East Midlands Regional Spatial StrategyEast Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Report 2005/06 5 Policy 23 - Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development

East MidlandsRegional SpatialStrategy

2005/06annual monitoring report

February 2007

East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy

Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

3

This is the fifth Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) Annual Monitoring Report producedby the East Midlands Regional Assembly as Regional Planning Body (RPB) andmonitors polices contained within the first Regional Spatial Strategy for the EastMidlands (RSS8) which was published in March 2005.

The Report builds on the partnership working established for the previous fourrounds of annual monitoring, with much of the technical work undertaken byIntelligence East Midlands, overseen by the Assembly’s Monitoring and ReviewAdvisory Group and other RSS Advisory Groups.

In the context of the new planning system, with its focus on delivery of sustainabledevelopment and sustainable communities, monitoring takes on an addedimportance in providing a check on whether those aims are being achieved. An

important aspect of these arrangements is the flexibility to update components of theRSS to reflect changing circumstances.The ability to focus on specific sub regional policy areas andto be able to undertake partial reviews, as opposed to revising the entire RSS, allows RPBs torespond quickly to changing priorities for development in their areas. Monitoring will play acritical part in identifying these.That is why part of the test of soundness of a RSS is whether thereare clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring.

The RSS has a critical interface with national policy, other regional strategies and local plans andprogrammes. The Regional Assembly is increasingly coordinating RSS monitoring with thenational, regional and local monitoring of these strategies, plans and programmes.This is helpingto promote the exchange of information, achieve some degree of consistency between differentplanning and monitoring activities and reduce overall resource requirements. It is also assistingthe Assembly to gain a greater understanding of the changes taking place in the Region.TheAssembly continues to work with local authorities, regional partners and Communities and LocalGovernment (CLG) on the development and collection of indicators and data and is playing itspart in the drive to secure agreement on data specifications.

The Assembly wish to acknowledge the support of the Region’s Planning Authorities and widerange of other data providers who have once again contributed data, and whose time andtechnical expertise have contributed to the production of this Report.

I hope you find this fifth RSS Annual Monitoring Report for the East Midlands both informative andinteresting to read.

Councillor Jim HarkerChairman of the Regional Housing, Planning and Transport Joint Board

foreword

contentsEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

4

Executive Summary 9

Section 1 - Introduction 12

Section 2 - Key Points and Actions 16

Section 3 - Housing 25

Policy 4 - Promoting Better Design 26Density of new housing Energy efficient constructionCrime rates Improvements in open space

Policy 17 - Regional Housing Provision 29Housing trajectories Vacant dwellings by tenure

Policy 18 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing 33Affordable housing completions by Local Authority areasRatio of wage rates and housing costs

Policy 19 - Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing 35Phasing policies in place in Local Development Documents

Policy 20 - A Regional Target for Re-using Previously Developed Land 36and Buildings for HousingProportion of housing completions achieved on previously developed land or through conversions

Section 4 - Economy 38

Policy 2 - Locational Priorities for Development 42% New development on previously developed land

Policy 3 - Sustainability Criteria 45Number of development plans containing appropriate policies

Policy 6 - Regional Priorities for Development in Rural Areas 45Numbers in employment in rural areas

Policy 21- Regional Priority Areas for Regeneration 47Net change in land and floorspace developed for employment by type Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Policy 22- Regional Priorities for Employment Land 49Net change in office and industrial land / floorspace and proportion on previously developed land Employment land supply by type Private sector view


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

5

Policy 23 - Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development 58Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development by local authority area % Of completed retail, office and leisure development in town centres Outstanding planning permissions and allocations for retail, office and leisure development

Policy 24 - Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification 63Number of new business start ups compared with region Change in number of jobs compared with region

Policy 25 - Regional Priorities for Tourism 68Change in number of jobs in tourist related activities Visitor spending in region Number of overnight stays in region

Policy 26 - Regional Priorities for ICT 71Proportion of region with access to high-speed broadband services

Section 5- Environment 72

Policy 27 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Assets 77Cases of damage to natural and cultural assets and compensatory measures Improvements in the condition of land classified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Policy 28 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity 79Change in areas of biodiversity importance, including:priority habitats and species (by type); and areas designated for their intrinsic value including sites of international, national, regional or sub-regional significance

Policy 29 - A Regional Target for Increasing Woodland Cover 82Area of new woodland created

Policy 30 - Priorities for the Management and 83Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape% Of region covered by Landscape Character Assessments

Policy 31 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment 84Number of listed buildings at risk

Policy 32 - Regional Priorities for Sports and Recreational facilities 86

Policy 33 - A Regional Approach to the Water Environment 87Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice

Policy 34- Regional Priorities for Strategic River Corridors 88Environment Agency water quality measures Access to urban waterfronts Biodiversity and wildlife habitats

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

6

Policy 36 - A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk 92Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flood defence grounds Planning permissions granted with Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS) Number of properties at 1% flood risk Number of strategic flood risk assessments undertaken

Policy 40- Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency 94Capacity of additional Combined Heat and Power facilities

Policy 41- Regional Priorities for Renewable Energy116 95Capacity of additional renewable energy facilities

Section 6 - Minerals, Aggregates & Waste 98

Policy 37 - Regional Priorities for Non-Energy Minerals 100Production of primary land won aggregates produced by Minerals Planning AuthorityProduction of recycled and secondary aggregates by Minerals Planning Authority

Policy 38 - Regional Waste Strategy 103Production of Strategy

Policy 39 - Regional Priorities for Waste Management 104Capacity of waste management facilities by type by Waste Planning AuthorityAmount of controlled waste arising and managed by management type% that each management type represents out of total waste managed by Waste Planning AuthorityProportion of waste diverted from landfill

Section 7- Transport 114

Policy 42 - Core Strategy and Regional Transport Objectives 118

Policy 44 - Regional Traffic Growth Reduction 118Levels of traffic growth

Policy 45- Behavioural Change 120Number of businesses and schools with travel plans% Of workforce employed by companies with travel plans% Of pupils attending schools with travel plans Journeys made by cycleNumber and length of new cycle routes provided

Policy 46 - Regional Priorities for Parking Levies and Road User Charging 124

Policy 47 - Regional Car Parking Standards 124

Policy 48 - A Regional Approach to Developing Public Transport Accessibility Criteria 124

Policy 49 - Regional Heavy Rail Investment Priorities 125Punctuality and reliability of services


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

7

Policy 50 - Regional Priorities for Bus and Light Rail Services 125Level of bus and light rail patronage (number of boardings)

Policy 51 - Regional Priorities for Integrating Public Transport 126

Policy 52 - Regional Trunk Road Investment Priorities 127Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents

Policy 53 - Regional Major Highway Investment Priorities 129Number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents

Policy 54- Development of a Regional Freight Strategy 129

Policy 55- Development at East Midlands Airport 130% Of passengers accessing East Midlands Airport by public transport

Section 8- Sub Areas 133

Policy 5 - Concentrating Development in Urban Areas 140

Policy 6 - Regional Priorities in Rural Areas 140Accessibility to essential services in rural areas

Policy 7a- Development in the Eastern Sub-area 141Employment rates in market towns Employment rates (measured in January and August) in coastal area Visitor spending in coastal area Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Gainsborough, Mablethorpe and Skegness Change in number of jobs related to food production and distribution

Policy 7b- Lincoln Policy Area 145Number of new houses built in Policy Area % Change in jobs in Policy Area % Change in retail floorspace in City Centre Increase provision and use of public transport in Policy Area Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Policy Area

Policy 8 - Overcoming Peripherality in the Eastern Sub-area 146Access to and use of Information & Communications Technologies

Policy 9- Regeneration of the Northern Sub-area 147% Change in economic activity and employment rates Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Sub-area

Policy 10- Spatial Priorities for Development in the Peak Sub-area 149Employment rates Number of new affordable houses built Visitor spending Change in number of jobs, particularly related to creative industries

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

8

Policy 11 - Spatial Priorities for Development outside the Peak District National Park 152Employment rates Number of new affordable houses built Visitor spending Change in number of jobs

Policy 12- Managing Tourism and Visitors in the Peak Sub-area 152Number of jobs in tourism related activities

Policy 15- Development in the Three Cities Sub-area 153Number of new houses built in Sub-area % Change in jobs in Sub-area % Increase in retail floorspace in City Centre Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Sub-area

Policy 35 - Priorities for the Management of the Lincolnshire Coast 157Number of Blue Flag beaches Change in areas of biodiversity importance, including:priority habitats and species (by type); and areas designated for their intrinsic value including sites of international,national, regional or sub-regional significance

Policy 43 - Sub-area Transport Objectives 157

Appendix 1 - Data Sources and References 158


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

9

executive SUMMARY

This report presents the 2005/06 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for the East Midlands.The AMR is of crucialimportance to the future of the Regional Spatial Strategy. As RSSs are implemented, it is only through monitoringand analysis of performance at the local level, through documents such as Local Development Frameworks, thatan assessment can be made as to the degree to which the spatial strategy and policies have been realised.

This year’s AMR is divided into 6 topic sections, a summary of each is provided below:

Housing

In the East Midlands the density of new dwellings per hectare has been rising steadily since 1994 andsignificantly since 2003 where the density was 26 dwellings per hectare compared to the 2005 figure of 38dwellings per hectare.

The number of housing completions in 2005/06 (and the average annual number of completions) in all areasexcept Northamptonshire are above the current annual average requirement to meet 2021 targets.

The overall percentage of dwellings that were vacant in 2005/06 in the East Midlands at 3.2% remains similar tothat for the previous four years.

New dwellings with outstanding planning permissions in the East Midlands shows an increase from 79,517 in2005 to 93,821 in 2006.

Affordable housing completions in the East Midlands have increased from 1,534 in 2003/04 and 1,406 in 2004/05to 2,079 in 2005/06. Although still below the target, progress has been made.

Mean house prices across the East Midlands did not change significantly in 2006 compared to 2005, following anumber of years that saw significant price rises.

There is a significant difference between data on the proportion of new housing developed on previouslydeveloped land. Based on Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) data, the East Midlands hasthe lowest percentage of housing developed on previously developed land in England, and it remains below the60% target. Based on the local authority data the figures have improved considerably since monitoring began,and exceed this target for the second year running.

Economy

The amount of brownfield development in 2005/6 was 204.1 hectares, most notably in Derbyshire, compared to172.7 and 85.0 hectares reported in the 2004/5 and 2003/04 monitoring reports respectively.

Data on the proportion of development occurring in Objective 2 ESF/ERDF funded areas as an alternativemeasure of a deprived area appears to indicate the amount of development in such areas, given their landcoverage in the East Midlands, is on a par with the amount of development in non Objective 2 areas.

The retail sector in the East Midlands, as in the rest of the UK, experienced a difficult year and there have beenrelatively few new entrants into the Region leading to stagnant or only slightly increasing rents.

There continues to be an increase, comparing 2004 and 2005 data, in the amount of floor space committed towarehousing in the East Midlands, particularly in Northamptonshire.There are declines in floor space committedto retail, offices and factories, although in the case of offices this is a small decline.

Despite the continuing decline in the numbers employed in the Region’s primary industries, there is evidence tosuggest that policies geared towards the diversification and development of the rural economy are succeeding.It is noteworthy that for the third consecutive year, more than 42% of new business start-ups occurred in districtcouncil areas defined as the most rural.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

10

Tourism remains an important source of employment for the East Midlands, particularly in Nottinghamshire,Lincolnshire and Derbyshire (in terms of the numbers employed) and in Rutland (in terms of the proportion oftotal jobs), but with significant numbers of jobs throughout the Region.

As of the fourth quarter of 2005 nearly all of East Midlands households (99.9%) including those in rural andsparsely populated areas had access to broadband (up from 94% in quarter three of 2004). The actual take-up ofthe broadband services is more difficult to measure but qualitative evidence suggests that, as in the rest of theUK, this is increasing.

Environment

As of September 2006, 68% of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the East Midlands were classed asfavourable or unfavourable recovering. In England, as of September 2006, 73% of the SSSI areas were classed asfavourable or unfavourable recovering - the East Midlands still lags behind the nation as a whole.

The 2004/05 monitoring report showed a decrease of 95 in the population of farmlard species in the EastMidlands between 1994 and 2003. The latest data comparing the period 1994 to 2004 shows a reversal of thisdecrease so that the population of farmland birds is nearly the same as that in 1994.

Over the last decade the rate of woodland creation supported through grant has been between 500 and 850hectares per annum.The figure for this year is significant but falls well short of the rate required to meet thetarget set out in the current RSS of 65,000 ha by 2021.

