BCR; the fi nancial benefi ts of delivering the scheme outweigh the capital costs by a considerable margin. The reduced operating costs and extra revenue from faster journey times would outweigh the scheme costs. This is highly unusual for rail investment projects; many schemes require inclusion of the wider economic, social and environmental benefi ts. As a result, the MML has been identifi ed as a key priority for electrifi cation by Network Rail.
“Electrifi cation represents good value for money. Two options - the Great Western Main Line and the MML - have high benefi t cost ratios. Indeed they potentially involve a net industry cost saving rather than net cost over the appraisal period of 60 years. There could be a requirement for upfront investment by Network Rail but this would be offset by lifetime cost savings, largely in the costs of train operation.”
Network Rail Electrifi cation Route Utilisation Strategy, May 2009
More detailed information regarding the relative scale of the costs and benefi ts is not available from Network Rail, given the commercial sensitivities around the scheme capital costs.
Summary of Benefi ts
In the absence of more detailed information provided by Network Rail, a number of key performance indicators have been reviewed, to understand the potential benefi ts offered by route electrifi cation.
Improved fl eet availability:• electric trains offer improved fl eet availability (91%) compared with 88% for diesel trains. Electric trains are more reliable. For example, High Speed Trains and Class 222s achieve about 11,000 miles per casualty (“miles per casualty” represent the distance between fl eet related breakdowns that incur a delay of fi ve minutes or more). In contrast, the Class 390 Pendolino fl eet already achieves a MPC fi gure 25% higher, and there may be scope for further improvements. The improved fl eet reliability can be refl ected in the calculation of wider benefi ts.
Operational cost savings:• the introduction of electric traction offers considerable operational savings. Maintenance costs could be reduced by about one-third, whilst fuel costs could be cut by around 50%. Lease costs could be reduced by about 20%, although this variation could widen, given the increasing capital costs for diesel units. There is also scope to reduce variable track access charges by around 15%, as a result of operating lighter vehicles. To estimate the likely cost savings, the operating costs for MML in 2006 were about £200 million (Rail Industry Monitor, 2008). Therefore, the potential savings described above could cut annual costs by 12-15% (£25-30 million pa). Over a 60 year period, the discounted cost savings could equate to £500-600 million.
These benefi ts would be supplemented by wider societal impacts comprising journey time savings, accident reductions, and highway decongestion benefi ts. These benefi ts would be stimulated by mode transfer from car and other modes to rail.
The target cost per single track kilometre by Network Rail in the Electrifi cation Route Utilisation Strategy is £0.5 million. For smaller schemes, this cost per kilometre is unlikely to be realised, but this estimate might be achievable for a larger scheme. The MML scheme equates to about 550 single track kilometres, generating an indicative cost of around £250 - £300 million.
7
Derby Station Leicester Station
Wider Economic Benefi ts
Wider economic benefi ts calculations are intended to capture the productivity benefi ts from bringing places closer together. The reduced MML journey times will make the economic centres of Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffi eld closer to the economic hub of London. The latest DfT guidance on ‘pure agglomeration’ impacts has been applied in order to estimate the size of the potential benefi ts from MML upgrades.
High level analysis has been undertaken using the estimated journey time savings presented in Table 3.1 and using the latest DfT guidance. The MML upgrades will create estimated annual productivity benefi ts of £15-19 million, in 2002 prices. These are detailed below in Table 4.1.
Annual Productivity Gains (£m, 2002 prices)
Sheffi eld CR 3.9 (3-3.9)
Derby HMA 1.9 (1.7-2.4)
Leicester HMA 0.9 (0.9-0.9)
Nottingham HMA 4.3 (3.5-4.3)
London 6.6 (6.1-7.3)
Total 17.7 (15.3–19.0)
60yr NPV (£m, 2002 prices)
Total (Wider Economic Impacts) 650 (600-700)
Three Cities 260 (200-300)
Sheffi eld City Region 140 (100-140)
The largest productivity benefi ts accrue to the Sheffi eld City Region and Nottingham housing market area. This is due to the large journey time savings from these places. Signifi cant benefi ts also accrue to Derby and Leicester housing market areas but these areas on the whole benefi t from slightly smaller journey time savings, which is refl ected in the lower productivity estimates. London also benefi ts from the MML upgrades as it brings the UK’s main economic hub closer to businesses in Sheffi eld. London is estimated to receive around 35% of the total benefi ts.
The annual productivity benefi ts of £15-19 million equate to a 60 year Net Present Value (NPV) of some £0.6-£0.7 billion. This is detailed below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1: Estimated Annual Productivity Gains of Upgrading and Electrifying the Midland Main Line
Table 4.2: 60 year NPV of wider economic impacts of Upgrading and Electrifying the MML
Value for Money
These benefi ts are additional to any standard transport benefi ts from capacity relief, frequency improvements, fewer accidents etc. These estimates seek to quantify the productivity benefi t as a result of improved connectivity. Given that the capital cost of delivering the MML improvements is much smaller than these benefi ts, the investment would clearly represent very good value for money.