Information on Landscape Character Assessments has been provided by Natural England who undertook asurvey in February/March 2006 showing that 17 local authorities had a Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) inplace and that other local authorities were at different stages of development, with a number of studiesunderway.

English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk in 2006 recorded 133 entries of Grade I and II* listed buildings atrisk in the East Midlands compared to 134 in 2005. Seven had been removed and six added to the register fromlast year.

The data on planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on water quality groundsshows a substantial decline compared to previously available data and well on the way to meeting the target ofzero permissions granted.

The total number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flood riskgrounds was 20 in 2004/05. In 2003/04 it was 133.This represents a significant fall.

Water Quality in the East Midlands has shown a significant improvement in terms of both chemical andbiological standards since 1990.

The capacity of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facilities in the East Midlands in 2005 was 234MWe comparedto 233MWe in 2004. This represents a decline in capacity from 244MWe in 2003. The region is only 50% towardsthe 2010 target of 511MWe.

The Region is making steady progress in generating electricity from renewable resources. In 2002 approximately400 GWh were generated from renewable resources compared to over 600 GWh in 2005. The main sources ofthis renewable energy are other bio-fuels and landfill.

Minerals, Aggregates & Waste

The national and regional guidelines for aggregate provision indicate that the average annual production in theEast Midlands for sand and gravel should be 11.0 million tonnes (MT) a year and for land won crushed rock, 34.9


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

11

MT. The sales information shows that in 2004 sales of rock were 28.2 (compared to 28.5MT in 2003) thusremaining below the guideline figure. Sales information for sand and gravel in 2004 was 10.2MT (compared to10.9MT in 2003) again below the guideline annual figure for the East Midlands.

The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy published in January 2006 is a key element of Regional Policy,providing a strategic framework which will allow the Region as a whole to rapidly progress to more sustainableways to produce and consume goods, and then recycle or recover as much value as possible from that wastewhich is produced.

There continues to be an increasing proportion of household waste that is either recycled or composted in theEast Midlands. The total amount of household waste produced in the East Midlands in 2005/06 according to thebest value data was 2,180,661 tonnes of which 713,697 tonnes was recycled or composted (32.7%).

Transport

The East Midlands, along with the South West, had the highest growth in traffic with an increase of 21% on majorroads between 1995 and 2005. The number of vehicle kilometres travelled in the East Midlands in 2005 was40,633 million compared to 38,075 million in 2001.

In 2005/06 a minimum of 874 schools in the East Midlands had travel plans in place compared with 531 in2004/05 representing an increase of approximately 65%. In 2005/06 a minimum of 279 businesses in the EastMidlands had travel plans in place compared to 168 in 2004/05 representing an increase of approximately 66%.

Sub-Areas

• Eastern Sub AreaEmployment rates in coastal local authority areas were similar to those for Lincolnshire as a whole.

There has been a slight increase in visitor spend from 2004 to 2005 in Lincolnshire, although still below that for2003.

• Lincoln Policy AreaThe Lincoln Policy Area Sub-Regional Strategy has now been prepared and is included in the Draft Regional Plan.

• Northern Sub AreaWith the exception of Bolsover and Mansfield the local authority areas in the Northern Sub-area have activityand employment rates similar to that for the East Midlands as a whole.

The Northern Sub-Regional Strategy has now been prepared and is included in the Draft Regional Plan.

• Peak Sub Area109 new dwellings were built in 2005/06 of which 42% were on previously developed land.

28% of residential dwellings completed over the past 15 years have been tied to an occupancy restriction.Theproportion for 2005/06 was 39%.

• 3 Cities Sub AreaThe number of new houses built in the Three Cities Sub-area increased from 8,077 in 2004/05 to 8,453 in2005/06.

Although data on retail floorspace change between 2001 and 2005 shows a small decline within the Three CitiesSub-area, major retail developments are currently underway or soon to commence in Leicester, Derby andNottingham.

SECTION 1 introductionEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

1.1 This report presents the 2005/06 AnnualMonitoring Report (AMR) for the East Midlands.

1.2 The East Midlands Regional Assemblycommissioned Intelligence East Midlands (IEM) towork with the Regional Assembly and its AdvisoryGroups to produce this report commencing June2006. The report is structured in 8 sections and eachsection presents the following:

• Section 1: Introduction to the report, context for the AMR and key background information referring to thecollection of relevant data for this report

• Section 2: Key Points and Actions

• Section 3: Housing

• Section 4: Economy - covering employment,leisure and retail issues

• Section 5: Environment

• Section 6: Minerals, Aggregates and Waste

• Section 7: Transport

• Section 8: Sub Areas

Context for the 2005/06 Annual Monitoring Report

1.3 Communities and Local Government (CLG)requires all Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) to haverobust mechanisms for monitoring and reviewingtheir Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Now that theRSS has replaced Regional Planning Guidance (RPG),delivery will be through a wide range of otherbodies.This presents further challenges, in particularthe need to scrutinise policies through a greaternumber of plans and strategies. A formal processneeds to develop for this to be done, particularlythrough the consultation arrangements for theseplans and strategies.

1.4 The AMR is of crucial importance to the future ofthe Regional Spatial Strategy. As RSSs areimplemented, it is only through monitoring and

analysis of performance at the local level, throughdocuments such as Local Development Frameworks,that an assessment can be made as to the degree towhich the spatial strategy and policies have beenrealised. The AMR is a statutory document and atechnical report and its value will further increase inthe years to come as indicators become standardisedand consistently collected and data is built up toallow trends over time to be recorded and analysed.Trends will give a clear indication of policy areas inwhich progress is being made and whereintervention may be required.

1.5 The AMR needs to be prepared in a systematicand structured way. Wherever possible data withinthe report relates to the 1 April to 31 March financialyear. Some indicators are monitored on a regularbasis and others on a less frequentbasis. This envisages someindicators being monitoredannually and others beingmonitored on no lessthan a triennial basis aspart of a morecomprehensivemonitoring process.

1.6 The AMR shouldbe prepared by theend of February of thefollowing year to whichit applies and ispublished followingapproval by the membersof the Regional Housing,Planning & Transport Joint Board.It is then circulated to all libraries andlocal authorities in the Region, theGovernment Office for the East Midlands and partnerorganisations as appropriate.

The 2005/06 Annual Monitoring Reportfor the East Midlands

1.7 The East Midlands Regional Assembly, in its roleas RPB, is required to produce an Annual MonitoringReport (AMR), which links with the current RSS(March 2005) and measures the progress of policiescontained within it. It is the Regional Spatial Strategy

SECTION 1 introduction

12


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

13

(formerly RPG8) that sets out a broad developmentframework for the East Midlands up to 20211. Totranslate the RSS into a focused strategy, RSS sets 10objectives for the spatial development of the Region:

Regional Core Objectives

• To address social exclusion, through theregeneration of disadvantaged areas andreducing regional inequalities in the distribution of employment, housing, health and other community facilities

• To protect and where possible enhance thequality of the environment in urban and ruralareas so as to make them safe and attractiveplaces to live and work

• To improve the health of the Region’s residents,for example through improved air quality, theavailability of good quality well designedhousing and access to leisure and recreationfacilities

• To promote and improve economic prosperity,employment opportunities and regionalcompetitiveness

• To improve accessibility to jobs, homes andservices across the Region by developingintegrated transport, ensuring the improvement of opportunities for walking,cycling and the use of high quality publictransport

• To achieve effective protection of theenvironment by avoiding significant harm and securing adequate mitigation whereappropriate, and to promote the conservation,enhancement, sensitive use and managementof the Region’s natural and cultural assets

• To bring about a step change increase in thelevel of the Region’s biodiversity, by managingand developing habitats to secure gainswherever possible, and ensuring no net loss of priority habitats and species

• To promote the prudent use of resources, inparticular through patterns of development and transport that make efficient and effectiveuse of existing infrastructure, optimise wasteminimisation, reduce overall energy use andmaximise the role of renewable energy generation

• To take action to reduce the scale and impact of future climate change, in particular the risk of damage to life and property from flooding,especially through the location and design ofnew development

• To promote good design in development toachieve high environmental standards andoptimum social benefits.

1.8 The spatial strategy outlines regional prioritiesfor both urban and rural communities. It is importantto note that the core strategy within the Revised RSSis based on the ‘Sequential Approach toDevelopment Form’, which provides a framework formeeting the Region’s development needs in a waythat promotes sustainable patterns of development.It contains detailed policies in respect of the region’s5 Sub-areas (Eastern, Northern, Peak, Southern andthe Three Cities) to provide a context for the RSS.

1.9 The framework of RSS Indicators and theirrelationship to the RSS core objectives are listed atthe start of each section to which they apply.Theseindicators include the Core Output Indicators forRegional Planning drawn up by CLG in conjunctionwith RPBs. Other core indicators have been identified,many of which are already collected and establishedby local authorities, regional partner organisations orGovernment agencies.Where indicators do notprovide a direct measure of an RSS policy butprovide background information these are referredto as CONTEXTUAL indicators. This classification ofindicators as: Regional CORE, RSS CORE andCONTEXTUAL should be helpful in achievinguniversal support in the region for the monitoringtask ahead.

1 The final version of the revised RSS for the East Midlands, takes account of all representations received on the draftProposed Changes (July 2004), was published in March 2005. It incorporates changes resulting from the considerationof issues arising from a Public Examination as well as the public consultation on the draft MKSM Sub-RegionalStrategy, of which separate monitoring arrangements are now in place.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

14

1.10 An Annual MonitoringStatement (AMS) or Report

(AMR) has been producedsince March 2003; this beingthe fifth such report. EachAMR has attempted torecord the situation for theappropriate RegionalPlanning Guidance orRegional Spatial Strategy,

although where possiblemonitoring was kept

consistent with earlier roundsto ensure continuity and the

ability to monitor trends over time.Despite this, in some instances

comparisons with earlier year’s facts andfigures may not always be possible.

1.11 To produce the 2005/06 AMR, Intelligence EastMidlands worked in conjunction with the EastMidlands Regional Monitoring and Review AdvisoryGroup and have undertaken the following tasks:

• Collection of Local Authority data usingquestionnaires completed by Local Authorities. Fivequestionnaires were distributed (housing, economy,environment, waste and transport) to countycouncils and unitary authorities. County Councilsthen distributed these to district councils asappropriate.

• Collection of non-local authority data throughconsultation, interrogation and collation of nationaland regional data sets.

• Review of AMR documents produced by otherregions.

• Development of a comprehensive managementinformation database. IEM has designed, developedand completed a database to capture all local andnon-local authority monitoring information relatingto the RSS.

1.12 Due to differing data collection arrangementsaround the Region, collecting consistent data fromthe 39 district/city and 6 county councils, plus thePeak District National Park Authority, has provedchallenging for all involved. Data which was initiallybelieved to be available from regional or nationalsources has also occasionally been difficult to collect.Experience also showed that the timeliness andavailability of some data was not satisfactory. Inaddition the relevance of some indicators to policieswas doubtful, either because of policy wording or thetenuous link between the two.These matterscontinue to be addressed as the process movesforward year on year. Key issues surrounding data aresummarised in the relevant sections of the report.

1.13 Out of the 5questionnaireswhich were sentto LocalPlanningAuthoritiesin August2006, forthe firsttime a100%responserate wasachievedwhich marksa significantachievement.However, not allresponses werecomplete, particularlyaround employment land andfloorspace, retail and leisure monitoring. Continuingjoint working between the Assembly and theMonitoring & Review and other RSS Advisory Groupsis ensuring the indicator framework is strengthenedand where not already in place, arrangements can bemade at the appropriate level to collect theinformation.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

15

1.14 The report has also benefited from commentsreceived during the following Advisory GroupMeetings attended by IEM:

• Spatial Economy Advisory Group

• Environment Advisory Group

• Housing Advisory Group

• Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste

• Monitoring and Review Advisory Group

• Transport Advisory Group

1.15 In addition, key partners who provided dataincluded:

• The Environment Agency

• Natural England

• English Heritage

• The Forestry Commission

• East Midlands Development Agency

• East Midlands Local Authorities

• Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

• Department for Transport

1.16 The following symbols are used within theImplementation Chart at the beginning of each topicchapter to summarise progress being made on eachRSS policy:

Key to symbols

Moving in right direction or towards target

No significant change

Moving in wrong direction or away fromtarget

Insufficient data

SECTION 2 key points and actionsEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

16

INTRODUCTION

2.1 A key requirement of a regional monitoring report is to assess the progress made in the policy areascontained within the RSS and to identify actions required to address any shortcomings.This section considersthe principal key points and actions resulting from each section of the report.