Unquantifi able Benefi ts of Electrifying and Upgrading the MML
The electrifi cation and upgrade of the existing MML would create a wider range of benefi ts than can not currently be directly quantifi ed through standard appraisal techniques. There are a variety of additional factors which might result from reduced journey times on the MML, some which are monetary but diffi cult to quantify because causation is far from tested and agreed, and others which are likely never to be quantifi ed because they are non-monetary benefi ts. These benefi ts might include:
Quantifi able / Monetary:
Increased development that would occur with more •
businesses choosing to locate in the Three Cities and the Sheffi eld City Region as a result of their improved connectivity;
Increased inward investment as a result of being ‘closer’ to •
London and through improved connections between the Sheffi eld City Region and the Three Cities; and
Higher value rents and property values in the Three Cities •
and the Sheffi eld City Region as a result of the improved connectivity, which will increase demand for property.
Unquantifi able / Non-monetary:
Improved image and profi le of the Three Cities and the •
Sheffi eld City Region through location on an electrifi ed route to London. Without this there is a risk that these places could be left behind in comparison with other parts of the country; and
Visitor attraction, tourism linked benefi ts of reduced journey •
times to the Three Cities and the Sheffi eld City Region. By reducing journey times to these places they become more attractive places to visit for tourists, who will themselves spend in the local economy.
8
Sheffi eld StationNottingham Station
CO2 Emissions:
The CO• 2 emissions generated by each type of train is based on information presented in the DfT’s Technical Strategy (2007);
HST (diesel train) is 65g/CO• 2 per passenger km;
Class 222 (diesel train) is 90g/CO• 2 per passenger km; and
Class 390 Pendolino (proxy for new electric trains) 50g/CO• 2
per passenger km.
Results:
CO• 2 generated by HST fl eet: 460 million pax/km * 65g per pax/ km= 29.9 million kg of CO2;
CO• 2 generated by Class 222 fl eet: 919 million pax km * 90g per pax /km = 82.71 million kg of CO2;
CO• 2 generated by Class 390 Pendolino: 1,379.7 million paxkm * 50g per pax / km = 68.99 million kg of CO2; and
Potential saving = 43.62 million kg of CO• 2.
Conclusions
The electrifi cation of the MML could reduce carbon •
emissions by around 40% for rail passengers using this route. The potential savings are very signifi cant, particularly when assessed against other results for electric versus diesel rolling stock, for example, a 20% reduction (quoted in Electrifi cation RUS).
The main contributory factor for these higher savings is the •
relative CO2 emissions generated by the Class 222 units. The multiple under-fl oor engines deliver excellent train performance, but also generate high levels of CO2 emissions. This unit generates more CO2 than a 30 yr old HST, with the higher number of engines relative to the number of passengers the contributory factor.
The electrifi cation of the MML could also generate benefi ts •
for freight, by enabling a larger proportion of freight to be transported using electric haulage.
CHAPTER 5.0POTENTIAL CARBON IMPACTS
Policy Background for Electrifi cation
There is a strong case for rail electrifi cation to assist in tackling climate change. Transport accounts for 25% of the UK’s total carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), but the rail sector accounts for a very small proportion of this total. The electrifi cation of railway lines would reduce carbon emissions from rail. The growing concern about climate change, coupled with the signifi cant fl uctuations in the cost of oil, together with the wider energy security issues has added to these environmental pressures. Rising fuel prices during Autumn 2008 and concerns about the carbon impacts from transport have strengthened the case for additional electrifi cation.
Electrifi cation is a relatively effi cient fuel source, with evidence collated by the University of Lancaster demonstrating this technology is up to 85% more effi cient if regenerative braking is deployed. Modern electric multiple units (EMUs) have capability to regenerate their braking power back into the national grid.
Methodology
A high level assessment of the potential carbon reduction that could be achieved if the MML is electrifi ed has been calculated. This analysis draws on a number of assumptions to calculate the reduction in carbon emissions, and the following summarises the methodology used:
Total Passenger Kilometres:
Long distance MML services to St Pancras: 1,379.7 million •
passenger kilometres (Rail Industry Monitor 2008);
About two-thirds of these passenger kilometres are made •
using Class 222 (assumption derived from the type of units deployed by East Midlands Trains for long distance services to London, Rail Industry Monitor 2008);
About one-third of these passenger kilometres are made •
using Class 43 High Speed Trains (based on information presented in the Rail Industry Monitor 2008); and
Hence, about 919 million passenger kilometres use Class •
222s, with 460 million passenger kilometres using High Speed Trains.