2.2 Included in this section are:

• Key points and actions for this (2005/6) monitoring report,

• Progress on actions arising from the 2004/5 monitoring report (comments made at the Joint Housing, Planning& Transport Board and actions arising from the main report),

• Report on the conformity of plans, local development frameworks and significant development applicationswith the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Key Points and Actions from the 2005/6 Annual Monitoring Report

2.3 The key points below are selected from later sections.

SECTION 3 Housing

Key Points

Housing Provision is above target everywhere except Northamptonshire

Affordable housing provision remains significantly below target

SECTION 4 Economy

Key Points

A study of employment land provision comparing forecast future requirements and current supply has been undertaken in order to propose indicative land requirements to inform the emerging RSS.The final report was published in December 2006;amongst other things it recommends that local employment land reviews should be undertaken,perhaps by local authorities working jointly across Housing Market Areas (HMAs), in order to develop the overall conclusions of the study

Actions

The conclusions of the Employment LandProvision Study, as developed through the RSS,should be used to develop local and jointstudies to inform Local DevelopmentFramework (LDF) preparation

Actions

Figures need to be considered in the context ofthe draft Regional Plan and need to look atmethodology for calculating trajectories

The RPB and its partners should support theongoing work on the ten Housing MarketAssessments which are reviewing the issue ofaffordability and affordable housing targets


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

17

Key Points

The Strategic Distribution Study confirmed the importance of the distribution sector to the economy of the East Midlands, particularly in the south of the region and within parts of the Northern Sub-area

Leicestershire County Council is a lead partner on anumber of innovative schemes to support the ruraleconomy

Actions

The Regional Assembly, East MidlandsDevelopment Agency (emda) and the relevantlocal authorities and public sector bodies arealready developing and implementingstrategies to improve the regional offer ofemployment sites to meet regional objectives.This work should continue to be seen as aregional priority with progress closelymonitored

This work can be rolled out to Regional countypartners as an example of good practice;regional mechanisms need to be identified toachieve this

Actions

Continuous assessment by Natural Englandhelps the East Midlands Regional Assembly(EMRA) target its action

EMRA has set milestone targets nationally foreach year to 2010, in order to achieve its aims

Lobby CLG, the Department for EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs (defra) & the EuropeanUnion to maintain grant support

Further significant region-wide positive changein the farmland bird index is not likely tohappen until there has been widespreadimplementation of the new agri-environmentschemes

Defra’s Countryside Stewardship agri-environment scheme, the Entry and HigherLevel of the Environmental Stewardshipscheme, has been implemented, withparticularly high rates of take-up compared toother regions; these will show biodiversitybenefits over time

SECTION 5 Environment

Key Points

In the Peak District National Park 72% of SSSIs were in unfavourable condition, in comparison to 42% nationally

The Moors for the Future project has improved conditions but the programme is in jeopardy due to the uncertainty over future ESA grant support

The population of both farmland and woodland birds show increases, with the recorded populations of farmland birds almost returning to their 1994 levels and those for woodland birds remaining significantly above the 1994 recorded population

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

18

Key Points

Take up of Landscape Character Assessment coverage has now made significant progress across the Region

Planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on water quality grounds show a substantial decline and well on the way to meeting the target of zero permissions granted

A significant number of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments have either been undertaken, or are planned, to better understated and respond to development proposals in relation to flood risk

Only 6 local authorities supplied figures on Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS); in all planning permission was granted for 13 developments which contained SuDS

The region has seen much increased interest in wind development and the number of installationsis expected to increase markedly in the next year

The region has challenging targets for renewable energy generation and there is uncertainty that all the targets will be met

Actions

There is a need for criteria based policies inLocal Development Documents andSupplementary Planning Documents (SPDs).Work has been done in the Region to developdetailed SPDs for use by Development ControlOfficers.This work needs replicating morewidely

Progress is being made on undertakingStrategic Flood Risk Assessments, which are theresponsibility of local authorities; the role of theEnvironment Agency in these studies, as set outin PPS25, needs to be established in each case

SuDS still appears to be an issue that does notengage local authorities. Action is required toensure increased implementation through theRegional Plan

Actions

The environmental capacity of the Region tocontinue to supply national needs has to beconsidered. The role of recycled and secondaryaggregates will continue to play a growing partin sustainable aggregate provision

SECTION 6 Minerals, Aggregates & Waste

Key Points

The Region accepted the national apportioned requirement for aggregates provision and is one of the largest suppliers


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

19

Actions

The publication of MPS1 in late 2006 will meanthat any revision of RSS policy should considerthe mineral resources available for a range ofregionally significant minerals against theexisting and future patterns of supply

It will be important to monitor progress inimplementing the spatial dimensions of theRWS through development frameworks acrossthe region

The RWS recognises the need to also addressthe commercial and industrial sector andcontinued implementation of the RWS in theseother areas is important if overall sustainablewaste management is to be achieved

Key Points

The supply of aggregates is lower than the apportionment figure; this continues a trend of lower production over the past 5 years

The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (RWS) was published in January 2006

32.7% of household waste is now recycled or composed in the East Midlands, suggesting a significant movement in the right direction and that short term targets have been achieved and that longer term targets are achievable

Actions

Existing actions are not achieving significantreduction in the rate of traffic growth. Othermeasures like road user charging and parkinglevies need to be investigated

Tram systems appear effective but are onlyappropriate in major cities.There is a need tofind effective ways of achieving very significantgrowth in bus use elsewhere

SECTION 7 Transport

Key Points

Road traffic continues to grow

The Nottingham Tram system has contributed towards a slight increase in public transport usage over the past year

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

20

Actions

The Assembly, relevant local authorities andother key partners will need to ensure thespatial strategy is not only implemented butthat monitoring regimes are set up to enableprogress to be measured


The Plan places further emphasis on the needfor partners to work together to ensure theconservation of the Park for future generations


SECTION 8 Sub-Areas Key Points

Key Points

Lincoln Policy Area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy and implementation framework for the Lincoln Policy Area has been launched (September 2006)

Northern Sub-area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy and implementation framework for the Northern Sub-area has been launched (September 2006)

Peak Sub-area:The new National Park Management Plan is due to be published in 2007

Three Cities Sub-area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy and implementation framework for the Three Cities Sub-area has been launched (September 2006)

The Assembly and EMA both accept the needfor better public transport access as stated inthe EMA Masterplan and draft RSS. In addition,EMA has done much to promote new publictransport links e.g. quality bus links fromNottingham, Leicester and elsewhere. Aparkway station on the Midland Main lineadjacent to EMA is due to open on December 82007, which will provide good access to EMAfrom the national rail network. In addition, EMAhas a very proactive surface access strategy

Members considered that the AMR showed the need for better public transport especially in connection with East Midlands Airport (EMA).Suggested using the statistics in the response to the draft EMA Masterplan

Progress on actions arising from the 2004/5 monitoring report: Joint Planning, Housing& Transport Board comments:

2.4 At the Regional Housing, Planning and Transport Board meeting of 16 February 2006 members received the4th RSS Annual Monitoring Report.

2.5 Members made several comments; which were forwarded to ODPM (now CLG).The following required someaction and response:


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

21

The Government, regional and local agenciesremain acutely aware of the growth in traffic inthe region. The success of the Three Cities’authorities in getting a pump priming awardfrom the Congestion -Transport InnovationFund (C-TIF) to develop a substantive roadpricing proposal is noteworthy as isNottingham’s success in getting lines two andthree of the NET approved when other citieshave been unable to extend their tramnetworks

The proportion of rail use in the East Midlandswhen compared to other modes of transporthas been historically low. This is partly due to alack of large conurbations. However, much ishappening in the Region to ensure levels of railuse will rise e.g. Nottingham StationMasterplan, Corby station, a new service fromNottingham to Leeds and the opening ofMidland Mainline Parkway Station

These issues are being addressed in the MKSMAnnual Monitoring Report

Members suggested there was scope to use the information presented in the 4th AMR proactively e.g. growth in road traffic could be used to get the message to Government about not being successful in managing demand

Members highlighted the issue of rail links in the East Midlands.

Members referred to the problem of the Milton Keynes & South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy being infrastructure-led and the issue overthe Planning-gain Supplement

The response to this comment from theGovernment Office for the East Midlandsindicated that the evidence in the 2004/05AMR did not point to such a shift. Future AMRsmay obtain further data

Investigate whether the use of previously developed land (pdl) for housing is either giving rise to a shift towards greater use of greenfield landfor employment development, or lower accommodation levels in certain types of pdl development, principally in city centres

Progress on actions arising from the 2004/5 Annual Monitoring Report

2.6 The 2004/5 Annual Monitoring Report set out actions in Section 2, many of which would be incorporated inthe review of the Regional Spatial Strategy or in the ongoing work of the Assembly.The remaining actions arelisted below:

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

22

emda has been supporting the East MidlandsRural Affairs Forum (EMRAF) in the drafting ofthe Rural Action Plan, as well as producing anevidence base to accompany it, which drawsout urban/rural disparities. A shorter evidencebase was produced with assistance fromNatural England to support the RegionalImplementation Plan, highlighting areas ofenvironmental and socio-economic need inrural areas, to assist delivery of the RuralDevelopment Programme for England in theEast Midlands

Work is in progress, as part of the Regional Planpreparation, to establish and define manyregional spatial boundaries where not alreadyin place

The Regional Assembly, emda and the relevantlocal authorities and public sector bodies arealready developing and implementingstrategies to improve the regional offer ofemployment sites to meet regional objectives.This work should continue to be seen as aregional priority with progress closelymonitored

This report contains an update on progress

This year the Environment Agency has set upRiver Basin Management Liaison Panels onwhich the Region is represented. A study of theRegion’s soils and their vulnerability bycatchment area has been published by theAssembly as part of the study programme onland drainage, landscape and biodiversity

Further research and joint working with emda isneeded to address urban/rural disparities and areasof significant deprivation

The Regional Assembly, in discussion with the localauthorities, should provide a single clear definitionof the preferred areas for regeneration againstwhich individual sites can be either included orexcluded via Geographical Information Systems(GIS) plotting

In order to meet the Regional Economic Strategy’sobjectives for economic development it will benecessary for the regional offer of employmentsites to be improved.The portfolio of sites acrossthe region will require an emphasis on sites whichwill help develop key sector priorities

Local Authorities are urged to put in place systemsand practices to ensure that the sequential locationof proposed and developed retail and leisurefacilities can be reported upon in future AMRs.Information from national sources such as theValuation Office will be used to enhance theinformation on major developments alreadycollected through local planning authorities

The EU Water Framework Directive will be a keydriver for the protection and improvement of thewater environment for the next 25 years and workneeds to be undertaken on how it is implemented


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

23

The publication the Regional BiodiversityStrategy ‘Putting Wildlife Back on the Map’ (May2006) greatly assists this action, particularlywith its identified regional biodiversity priorityareas

The Assembly are bringing together a Group ofexperts in environmental monitoring to look atgaps and how these can be addressed

The Regional Environment Advisory Group hasestablished sub-groups looking at regionallandscapes and data needs, which areconsidering these matters as part of their work(see also previous action).

See previous action

This report contains an update on progress

It is now felt to be a matter for local authoritiesto define their own accessibility criteria

The region could help implement the new defraagri-environment schemes by developing andpromoting initiatives (possibly through theRegional Biodiversity Forum and defra’s RuralDevelopment Service) and identifying sub regionalareas for key bird species and promoting ordeveloping new or targeted initiatives

The region should look at identifying a wider rangeof indicators to better monitor the overall progresstowards reducing carbon emissions.The provisionof better quality data by the Department of Trade &Industry will aid this process

The Assembly should consider monitoring thecoverage of Historic Landscape CharacterisationStudies.There is also a need to consider anindicator which stems from the detailed LandscapeCharacter Assessments that are being preparedacross the region and used to assess characteristicchanges in landscape as well as informing thetargeting of regional landscape enhancementopportunities.This may be by way of theconformity role of the Assembly

Work needs to be undertaken at regional level todevelop detailed assistance (on criteria basedpolicies in Local Development Documents) so thatdevelopments requiring planning permissionprotect and enhance landscape character

Information on the restoration of mineral workingsis not collected by either the Mineral PlanningAuthorities or the Regional Aggregates WorkingParty (RAWP).This needs to be addressed for futuremonitoring cycles

There would appear to be a case for havingnational accessibility criteria that could take intoaccount specific regional factors

Key Points identified as actions for Government

2.7 One issue identified in the previous Annual Monitoring Report was highlighted which the RegionalAssembly believed required the view of or action from Government.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

24

2.8 One action from the 2004/05 AMR is still awaiting a response:

Report on the conformity of plans, Local Development Frameworks and significantdevelopment applications with the Regional Spatial Strategy

2.9 The Development Control Provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 came into force on the 24August 2005 and consequently the Regional Assembly became a statutory consultee on certain types of majorplanning applications from the perspective of conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.The RegionalAssembly is required to report to CLG on a regular basis the number of applications received and the numberresponded to within the 21 day period.

2.10 However, it has been found that planning applications of regional significance are, almost by definition,large and complex and it is not always possible to form a properly considered response within three weeks. In allcases, discussions are held with the local authority case officers and, if more time is needed, an acceptabletimescale agreed upon.

2.11 In the period 2005/06 68 planning applications were received (approximating to just less than 1.5 majorapplications per week during the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006).

2.12 The Assembly has a statutory duty to comment on local development documents produced by localplanning authorities that require public examination. In most cases Local Development Framework (LDF)preparation has not yet reached the stage where formal issue of a statement of conformity from the Assemblyhas been necessary although the Assembly has been consulted on a number of Local Development Schemeswhich include Core Strategy Issues & Options/Preferred Options, draft Affordable Housing SupplementaryPlanning Documents (SPD), Statements of Community Involvement, Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Reportsand other SPDs. Under the regulations, the Regional Assembly has a duty to respond to these.The RegionalAssembly received 68 such consultation documents during 2005/06.

Whilst wind technology has benefited fromRenewable Obligation certificates, that havehelped to level the playing field, furtherincentives for less market ready technologiesare needed.The Energy Review has highlighteda range of different instruments to support thedifferent low carbon technologies and ensureadequate market penetration

From the monitoring of progress on the regionaltargets for renewable energy, it has beenconcluded that if the regional targets are to be metnew legislation or the scrapping of New ElectricityTrading Arrangements (NETA), and additionalfinancial incentives are required in the very nearfuture


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

25

Actions

RPB to ensure definitions are consistent for2006/07

Figures need to be considered in the context ofthe draft Regional Plan and need to look atmethodology for calculating trajectories

The RPB and its partners should support theongoing work on the ten Market HousingAssessments which are reviewing the issue ofaffordability and affordable housing targets

The Housing Advisory Group should work withCLG to understand the differences in the data

Key Points

Need consistency between definition used for housing density in the LDF and RSS monitoring processes

Housing Provision is above target everywhere except Northamptonshire

Affordable housing provision remains significantly below target

Local Authority and CLG data on the use of previously developed land for housing paints different pictures for the region

INTRODUCTION

3.1 This section provides analysis on the following regional housing related policies contained within RSS8.

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual

Target Status Progress Sources

4 PromotingBetterDesign

Density ofnew housing

Energyefficientconstruction

Crime rates

Improvementsin open space

Regional CoreSignificantEffectIndicator

RSS Core

RSS Core

Contextual

Increaseddensities inline withNationalGuidance

Small increasefrom previousyear

Insufficientnew datacollected

Burglary ratesshowedsignificant fall

No measurecurrentlyavailable

LA returns

Consultant’sanalysis

HomeOffice data

-

17 RegionalHousingProvision

Housingtrajectories

Vacantdwellings bytenure


Contextual

13,700 dpa(new)

Reduction on2001 existingstock vacancylevels by 0.5%

Housingprovision isgenerallyabove target

Vacancy ratesremain largelyunchanged

LA returns

LA returns

18 RegionalPriorities forAffordableHousing

Affordablehousingcompletionsby LA areas

RegionalCoreSignificantEffectIndicator

Regionaltarget forprovision:3,950dpa(indicativebenchmark)Local targetsset in LDFs

Significantprogressmade towardsmeetingtarget

LA returns

SECTION 3 housing

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

26

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


Ratio of wagerates andhousing costs

Contextual Similar patternto previousyear

Land Registry& NewEarningsSurvey

19 RegionalPriorities forManagingthe Releaseof Land forHousing

Phasingpolicies inplace in LDDs

RSS Core - Not all localauthoritiesresponded toquestion

DevelopmentPlans

20 A RegionalTarget forRe-usingPreviouslyDevelopedLand andBuildingsfor Housing

Proportion ofhousingcompletionsachieved onpreviouslydevelopedland orthroughconversions

RegionalCore

60% by2021

Mixed pictureemergingfrom LocalAuthority andcentral datasources

LA returnsCLG

Data Issues

3.2 One issue that has emerged this year is the lackof consistency in the definitions used for someindicators across different monitoring processes. Anexample is the different definition used for housingdensity in the Local Development Framework (LDF)monitoring process and that used in the RegionalSpatial Strategy (RSS) monitoring process. This hasarisen in part because of the different times at whichthe monitoring processes were introduced, with theRSS process being in place for the past five years. Thehousing density definition used in 2005/06 isconsistent with that used in the past and henceprovides a comparative basis over time. Given that anew RSS will be operating as of next year then thisoffers the opportunity for an alignment ofdefinitions.

3.3 Although the overall response rate to the mainhousing questionnaire used in 2005/06 was 100%,not all questions were fully completed. The responserate for the additional questions on types of policies

in place, at around 88%, was less good. This lowerresponse rate may in part be because the questionswere asked after the initial questionnaire had beencompleted.

Policy 4: Promoting Better Design

Standards of design and construction should beimproved through: the increased density of newhousing; design and construction to allow energyefficiency and the reduction of crime in new areasof development; and improvements in openspaces

Targets:• Increased densities in line with National Guidance

Indicators:• Density of new housing• Energy efficient construction• Crime rates• Improvements in open space


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

27

Results: Density of New Housing - Significant EffectsIndicator

3.4 According to provisional Land Use ChangeStatistics/Communities and Local Governmentplanning statistics for 2005, the East Midlands showsdensities of new dwellings slightly below (at 37dwellings per hectare) the density for England (40dwellings per hectare). In the East Midlands this

shows a small increase in density of housing from2004 where the figure was 36 dwellings per hectare(England has remained the same at 40 dwellings perhectare in 2004 and 2005).

3.5 The 2005 density in the East Midlands issignificantly higher than levels for previous years,which have been slowly rising from around 22 in1995 to 37 dwellings per hectare.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

Table 3.1- Density of New Housing 2005/06

Table 3.1- Density of New Housing on Sites of 10 or More Dwellings 2005-06

No.

17

843

14

391

556

390

2

661

*

116

2,990

No.

83

569

563

977

632

1,125

13

1,177

*

146

5,285

No.

341

626

737

449

423

1,361

242

598

*

38

4,815

%

3.9

41.4

1.1

21.5

34.5

13.6

0.8

27.1

*

38.7

22.8

%

18.8

27.9

42.8

53.8

39.2

39.1

5.1

48.3

*

48.7

40.4

%

77.3

30.7

56.1

24.7

26.3

47.3

94.2

24.5

*

12.7

36.8

Source: Local Authorities

Missing data for North East Derbyshire, Erewash, North Kesteven and Kettering* The Peak Park has no sites which fall within the monitoring criteria

New dwellingscompleted at lessthan 30 dwellings/ha

New dwellingscompleted between 30 and 50 dwellings/ha

New dwellingscompleted above 50dwellings/ha


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

28

Energy Efficient Construction

3.6 In 2005/06 50% (18) of respondents had development plans containing aims to achieve energy efficiency.Not all local authorities responded to the question but from last year’s (2004/05) responses it is known that atleast 22 authorities have such aims in their plans.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

61.6

23.0

93.8

95.6

17.2

57.8

98.6

54.2

73.0

22.0

47.7

100.0

59.5

56.5

33.3

22.3

71.7

100.0

72.2

0.0

27.9

55.6

96.1

58.6

98.9

78.5

65.5

86.4

99.2

72.8

*

61.4

77.2

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

East Midlands

England

Theft of or from a vehicleper 1,000 population

Violent crime per 1,000 pop

Burglaries per 1,000 pop

Table 3.2- Percentage of New Dwellings completed at over 30dph


* The Peak Park has no sites which fall within the monitoring criteria

Data Analysis

3.7 The percentage of dwellings completed at a density of over 30 dwellings per hectare has again increased inmost areas of the East Midlands between 2004/05 and 2005/06. However, care needs to be taken in looking atchanges between single years as the density indicator is based on wholly completed schemes (or phases) andtherefore the outcome in any particular year can be skewed. Nevertheless in the East Midlands the density ofnew dwellings per hectare has been rising steadily since 1994 and significantly since 2003 where the density was26 dwellings per hectare compared to the (provisional) 2005 figure of 37 dwellings per hectare.

Crime Rates

Table 3.3- Crime Rates 2005/06 (04/05 in brackets)

10 (12)

11 (12)

11 (11)

15 (17)

20 (24)

13 (16)

12 (12)

18 (19)

25 (26)

17 (18)

19 (20)

24 (22)

21 (21)

23 (23)

10 (10)

11 (12)

9 (9)

14 (16)

22 (22)

13 (14)

14 (14)

Source: Home Office


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

29

3.8 The burglary rate in the East Midlands hasdeclined substantially over the period 2004/05 to2005/06. There has been a 14% decrease in theburglary rate in the East Midlands compared to a 5%decrease in England. The decrease in each of the EastMidlands police force area is Derbyshire 15%;Leicestershire 12%; Lincolnshire 2%;Northamptonshire 12% and Nottinghamshire 19%. Anumber of factors have led to this decrease, not leastthe increased targeting of this type of crime by thepolice. Target hardening and other preventativeactions by householders will also have contributed tothis decline. The design of housing is likely to be alonger term influence on burglary rates and will onlyhave a partial impact on the short term changesidentified above.

3.9 Currently no measure is available forimprovements in open space; this is likely to requiresome assessment of quality as opposed to quantityof space available.

Policy Commentary

3.10 The trend in densities shows that this aspect ofPolicy 4 is being successfully implemented. This isespecially encouraging as the definition used meansthat there is some time lag since planningpermissions were granted. The percentage ofhousing completed at over 30 dwellings per hectareis increasing in all areas but the Three Cities, where itwas already at over 90%. The lowest percentage ofhousing developed at over 30 dwellings per hectarewere in the most rural counties of Derbyshire,Lincolnshire and Rutland.

3.11 The number of plans with policies for energyefficient construction reflect how recently they weredrafted. Most recent plans do have them, and thistrend is likely to be further encouraged byGovernment policy guidance issued for consultationin December 2006.

3.12 In the consultation draft Regional Plan theequivalent Policy 3 has been significantly expandedto cover sustainability issues. As a result, the draftImplementation Framework includes more specificindicators on energy efficient construction, and theindicators on crime rates and improvement in open

space have been deleted. The crime rate data ispurely contextual, and improvements in open spacewas not a sufficiently specific or measurableindicator.

Policy 17: Regional Housing Provision

Housing provision for each structure plan area forthe period 2001-2021 should be made at thefollowing annual average rates:

Derby and Derbyshire: 2550

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland: 3150

Lincolnshire: 2750

Northamptonshire (consistent with Milton Keynes & South Midlands (MKSM) Strategy): 4975

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire: 2450

Peak District National Park (nominal): 50

Targets:Housing provision for the period 2001-2021 shouldbe made at the average rate of 10,950 dwellings perannum in the East Midlands Region.This figureexcludes Northamptonshire which is covered byMKSM sub-regional strategy and monitoring. For theEast Midlands as a whole, includingNorthamptonshire, the figure is 15,925. Strategic planarea housing provision is also set.