9
December 2009
Andrew PritchardEast Midlands Regional Assembly
t: +44 (0)1664 502 554
Sylvia YatesSheffi eld City Region
t: +44 (0)114 263 5684
e: sylvia.yates@sheffi eldcityregion.org.uk
City RegionS H E F F I E L DS H E F F I E L D
For further information please contact:
Tom BridgesArup
t: +44 (0)113 242 8498
Steve HarleyEast Midlands Development Agency
t: +44 (0)115 988 8426
Ben StillSYPTE
t: +44 (0)114 221 1312
Item 12
50
Executive Board
23rd September 2011
NOTTINGHAM DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Summary
The Local Government Group, in association with the Nottingham Declaration
Partnership, is developing proposals for a new sector led approach to tackling climate
change. This report summarises the process so far.
Recommendation
Members note the report and the key role played by the East Midlands in developing
a national sector led approach to tackling climate change.
Item 12
51
1. Background
1.1 The Nottingham Declaration was launched by Nottingham City Council in
October 2000 to help rally local authorities to the cause of climate change.
Over 300 signatories (92% of English local authorities) have since made this
voluntary commitment, including all of the 46 councils in the East Midlands.
1.2 The Nottingham Declaration was last revised in 2005, when the Nottingham
Declaration Partnership was also formed to provide more effective support to
signatories wanting to take action. The partnership since then has been led
and supported by those with an East Midlands connection (Cllr David Parsons
on behalf the LG Group, Jane Todd from Nottingham City Council, and Mike
Peverill from East Midlands Councils) and has enabled national agencies to
work together for the benefit of councils throughout England, delivering
support on adaptation and mitigation.
2. A Review of the Nottingham Declaration
2.1 The role of local government in tackling climate change has been regularly
scrutinised in recent years by central Government (which introduced three
climate related National Indicators in the former Performance Framework), by
the LGA’s own Climate Change Commission, by the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee and more recently by the Committee on
Climate Change (Adaptation Sub-Committee).
2.2 Following the change in policy direction and cuts in public sector funding after
the 2010 General Election, the timing was right to review the Nottingham
Declaration. This was given initial momentum by the tenth anniversary event
hosted by Nottingham City Council in November 2010 for signatories from the
East Midlands.
2.3 In March 2011, Local Government Group signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC),
which proposed that a new Nottingham Declaration Board be established to
help maintain and increase local authority ambition on climate change
mitigation, for example through new initiatives like Green Deal and local
targets for carbon reduction.
2.4 There have been delays in following up the Memorandum of Understanding
due to major reorganisations and cuts to all of the Nottingham Declaration
Partner organisations and to Government departments themselves. However
in the intervening period the Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) has also been very supportive and has made a case for
including climate change adaptation in any new arrangements.
2.5 A national consultation with English local authorities on ‘a new sector led
approach to tackling climate change’ was launched in August 2011 by Cllr
David Parsons CBE on behalf of the Local Government Group and Mike
Item 12
52
Peverill on behalf of Nottingham Declaration Partnership. The consultation
sought the views of councils on how best to maintain the momentum built up
over recent years in this new policy and financial environment. In particular:
• The design of a new Nottingham Declaration and whether such a
voluntary commitment is still the best way forwards
• The role and make up of the new Nottingham Declaration Board
• The most appropriate kind of support needed on mitigation and
adaptation
• The arrangements for monitoring and reporting progress
2.6 Informal feedback from councils so far reveals a mixed picture:
• Some larger councils, particularly those seen as pioneers, are continuing
their levels of commitment
• Some larger councils have also reduced their climate change commitment
by downscaling their in-house teams to work solely on statutory
responsibilities or actions that reduce expenditure (e.g. corporate energy
management)
• The demise of the National Indicators on climate change was a loss of a
key driver amongst smaller district and borough councils and many have
subsequently struggled to justify continued action
2.7 The results of the consultation exercise will be reported to a special meeting
of the Nottingham Declaration Partnership on 1st November at Local
Government House where a range of local authority and climate specialists
will also be invited. This meeting will begin the process of setting up the new
Board and take a collective view about how best to proceed.
2.8 Given the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008, the pressure for
councils to act on climate change (from central Government and other
sources) is likely to continue growing, given the critical role that local
government plays in many areas, including planning, housing and transport.
If councils do not collectively agree to a new sector-led, voluntary
arrangement, then future intervention from central Government is very likely.
3. Recommendation
3.1 Members of the Executive Board are invited to note the report and the key
role played by the East Midlands in developing a national sector led approach
to tackling climate change.
Andrew Pritchard
Director of Policy & Infrastructure
Mike Peverill
East Midlands Climate Change Co-ordinator