Indicators:• Housing completions• Vacant dwellings by tenure• Housing provision and supply

Results:Housing Completions

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

30

Table 3.4 - Housing Provision According to the Regional Spatial Strategy

Derby & Derbyshire

Leics, Leicestershire& Rutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham &Nottinghamshire

Peak District National Park

East Midlands

TargetAverageAnnualRate for2001-2021

ActualProvision2005/06

Percentageabove orbelow targetannualaverage rate

AverageActual AnnualProvision01/02 to05/06

Percentageabove orbelow targetannualaverage rate

Currentannualrequirementto meet 2021target

3,966

3,730

3,769

4,335

3,502

75

19,375

3,245

3,464

3,730

3,628

3,482

92

17,641

2,318

3,045

2,423

5,424

2,106

*

15,353

55.5

18.4

37.1

-12.9

42.9

*

21.7

27.3

10.0

35.6

-27.1

42.1

*

10.8

2,550

3,150

2,750

4,975

2,450

50

15,925

Derby &Derbys

Leics, Leic &Rutland

Lincs Northants Nottingham& Notts

Source: Local Authorities * The Peak Park does not having housing targets

Figure 3.2 - Housing Provision

Housing Trajectories - Significant Effect IndicatorFigure 3.3 - Housing Trajectories Net Additional Dwellings


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

31

3.13 Figure 3.3 provides housing trajectories that compare the current trend in housing completions taken to2021 (the solid line) and the target trajectories for 2021 (the dotted lines). This trajectory analysis shows that inall cases except Northamptonshire the trend in actual provision of housing is above that required to meet the2021 target. Northamptonshire can be regarded as a special case as the MKSM sub regional strategy hasstepped annual targets rising towards 2021.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

4.4 (4.2)

3.4 (3.0)

5.7 (5.9)

2.6 (3.1)

2.9 (2.9)

2.6 (2.7)

4.8 (3.3)

3.6 (2.8)

N/K

6.6

3.4 (3.2)

1.6 (1.8)

5.7 (1.3)

0.7 (1.0)

1.0 (2.0)

1.5 (2.1)

3.1 (2.9)

4.3 (5.5)

2.6 (2.5)

N/K

2.0

2.6 (2.5)

102,519 (101,636)

321,049 (330,909)

121,550 (119,780)

332,601 (228,445)

303,615 (298,512)

252,170 (162,334)

125,267 (124,194)

289,075 (239,677)

N/K

14,654

1,862,500 (1,606,747)

4.3 (3.9)

1.7 (0.9)

2.0 (1.8)

0.3 (1.1)

1.0 (1.1)

1.0 (0.9)

4.2 (4.0)

1.8 (3.3)

N/K

0.3

1.5 (1.8)

4.0 (3.9)

3.5 (2.7)

4.5 (4.6)

2.1 (3.0)

2.8 (2.7)

2.6 (2.7)

4.6 (3.9)

3.4 (2.8)

N/K

6.0

3.2 (3.1)

PrivateSector %

RSL % LocalAuthority %

Total % Total number of dwellings

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

4.2

2.8

4.3

1.8

3.7

1.3

2.6

2.4

#

2.9

#

3.7

3.2

4.2

2.6

3.9

2.2

3.9

2.2

#

#

3.1

4.0

3.5

4.5

2.1

2.8

2.6

4.6

3.4

#

6.0

3.2

4.1

2.8

4.1

2.3

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.3

#

#

3.1

3.9

2.7

4.6

3.0

2.7

2.7

3.9

2.8

#

#

3.1

01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

Vacant DwellingsTable 3.5 - Vacant dwellings 2005/06 (2004/05 in brackets)

Source: Local Authorities05/06 excludes, Harborough (private sector figures), Broxtowe and DaventryN/K not known- no data from The Peak ParkIn Lincolnshire there are significant numbers of ‘Other Public Sector’ vacant dwellings with high vacancy ratesincluding Ministry of Defence and NHS houses. Out of a total of 2167 such houses 443 were vacant in 2005/06, avacancy rate of 20.4%

Table 3.6 - Percentage of All Vacant Dwellings 2001/02 to 2005/06

Source: Local Authorities# No data available

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

32

Urban Capacity Studies

3.14 In the 2004/05 monitoring report it was reported that 39 out of 40 lower tier planning authorities hadUrban Capacity Studies in place.This year all 40 gave details of their Urban Capacity Studies.

Data Analysis

3.15 The number of housing completions in 2005/06 (and the average annual number of completions) in allareas except Northamptonshire are above the current annual average requirement to meet 2021 targets.Northamptonshire can be regarded as a special case as the MKSM sub regional strategy has stepped annualtargets rising towards 2021. In 2005/06 housing provision in the east Midlands was 15,040 houses, excluding thefigure for Northamptonshire, compared to a target of 10,950.

3.16 This monitoring report, unlike previous ones for the East Midlands, contains a housing trajectory analysisthat provides an estimate of housing provision in the different areas of the East Midlands, based on a linear trendfor the years 2001/02 to 2005/06, for the years up until 2021. These predictions can then be compared to thetarget trajectory for 2021.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

3,489

12,728

8,597

13,519

22,817

13,258

5,413

13,547

292

698

94,358

3,075

3,763

8,845

3,992

8,725

10,805

3,259

6,558

0

38

49,048

New dwellings with outstandingplanning permissions

New dwellings allocated in local plans and LDDs

Derbyshire

Leicestershire & Rutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

East Midlands

7.0

7.5

9.5

2.4

9.0

8.1

6.1

Years of Dwelling Supply

Housing Provision and Supply

Table 3.7 - Housing Provision and Supply by County/Unitary Authority, as of March 31st 2006

Source: Local AuthoritiesNorth Kesteven planning permissions estimated

Table 3.8 - Planning Permissions and Years of Supply of Housing

Source: Local AuthoritiesOutstanding planning permissions divided byannual requirement from table 3.4


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

33

3.17 The overall percentage of dwellings that arevacant in 2005/06 in the East Midlands at 3.2%remains similar to that for the previous four years.The new dwellings with outstanding planningpermissions in the East Midlands shows an increasefrom 79,517 in 2005 to 93,821 in 2006 which extendsthe years of future dwelling supply from 5.1 years asat 2005 to 6.1 years as at 2006. The supply in 2005appeared low, however, because of missing data inNorthamptonshire.

Policy Commentary

3.18 The fact that housing provision is above thetarget everywhere except Northamptonshire shouldalso be considered in the context of the consultationdraft Regional Plan, which proposes an averageannual rate of provision of 15,295 excludingNorthamptonshire, almost exactly what wascompleted in 2005/06. This is more consistent withthe 2003-based household projections and recentGovernment policy, which emphasises delivery ofhigher housing numbers.

3.19 The higher figures show a recent upsurge inhousebuilding in the East Midlands, includingstronger markets in urban areas, which the emergingRegional Plan will accommodate in line with itssequential policies.

3.20 Provision in Northamptonshire met its annualMKSM strategy target in 2005/06 and has risen forthe last three years. The total requirement to 2021 is,however, currently subject to revision.

3.21 The trajectories could possibly be refined infuture to incorporate short term forecasts of annualcompletions, rather than simple linear projections,drawing on the trajectories in LDF AnnualMonitoring Reports.

3.22 Vacancy rates show no consistent trend eitherwithin or between areas.The net effect is a steadyrate at regional level, so there is no progress so fartowards the assumption of a half % reduction overthe RSS period. It should be noted, however, thatunlike the consultation draft Regional Plan this is aworking assumption, not a policy target. The sourceused for vacancy rates in this report is different fromthat in the consultation draft Regional Plan.

3.23 The total identified housing supply (planningpermissions and allocations) has only risensignificantly from last year in Leicester andLeicestershire (allowing for under-counting inNorthamptonshire last year).

3.24 Housing supply is not always measured by localauthorities as set out in Table 3.7. In particular smallsites (usually under 10 dwellings) are included inTable 3.7 but do not always come forward fordevelopment. On the other hand urban capacity andwindfall allowances are not included.

3.25 Local authorities were not asked for details oftheir level of urban capacity for this report, as urbancapacity studies are not updated annually, and thereare difficulties in confirming a consistent approach.There are, however, estimates of supply from suchsources in Appendix 2 of the consultation draftRegional Plan, which will if possible be updated to2006.

Policy 18:Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing

The level of affordable housing to be providedshould be justified by local housing needsassessments, preferably based on housing marketor journey to work areas as well as an assessmentof the viability of seeking a particular proportionof affordable housing from such developments.

Targets:Around 3,400 dwellings per annum (i.e. 25% ofrequirement).When Northamptonshire is includedthis figure becomes 3,950

Indicators:• Affordable housing completions by

Local Authority areas• Ratio of wage rates and housing costs

Results:Affordable Housing Completions - Significant Effect Indicator

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

34

EastMidlands 7.8 9.9 7.2 10.8 2,079

02/03 % 03/04 % 04/05% 05/06% Affordable Houses Completed 2005/06

Table 3.9 - Affordable Housing Completions 2001 to 2006

Source: Local Authorities05/06 no North Kesteven data

Table 3.10 - Affordable Housing Completions 2005/06

Derbyshire

Leicestershire & Rutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

East Midlands

413

375

352

524

392

23

2,079

12.1

9.9

10.3

11.8

9.5

30.7

10.8

Number Percentage of total additions to dwelling stock

Source: Local Authorities05/06 no North Kesteven data

Figure 3.5 - Housing Market: mean house prices based on Land Registry data,by strategic authority 2000 - 2006

Source: Land Registry


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

35

Data Analysis

3.26 Affordable housing completions in the EastMidlands have increased from 1,534 in 2003/04 and1,406 in 2004/05 to 2,079 in 2005/06. The targetfigure for affordable housing is to achieve 3,400dwellings per annum in the East Midlands (excludingNorthamptonshire). Although still below this targetprogress is being made.

3.27 Mean house prices across the East Midlandshave not changed much in 2006 compared to 2005following a number of years that saw significant pricerises.

3.28 A comparison of average house prices andaverage income levels at district level for the EastMidlands (a measure of affordability) shows a rangeof outcomes across the East Midlands, although thepattern for 2006 remains similar to that in 2005.There are a number of areas that have experiencedindustrial decline where house prices have remainedconstrained compared to incomes, while other, oftenrural areas, show a higher ratio of house prices toaverage incomes.

Policy Commentary

3.29 Affordable housing provision rose significantlyin 2005/06, but still remains below target. Althoughsignificant progress is being made, it is clear that

affordable housing is not being delivered to theextent that the RSS states is required. Informationhas been provided by the Housing Corporation oncompletions they have funded and the level offunding that may be available in the future. This doesinclude an element of acquiring existing stock. Theremaining affordable housing needs to benegotiated through Section 106 agreements, andsome of that may require additional public subsidy.Levels of finance are a major constraint to meetingaffordable housing targets.

3.30 The issues of affordability and affordablehousing targets are now being reviewed in muchmore detail by the ten Housing Market Assessmentsacross the region.

Policy 19:Regional Priorities for Managing the Release ofLand for Housing

RSS states a need to work jointly acrossadministrative boundaries to manage to releaseof sites to ensure a sustainable pattern ofdevelopment is achieved. Priority areas of actioninclude the built up areas of Derby, Leicester,Lincoln, Northampton, Nottingham (includingparts of Eastern Derbyshire), Chesterfield,Mansfield and across regional boundaries.

Figure 3.6 - Ratio of House Price to Salaries 2006 (Q2)

No data for Derbyshire Dales

Source: House Prices Land Registry Aprilto June 2006

Salaries: ASHE Mean Gross annualearnings of residents 2005

Note different years used to calculate ratio

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

36

Targets: -

Indicator:• Phasing policies in place in Local Development

Documents (LDDs)

Results:3.31 Fifteen (42%) local authorities in 2005/06indicated that they did have phasing policies formanaging the release of land for housing in theirlocal development documents or local plans.

Data Analysis3.32 Not all local authorities responded to thisquestion but it is known from last year’s (2004/05)responses to this question that seventeen localauthorities had such phasing policies in place.

Policy Commentary

3.33 Phasing policies are not required for authoritiesthat fall outside the priority areas, so 100% coverageis not expected. Also some existing Local Plans maynot extend sufficiently far into the future to needthem.

3.34 Although not covered by the indicator,considerable joint working has been involved indrafting the Sub-Regional Strategies in theconsultation draft Regional Plan. These includeconsideration of phasing policies, so implementationof Policy 19 is not necessarily dependant on phasingpolicies in LDDs, most of which are at an early stage.They cover all the priority areas listed exceptNorthampton.

3.35 Northampton is covered by the Milton Keynesand South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy.The three

authorities of Northampton, Daventry and SouthNorthamptonshire are committed to preparing aJoint Core Spatial Strategy to bring forwarddevelopment.This area is known as WestNorthamptonshire, and an Urban DevelopmentCorporation has been established, with developmentcontrol powers, known as West NorthamptonshireDevelopment Corporation. In NorthNorthamptonshire a Joint Planning Unit supportedby the local authorities has been established to bringforward a Core Spatial Strategy covering Corby,Kettering,Wellingborough and EastNorthamptonshire.

Policy 20:A Regional Target for Re-using PreviouslyDeveloped Land and Buildings for Housing

Local Authorities, economic developmentstrategies, developers and other agencies shouldemploy policies and select sites in order tocontribute to the achievement of a target of 60%of additional dwellings on PDL and throughconversions by 2021 at the Regional level.

Target:60% of additional dwellings on previously developedland (PDL) by 2021

Indicator:• Proportion of housing completions achieved onPDL or through conversions

Results:Proportion of New Dwellings on PreviouslyDeveloped Land

North East

North West

Yorkshire and the Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

England

47

68

57

43

55

54

89

62

45

59

52 (57)

72 (75)

65 (69)

54 (57)

70 (73)

60 (63)

95 (95)

65 (69)

58 (65)

66 (70)

71 (73)

81 (83)

74 (78)

50 (54)

70 (75)

67 (69)

98 (98)

69 (72)

61 (66)

71 (74)

45

70

55

48

60

59

90

66

49

60

57

72

63

54

67

58

90

66

48

64

62 (65)

79(81)

69 (73)

54 (57)

72 (75)

63 (65)

96 (96)

72 (75)

55 (62)

70 (73)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Table 3.10 - Proportion of New Dwellings on Previously Developed Land: East Midlandscomparison with other regions 2000-05 (%) (including conversions in brackets)

Source: LUCS CLG Planning Statistics


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

37

Data Analysis

3.36 Two sources of information have been used toanalyse housing development on PDL.The CLGstatistics are based on changes in Ordnance Surveydata while local authority data is based oncompletions through planning permissions.

3.37 The data from CLG for 2005 is provisional butshows that 50% of new dwellings in the EastMidlands were built on PDL (54% if conversions areincluded). This is less than in previous years andremains below the target figure of 60% beingdeveloped on previously developed land by 2021and below the 2005 figure for England of 71% (74%including conversions).

3.38 The local authority data for the region shows adifferent picture. In 2005/06, 67.6% of housing wasdeveloped on PDL compared to 61.9% in 2004/05,continuing the steady progress made since 2001/02.There are variations across the region with the moreurban areas having a greater tendency to develop onPDL.

Policy Commentary

3.39 There is a significant difference between theconclusions that can be drawn from the two datasources. Based on the CLG data the East Midlandshas the lowest percentage of housing developed onPDL in England, and it remains below the 60% target.Based on the local authority data the figures haveimproved considerably since monitoring began, andexceed the target for the second year running.

3.40 It is noticeable that there are fluctuations in thelevel of re-use of PDL, especially in the cities andRutland, indicating that the release and completionof large sites, whether on PDL or greenfield, can affectoverall rates. As the time series becomes longer amoving average might be used.Those areas withlower figures in 2001 have shown more consistentimprovement/increase.

3.41 There are concerns whether the target levelscan be sustained in the long term, given the limitedsupply of PDL in some areas.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

47.8

59.0

96.8

48.8

20.7

53.6

95.6

49.7

76.0

54.7

49.3

59.0

76.7

88.1

69.4

46.4

68.9

100.0

69.5

44.0

52.0

67.6

64.3

70.0

81.0

50.3

33.0

50.5

98.9

57.7

56.6

52.7

55.3

50.5

70.2

72.2

59.5

34.9

51.0

92.7

61.3

91.8

46.0

58.1

53.4

73.1

77.8

61.0

38.9

56.0

81.4

78.7

96.3

44.2

61.9

541

1,923

1,010

1,669

1,748

3,059

1,389

1,901

33

135

13,408

01/02 %

02/03 %

03/04 %

04/05 %

Housing completions onpreviously developed

land 05/06

% on PDL

05/06

Table 3.11 - Housing on Previously Developed Land in Unitary and County areas 2001/02 to 2005/06


SECTION 4 economyEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

38

Key Points

A study of employment land provision comparingforecast future requirements and current supplyhas been undertaken in order to proposeindicative land requirements to inform theemerging RSS.The final report was published inDecember 2006; amongst other things itrecommends that local employment land reviewsshould be undertaken, perhaps by local authoritiesworking jointly across Housing Market Areas(HMAs), in order to develop the overall conclusionsof the study

The monitoring of employment land & floorspace,along with retail and leisure development isimproving but further progress needs to be made

A number of spatial definitions remain vaguewhich continues to cause difficulty for dataproviders

A number of spatial economy indicators areinsufficiently targeted e.g. in relation to RegionalSpatial Strategy (RSS) Policy 2 or inappropriate ordata has proved impossible to collect over a periodof time

The Strategic Distribution Study confirmed theimportance of the distribution sector to theeconomy of the East Midlands, particularly in thesouth of the region and within parts of theNorthern sub-area

Leicestershire County Council is a lead partner on anumber of innovative schemes to support the ruraleconomy

Actions

The conclusions of the Employment LandProvision Study, as developed through the RSS,should be used to develop local and jointstudies to inform Local DevelopmentFramework (LDF) preparation

The Regional Monitoring & Review and SpatialEconomy Advisory Groups will continue tosupport local authorities improve theirmonitoring regimes

The Assembly will work with its local authoritypartners to agree geographic boundarieswhere this is appropriate

A review of indicators and targets has alreadytaken place as part of the RSS review but thesewill be kept under constant review

The Regional Assembly, East MidlandsDevelopment Agency (emda) and the relevantlocal authorities and public sector bodies arealready developing and implementingstrategies to improve the regional offer ofemployment sites to meet regional objectives.This work should continue to be seen as aregional priority with progress closelymonitored

This work can be rolled out to Regional countypartners as an example of good practice;regional mechanisms need to be identified todo this

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This section provides analysis on the regional economy related policies contained within RSS8, particularlycovering employment and development and regeneration issues (see table below).

4.2 The overall framework for the economy policies in the region are provided by the Regional EconomicStrategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy.

4.3 Data was again gathered using an employment land monitoring form, similar to the form used for the2004/05 monitoring report, which required detail on employment land and floorspace.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

39

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual

Targets Status Progress Sources

2 LocationalPriorities forDevelopment

% newdevelopmenton previouslydevelopedland

RegionalCore

Asappropriate

Use of PDL foremploymentincreased

LA returns

3 SustainabilityCriteria

Number ofdevelopmentplanscontainingappropriatepolicy

- - Increasingproportion ofplans containsustainabilitycriteria

Consultant’sanalysis

6 RegionalPriorities inRural Areas

Numbers inemploymentin rural areas

RSS Core Increase innos. inemployment

Employmentrates haveremainedfairly constant

AnnualBusinessInquiry &NaturalEngland

21 RegionalPriority AreasforRegeneration

Net change inland andfloorspacedeveloped foremploymentby type

Indices ofMultipleDeprivation.LA ranks andscores basedon 10% mostdeprived SOAs

RegionalCore

RSS Core

Targets setin LDFs

Reduce no.of EMidslocalauthoritiesin the 10%mostdepriveddistricts

See Policy 22

Indicator to bereviewed

- LA returnsCLG

IMD fromCLG

22 RegionalPriorities forEmploymentLand

Net change inoffice andindustrial land/ floorspaceand proportionon PDL

Employmentland supply bytype

Private sectorview

RegionalCore

RegionalCore

Contextual

To meetlocal needsas set out inSRSs orLDFs

Data returnsimproving butgaps remainmaking a fullassessmentdifficult

EmploymentLand studiesare leading togreaterunderstandingof demand

Private sectorreported lowgrowth insome sectors

LA returns

LA returns

ValuationOffice

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

40

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


23 RegionalPriorities forTown Centresand RetailDevelopment

Amount ofcompletedretail, officeand leisuredevelopmentby localauthority area

% ofcompletedretail, officeand leisuredevelopmentin towncentres

Outstandingplanningpermissionsand allocationsfor retail, officeand leisuredevelopment

RegionalCore

RegionalCore

Contextual

To meetlocal needsas set out inLDFs

Data returnsimproving butgaps remainmaking a fullassessmentdifficult

As above

As above

LA returns

LA returns

LA returns

24 RegionalPriorities forRuralDiversification

Number ofnew businessstart upscomparedwith region

Change innumber ofjobs comparedwith region

RSS Core

RSS Core

Increase inbusinessstart upsand jobs

Only slightchangesrecorded

Only slightchangesrecorded

NOMIS VATdata

AnnualBusinessInquiry

25 RegionalPriorities forTourism

Change innumber ofjobs in touristrelatedactivities

Visitorspending inregion

Number ofovernightstays in region

Contextual

Contextual

Contextual

15000 newjobs intourism by2008

Visitorspending inthe region toincrease by2% by 2010

Tourism tocontribute4.5% GDP by2010

Trend appearsto be movingin rightdirection butmore evidenceneeded

Modestincreases inspend

Modestincreases inovernightstays


STEAM

STEAM

As above

As above


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

41

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


26 RegionalPriorities forICT

Proportion ofregion withaccess to high-speedbroadbandservices

Take up ofbroadbandservices

RSS Core

RSS Core

Full regionalcoverage by2006

20% ofbusinessestradingonline by2010

Target virtuallyachieved

Little evidenceavailable

Dti/OVUM

Data Issues

4.4 The 2005/06 regional monitoring process againused the type of monitoring form suggested byRoger Tym and Partners (Study into MonitoringEmployment, Leisure and Retail Land Uses (May2005)) which involved site data being provided bylocal authorities. It also required local authorities tosupply data on floorspace, retail and leisuredevelopments and losses as well as gains.Theresponse rate showed an improvement on the2004/05 survey with all local authorities submitting acompleted questionnaire, although there were stillgaps in the data. Extreme caution should thereforebe taken when interpreting these figures, particularlyin those cases where a large number of authorities(footnoted in the tables) have been unable to supplydata. In this year’s report the floorspace and retail andleisure data supplied by the local authorities isincluded even though these do not representcomplete coverage of the Region.

4.5 The need to resolve these and other data issueswas a key recommendation of the previous AnnualMonitoring Report (AMR) and it is therefore pleasingto note that some progress has been made.Thoseauthorities that have been unable to supplyinformation, particularly on employment land lossesand retailing and leisure data are again urged to putsystems and practices in place to ensure that suchaspects can be reported upon more fully in futureAMRs.

4.6 It is also worth noting that the recentappointment of Creative Database Projects Ltd(CDP) to develop an IT system to support the annual monitoring process should provide a welcomeimpetus in this respect.

4.7 Secondary sources have again been used for anumber of the indicators. Past data in these sources

are often subject to revision so that data provided inprevious monitoring reports are superseded by thenewly updated information.

4.8 Some additional sources have been used toprovide additional information in some policy areas.For example in relation to policy 25, RegionalPriorities for Tourism, data have been included fromSTEAM (Scarborough Tourism Economy ActivityModel) which have been used by other organisationsincluding East Midlands Tourism.

4.9 There are still some policies, for example policy23, Regional Priorities for Town Centres, where thereremains a need for an agreement on the definition ofthese areas and then identification of the completedretail office and leisure developments therein.Currently only information on the size of the towncentre areas can be provided but not on changesthat have taken place.

4.10 It is also the case that, for a variety of reasons, anumber of the indicators used to assess the successof policy implementation are insufficiently targetedor inappropriate for this purpose. Such an example isthe use of the indicator of the percentage of newdevelopment on previously developed land tomeasure implementation of the sequential approachoutlined in Policy 2, when the use of such land is onlyone aspect of the wider concept of sustainability.Thisissue is one that will need to be addressed in futureAMRs in relation to the forthcoming new RegionalSpatial Strategy.

4.11 The following system has been used to presentdata collected from local authorities: a zero indicatesno land of that particular type (above the threshold)has been developed; N/K (not known) indicates thatthis section of the monitoring questionnaire was leftblank by the local authority.The latter may indicateeither a zero response or that data is not available.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

42

Policy 2: Locational Priorities for Development

In order to ensure the most sustainable mix of locations within, adjoining and outside of urban areas, asequential approach to the selection of land for development should be adopted

Target: 60% of new development on previously developed land (PDL)

Indicator: • % new development on PDL

Results:Table 4.1 - Development on PDL Employment Land - Completed and Under Construction 2003-06

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

93.4

31.8

57.9

57.4

0.0

22.4

76.4

35.4

0.0

#

96.0

76.4

74.9

59.1

45.5

17.1

70 (floorspace)

38.5

100.0

0.0

93.5

65.6

#

10.2

31.3

39.4

77.2 (floorspace)

74.8

100.0

#

% on brownfield land 03/04



Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

10.8

13.1

5.4

32.5

0

6.6

3.4

12.8

0

0.4

26.1

70.8

#

4.7

8.5

14.8

#

47.0

0.8

0

30.1

92.4

3.6

47.4

16.6

9.7

N/K

3.1

1.2

0

0.8

28.0

3.9

24.1

4.1

22.7

1.1

23.4

0.3

0

1.8

37.0

#

41.3

18.7

22.9

#

15.8

0

0

1.3

28.5

1.2

32.8

19.9

47.0

N/K

4.9

0

0

Brownfield

03/04 03/04 03/04 03/04 03/04 03/04

Greenfield


Note the following authorities are not included due to incomplete data: Northampton, Rutland, Newark and Sherwood,Nottingham, Lincoln, Ashfield, East Northamptonshire,Wellingborough,West Lindsey, Amber Valley, South Northamptonshire Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold, # indicates data not available.

Table 4.2 - Brownfield and Greenfield Land Completed or Under Construction 2003-06 (hectares)


Note the following authorities are not included due to missing of incomplete data: Northampton, Newark and Sherwood,Nottingham, Lincoln, Ashfield, East Northamptonshire,Wellingborough, Amber Valley, Harborough, South Northamptonshire .Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold, # indicates data not available. N/K is not known as this part of thequestionnaire was not completed.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

43

A

B

C

D

E

Total

990

580

2,040

1,140

920

5670

1,100

630

1,730

1,240

840

5,540

20

11

31

22

15

100

18

10

36

20

16

100

Land Type Area 2004 hectares Percent 2004 Area 2005 hectares Percent 2005

Total area developed land 2001 (includes land which is bothavailable and unavailable for redevelopment)

Vacant Land

Derelict land and buildings

Vacant buildings

Allocated in a local plan or with planning permission for any use

With known redevelopment potential but no planningallocation or permission

All previously developed land that is unused or may beavailable for redevelopment (i.e. Proportion of all land which has been developed which is available for redevelopment)

1.0%

2.0%

0.6%

1.1%

0.9%

5.6%

1.1%

1.7%

0.6%

1.2%

0.8%

5.5%

East Midlands 2004

East Midlands 2005

Table 4.3 - East Midlands All PDL Which may be Available for Development

Source: NLUD 2004,2005

Land Type A - Previously developed land now vacantLand Type B - Vacant BuildingsLand Type C - Derelict Land and BuildingsLand Type D - Land or buildings currently in use and allocated in the local plan and/or having planning permissionLand Type E - Land or buildings currently in use with redevelopment potential

Table 4.4 - Previously Developed Land as a Proportion of all Developed Land by Type

100.900 ha

Source: NLUD

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

44

Data Analysis

4.12 A considerable amount of data on the extentand use of previously developed (brownfield) land isavailable from the National Land Use Database(NLUD). Some of this was presented in the 2004/05monitoring report but has not been reproducedagain as much of the information has notsignificantly changed and much does not directlyreport on the indicator used to assess theperformance of this policy area.

4.13 The amount of brownfield development in2005/6 was 204.1hectares, most notably inDerbyshire, compared to 172.7 and 85.0 hectaresreported in the 2004/5 and 2003/04 monitoringreports respectively. This appears to represent asignificant year on year increase in brownfielddevelopment, although comparisons must be madewith caution due to missing data, particularly inearlier rounds of monitoring. Only employment landgains are included in these figures.

4.14 The data contained in Tables 4.1 and 4.2provide information for the past three years ondevelopments on previously developed land.Whilethese show that in a number of cases localauthorities have large percentages of newdevelopments on previously developed land somecare needs to be taken in interpretation. Figures foremployment land by PDL or greenfield status forindividual years may vary considerably (e.g.Leicestershire in 2004/5) and may not berepresentative of progress over the plan period from2001 to date.

Policy Commentary

4.15 Notwithstanding the caveats attached to theincomplete data coverage from the local authoritymonitoring questionnaires, the total of PDL used foremployment purposes has increased in the threeyears for which information is presented.

4.16 As noted in the previous AMR and inparagraph 4.10 above however, achieving greaterlevels of PDL usage is only one factor towardsachieving the more sustainable patterns ofdevelopment outlined in RSS Policy 2.

4.17 Derby currently performs well in this regardwith the vast majority of development in the last 10-15 years taking place on ‘brownfield’ land.Theprimary source of this has been the Pride Parkdevelopment comprising around 66 hectares ofreclaimed old gas works and railway sidings thathave been successfully reclaimed and redevelopedfor a mix of uses.

4.18 In Derbyshire there has been a steady increasein the percentage of development on PDL, with forexample, all but one of the employment completionsin High Peak during 2005/6 exceeding the target of60%.

4.19 There has been a significant increase in theproportion of employment development on PDL inLincolnshire from last year although this should betreated with caution as these are the only two yearsfor which reasonably complete returns weresubmitted.

4.20 In Nottinghamshire less brownfield land wasdeveloped for employment use in 2005/06 than inprevious years but this owes more to the decliningavailability of such sites and the levels ofcontamination, ownership issues and infrastructureconstraints that exist on many of those that doremain, rather than an indication of policy change.

4.21 There is a relatively restricted supply ofbrownfield land in Northamptonshire, which will limitavailable opportunities for future development.Projects do exist in the county to bring forwardbrownfield employment land, such as the ‘Fit ForMarket Programme’, but there is less directintervention in Northamptonshire to bring forwardthis limited supply of sites. From a policy perspective,the Local Delivery Vehicles and local authorities arecurrently in the process of developing new corespatial strategies and LDFs. It is likely that, as withexisting plans, the need to consider brownfieldredevelopment will be a key policy.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

45

Policy 3: Sustainability Criteria

In order to assess the suitability of land fordevelopment the nature of the development andits locational requirements will need to be takeninto account

Target:

Indicators:• Number of development plans containingappropriate policy

Results and Data Commentary:• 25 out of the 34 authorities (74%) who respondedto the request for information said they havesustainability criteria in their development plans

Policy Commentary

4.22 Sustainable development is the central themeof current planning policy - the limited and decliningnumber of plans (26%, down from 29% last year)that do not contain sustainability criteria policiesadds credibility to the view that these are likely to bethose that are the most out of date.

4.23 From a policy perspective, the Local DeliveryVehicles and local authorities are currently in theprocess of developing new core spatial strategiesand LDFs. It is likely that sustainability criteria will beof critical importance.This is shown for example inthe West Northamptonshire RegenerationFramework, where quality and sustainability arenoted as prerequisites for development.

4.24 The recently adopted City of Derby Local PlanReview is an example of a plan that contains policies

throughout which equate to the sustainability criteriaset out in the RSS.

4.25 In Leicestershire, four of the seven districts(57%) have policies relating to sustainability criteriawithin their development plans with the othersindicating that such policies will be incorporatedwithin their emerging Development Plan Documents(DPDs). Furthermore, two districts contain aims toachieve energy efficient construction - Hinckley andBosworth and Oadby and Wigston have such policieswithin their Local Plan and specific SupplementaryPlanning Documents respectively. Again, otherLeicestershire districts have indicated that suchpolicies will be incorporated within their emergingcore strategies.

4.26 The overall conclusion to be drawn is thatthose authorities that do not currently havesustainability criteria within their existing local plans,aim to rectify this through their emerging DPDs.

Policy 6: Regional Priorities for Developmentin Rural Areas

Development Plans, Local DevelopmentFrameworks, Local Transport Plans and economicdevelopment strategies should ensure that newdevelopment maintains the distinctive characterof rural communities

Targets:• Increase in numbers in employment in rural areas

Indicator:• Numbers in employment in rural areas

Results:

Figure 4.1 -Employment inRural Areas inEast Midlands

Source: Annual Population Survey Jan-Dec 05DEFRA rural definitionsThe rural classification used to identify the rural nature of local authorities is the Defra rural and urban classificationwhich can be found at the following website: (http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/rural_resd/rural_definition.asp)The classification shows the percentage of the area classified as rural, and then identifies the area as being either majorurban (MU;1); large urban (LU;2); other urban (OU;3); significant rural (SR;4); rural-50 (R50;5) and rural-80 (R80;6) whereR50 is where at 50% is rural and R80 where at least 80% is rural

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

46

Data Analysis

4.27 Estimating the numbers employed in rural areasdoes not reflect the changing population base,particularly the working population base of ruralareas. Thus the number in employment mightdecrease but if the working age population hasdecreased, through, for example, migration, then ahigher proportion of people might be in work.Toovercome this problem employment rates have beenused.

4.28 The information on employment rates suggeststhat over time the rates stay fairly constant, in bothrural and urban areas. Employment rates in ruralareas remain higher than those in urban areas.

Policy Commentary

4.29 Notwithstanding the data analysis issuesdescribed above and the extent to which theindicator is a satisfactory measure of the success ofthis policy, the figures continue to show higher districtemployment rates for the two most ruralclassifications (R80 and R60).

4.30 This is however a very broad-brush analysis.Research has indicated that there can be realvariations in performance within rural areas. Forexample the Northamptonshire Integrated LocalEmployment Study highlighted that within the

county some rural areas had very high economicactivity rates (for example SouthNorthamptonshire has thehighest economic activityrate in the country) butthat commutingfrom within theseareas may in facthide pockets ofruraldeprivation.Local projectsrelated to ruraldevelopmentinclude theredundant ruralbuildings grantand thedevelopment of aNorthamptonshire RuralRenewal Partnership, as akey agent in championing ruraldevelopment.

R80

R50

SR

OU

LU

87.1

82.7

86.7

80.1

84.1

71.2

75.8

69.2

69.2

63.7

80.7

78.3

79.2

73.3

74.4

87.3

83.7

83.4

78.1

83.6

74.3

75.9

69.4

68.9

64.1

79.9

78.4

78.4

74.2

74.5

Jun 04 - May 05 Jan - Dec 05

HighestDistrict

EmploymentRate

Lowest District

EmploymentRate

Average ofDistrict

EmploymentRates (not

populationweighted)

HighestDistrict

EmploymentRate

Lowest District

EmploymentRate

Average ofDistrict

EmploymentRates (not

populationweighted)

Table 4.5 - Comparing Employment Rates for Rural/Urban Areas

Mo

re r

ura

l

Source: Annual Population Survey weighted averages Jun 04-May 05 & Jan-Dec 05DEFRA definitions of rural


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

47

Policy 21: Regional Priority Areas forRegeneration

Development Plans, LDFs, LTPs and SSP Strategiesshould include proposals to assist the regenerationof areas of the greatest identified need

Targets:• Targets set in LDFs

• Reduce number of East Midlands local authorities inthe worst 10% most deprived districts

Indicators:• Net change in land and floorspace developed for

employment by type

• Indices of Multiple Deprivation. LA ranks and scoresbased on 10% most deprived Super Output Areas(SOAs)

Results:4.31 Net change in land and floorspace developedfor employment by type - see Policy 22.

Figure 4.2 - Index of Multiple DeprivationAverage Score of SOAs in Local Authority 2004

Source: ODPM© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.East Midlands Regional Assembly, 100038615, 2005

Areas of Greatest Need

4.32 Part of this policy objective is to assist theregeneration of areas of greatest need. These areashave been taken as those in receipt of ESF/ERDFObjective 2 funding.The Objective 2 boundaries havebeen provided by the East Midlands DevelopmentAgency (emda). On the map below the greenshading shows Objective 2 areas and the greyshading shows those areas where there is incompletedata. Nottingham data have been added in becauseNottingham City identified all their sites as beingwithin the Objective 2 area.There are still a few areaswhere data are not available.

4.33 The proportion of development occurring in theObjective 2 areas is shown in Table 4.6.

Figure 4.3 - Objective 2 Areas

Committed

Under Construction

Developed

3,085.7

199.9

264.9

25.1

10.4

23.1

773.0

20.7

61.3

Within Objective 2 boundary

Total area in East Midlands

% of total developmentidentified as being in an

Objective 2 area

Table 4.6 Objective 2 Developments

Note that percentage figures exclude those sites in Objective 2 areas for which no coordinates have been given,except Nottingham. Hence figures are likely to be an underestimate

Grey areas have missing or incomplete

site data.Green area is Objective 2

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

48

Data Analysis

4.34 This policy area is largely concerned with theregional priorities for regeneration. Many of theregeneration initiatives have been informed by theIndex of Multiple Deprivation 2004. It is not yetpossible to assess the reduction in the number ofdistricts in the East Midlands in the worst I0% mostdeprived as more recent comparative data are notavailable.There are problems in comparisons overtime since the component elements of indices ofdeprivation tend to change. It is also likely to be thecase that improvement in the deprived areas couldoccur, but because of improvements elsewhere, theareas remain in the worst decile.

4.35 Data are provided on the proportion ofdevelopment occurring in Objective 2 ESF/ERDFfunded areas using this as an alternative measure ofa deprived area. It would appear that the amount ofdevelopment in such areas, given their land coveragein the East Midlands, is on a par with the amount ofdevelopment in non Objective 2 areas.

Policy Commentary

4.36 The previous AMR highlighted the difficulty inmonitoring the success or otherwise of this policydue to the lack of a specification of the extent of theareas concerned and the consequent problem ofassigning recorded developments to them.This isone example of a number of definitional issues thatthe Regional Assembly recognises needs to beaddressed.The use of Objective 2 areas is seen as aninterim measure until this issue is fully resolved.

4.37 Regeneration of the former coalfield area ofnorth Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire haslong been viewed as a regional priority in the wakeof the colliery closures.Work on Derbyshire’s£62million Markham Vale Employment Growth Zoneproject, centred on the former Markham Colliery,continues to gather momentum.The development’sflagship Environment Centre was officially opened inDecember 2006 and access to the whole

development via the new M1 Junction 29a isexpected to be completed by December 2007.Therehas already been considerable interest from firmswishing to locate on the 85 hectare business parkwhich will eventually provide 5,000 jobs.

4.38 The majority of committed employment land inDerby is outside the Objective 2 area, apart fromsome significant sites such as Pride Park and parts ofthe Bombardier works which are identified for redevelopment.This is understandable in part asObjective 2 areas are generally based on theamalgamation of wards with high levels ofdeprivation. As such, these are largely residentialareas and, while there is significant employmentactivity within them (e.g. the City centre, Rolls-Royceand Bombardier), there is perhaps less scope foridentifying large new areas for employmentdevelopment that can help meet the City’srequirements.Where opportunities do exist, e.g. PridePark, they have been taken.

4.39 Within Nottinghamshire Districts, theproportion of Objective 2 development/underconstruction is around that for the East Midlands as awhole.The proportion of commitments however (thevast majority of which are mixed use sites) issignificantly above the Regional rate with many suchsites most notably to be found in the Sutton area inAshfield District.

4.40 Northamptonshire currently does not have anyof England’s 88 most deprived wards, nor is it in anObjective 2 area.The county has undertakensignificant research into levels of deprivation and thishas resulted in a countywide neighbourhoodrenewal strategy.This includes a focus to increaseenterprise within deprived areas. Current policydirection on core spatial strategies within the countyis clear in the need to ensure development is ofbenefit to both new and existing communities, withregeneration a key consideration in future development plans.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

49

Policy 22: Regional Priorities for Employment Land

Looks for Local Authorities and Sub-RegionalStrategic Partnerships to work together to:

- Ensure that by the allocation and de-allocationof employment land (B1, B2, B8) through thedevelopment plan process and selective publicinvestment, there is adequate supply of land foroffice and industrial uses available fordevelopment in sustainable locations

- Bring forward allocated employment sites tomeet the specific requirements of potentialinvestors

- Review employment land allocations in theirareas to ensure that they are relevant to current

and future requirements, and that surplusemployment land is considered for beneficialalternative use

- Monitor gains and losses in the overall supply ofindustrial and office floorspace

Target: To meet local needs

Indicators:

• Net change in office and industrial land / floorspaceand proportion on Previously Developed Land

• Employment land supply by type

• Private sector view

Results:

4.41 See also Policy 2 for employment land data.

Figure 4.4 - Floorspace of Retail premises: Government Office Regions, 2000-2005 (different scale)

Figure 4.5 - Floorspace of Offices: Government Office Regions, 2000-2005

Retail Floorspace

Office Floorspace

Source:Neighbourhood Statistics


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

50

Factory Floorspace


Figure 4.6 - Floorspace of Factories: Government Office Regions, 2000-2005

Warehouse Floorspace


Figure 4.7 - Floorspace of Warehouses: Government Office Regions, 2000-2005

East Midlands

England

East Midlands

England

East Midlands

England

East Midlands

England

Retail

Offices

Factory

Warehouses

0.9

1.0

1.4

1.3

-1.6

-1.9

1.6

1.9

-5.8

-7.1

-3.6

-3.1

-2.1

-2.0

1.6

-1.6

0.7

1.0

2.1

2.1

-0.5

-1.0

1.3

1.7

1.6

1.0

2.3

2.3

-0.3

0.0

4.6

2.7

2.3

1.2

3.3

1.8

-0.5

-0.4

3.9

3.1

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Table 4.7 - Annual % Change in Floorspace

Source: Neighbourhood Statistics


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

51

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Rutland

543 (470)

1,719 (1632)

1,015 (1031)

3,116 (3118)

2,030 (2150)

4,634 (4438)

1,033 (1030)

1,867 (1829)

91 (89)

1,466 (1487)

5,061 (5043)

2,078 (2150)

3,735 (3861)

3,205 (3365)

3,939 (4064)

1,125 (1165)

3,565 (3602)

160 (124)

434 (422)

561 (576)

576 (614)

697 (717)

582 (577)

785 (835)

843 (871)

626 (624)

21 (23)

496 (568)

1,037 (1111)

714 (705)

830 (907)

1,357(1476)

1,072 (1176)

768 (752)

1,200 (1233)

42 (49)

Retail Office Factory Warehouse

Table 4.8 - Floorspace 1,000 sqm, 2005 (2004 in brackets)


Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

2.6

0.6

0.3

1.1

5.9

0.3

0.6

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

2.5

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

29.7

0.3

1.1

5.9

3.8

3.1

3.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

28.2

0.5

1.8

0.0

9.5

0.0

3.2

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.5

11.5

4.0

14.4

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.0

3.1

28.3

0.7

19.2

7.4

58.8

0.0

21.6

0.0

0.0

5.9

87.2

2.0

33.6

17.2

86.5

3.1

28.2

1.2

0.0

B1 unsp. * B1a B1bc B1 Total B2 B8 Mixed Total

Table 4.9 - Completed 2005/06 Employment Land (ha)

Source: Local Authorities *Either mixed B1 use or sub category not specified (this may include B1a, B1bc and mixed use B1)Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

52

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

N/K

946

2,366

4,453

10,447

3,464

16,722

6,400

0

0

N/K

17,735

0

0

256

4,935

0

4,805

0

0

N/K

0

0

0

0

1,147

0

0

0

0

N/K

18,681

2,366

4,453

10,703

9,546

16,722

11,205

0

0

N/K

99,472

4,826

7,606

0

39,508

0

3,506

6,802

0

N/K

50,432

2,970

57,181

3,236

50,086

0

3,406

1,212

0

N/K

56,951

3,364

87,136

11,702

173,572

0

80,775

0

0

N/K

225,536

13,525

156,376

25,641

272,712

16,722

98,892

8,014

0


Table 4.10 - Completed 2005/06 Employment Land Floorspace (sqm)

Source: Local Authorities No data from: East Lindsey, Chesterfield, High Peak, Lincoln, Melton, Newark & Sherwood, North East Derbyshire,Oadby and Wigston, Rushcliffe, Derby. Figures include all site areas given*Either mixed B1 use or sub category not specified (this may include B1a, B1bc and mixed use B1)Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold. N/K is not known as this part of the questionnaire was notcompleted

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

2.7

0.8

0.1

1.3

1.7

1.5

N/K

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

2.1

3.1

1.1

N/K

0.8

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

N/K

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.7

3.1

0.1

3.4

4.8

4.6

N/K

2.8

0.0

0.2

1.6

5.6

0.1

1.7

2.0

0.6

N/K

2.4

0.0

2.7

0.3

9.4

0.1

20.2

1.6

15.0

N/K

0.0

0.0

0.4

20.9

23.0

2.5

21.3

13.9

22.7

N/K

8.9

0.0

1.3

25.5

41.1

2.7

46.6

22.4

42.8

N/K

14.2

0.0

4.6


Table 4.11 - Under Construction 2005/06 Employment Land (ha)

Source: Local Authorities*Either mixed B1 use or sub category not specified (this may include B1a, B1bc and mixed use B1)Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold. N/K is not known as this part of the questionnaire was notcompleted


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

53

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

17.6

50.1

0.7

66.4

46.4

4.8

33.5

68.0

0.7

7.7

264.4

0.0

24.7

0.0

1.6

1.3

3.0

0.0

5.8

0.0

0.0

36.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

15.6

0.4

0.0

11.0

0.0

0.0

22.2

17.6

74.8

0.7

68.0

63.3

8.1

33.5

84.8

0.7

7.7

323.0

8.8

69.3

4.4

2.2

0.0

17.6

0.0

51.7

5.4

0.0

155.1

3.8

15.2

0.3

47.5

8.0

19.6

5.2

12.3

0.0

0.3

111.4

220.5

407.9

42.3

234.3

716.7

284.4

50.7

477.5

5.4

14.3

2,418.9

250.7

568.1

47.7

352.0

787.9

329.7

89.4

626.3

11.5

22.4

3085.7


Table 4.12 - Employment Land Commitments 2006 (ha)

Source: Local Authorities*Either mixed B1 use or sub category not specified (this may include B1a, B1bc and mixed use B1)Zeros indicate no land of that type above threshold.

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

279.0

556.9

92.3

442.7

371.0

845.7

102.4

712.2

0.7

18.4

3421.1

259.8

493.9

21.3*

414.2

846.2

173.5**

93.7

653.3

6.8

17.8

2,833.6

250.7

568.1

47.8

352.0

787.9

329.7

89.4

626.3

11.5

22.4

3,085.7

2004 2005 2006

Table 4.13 - Total Outstanding Employment Land Commitments (ha)

Source: Local Authorities*land area not given for a lot of sites** no data for Northampton and Wellingborough, no areasfor Corby sites

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

54

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

N/K

13.2

6.4

0

5.3

7.9

1.4

0.7

N/K

0

33.6

N/K

3.3

2.0

0

1.9

1.9

N/K

0

N/K

0

9.1

N/K

0.3

0

0.6

11.5

9.4

N/K

0.7

N/K

0.08

22.58

NA

NA

NA

15.2

NA

0.3

NA

5.4

NA

NA

21.0

Totalcommitments

Total underconstruction

Total completed Total previous status unknown

Table 4.14 - Employment Land Losses

Source Local AuthoritiesNo data from: Blaby, Chesterfield, Daventry, East Lindsey, Mansfield, Melton, Newark & Sherwood, North Kesteven,Oadby & Wigston, Rushcliffe, South Holland,West Lindsey, Derby, Peak DistrictZeros indicate no land of that type above threshold (although note several local authorities missing), N/K is notknown as this part of the questionnaire was not completed. NA means not applicable as all data is provided withprevious status

Private Sector View

4.42 The private sector view draws on articlescovering the East Midlands Region published in theEstates Gazette (25 February and 4 November 2006).

4.43 One of the main issues highlighted in thesereports (that is also reflected in the data onfloorspace) is the development of warehouses and distribution depots in the East Midlands,particularly along major roads such as the M1 and A1.The so-called Golden Triangle of Northampton,Coventry and Leicester remains the main location for logistics firms, although the northern East Midlands,according to research by Prime Logistics, is rankedthird out of 24 UK key distribution market areas.

4.44 Away from the motorways and closer to theurban areas the situation is somewhat different.The2005 take up figure for industrial space in Derby andLeicester, according to research by Focus, was thelowest since 1998, and in Nottingham it was barelyhalf its peak in 1998. Activity in the office market hasbeen ‘muted’ with the major urban centres having ashortage of new buildings. Shortage of space has led to higher city centre rents and a shift to out of towndevelopments where rents have risen.

4.45 The retail sector in the East Midlands, as in therest of the UK, experienced a difficult year and therehave been relatively few new entrants leading tostagnant or only slightly increasing rents.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

55

Lincoln

Nottingham

Derby

Leicester

Northampton

1.3

2.3

1.6

2.0

1.4

1.4

2.4

1.6

2.0

1.4

1.4

2.5

1.6

2.0

1.4

1.5

2.6

1.7

2.0

1.4

0.5

0.8

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.5

1.0

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.6

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

Type 1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006

Location Type 2 Type 3

Table 4.15 - Shop Rentals Thousand Pounds/m2/annum

Source: July 2006 Valuation Office Property ReportsType 1 Prime position in principal shopping centreType 2 Good secondary off peak position in principal shopping centreType 3 Modern purpose built non food warehouse unit circa 2500sq.m. - 5000sq.m. Edge of town location withcar parking

Lincoln

Nottingham

Derby

Leicester

Northampton(type 1 and 2edge of town)

70

140

83

140

160

100

140

83

140

140

100

140

83

140

135

105

145

95

145

140

75

155

95

100

118

90

150

95

100

140

115

150

95

100

135

120

155

105

100

135

70

100

105

100

135

80

100

105

100

135

85

100

105

100

135

85

105

110

105

150

Type 1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006

Location Type 2 Type 3

Table 4.16 - Office Rentals £/m2/ann

Source: July 2006 Valuation Office Property ReportsType 1 Town centre location self contained suite over 1,000sq.m. in office block erected in last 10 years; goodstandard of finish with a lift and good quality fittings to common parts; limited car parking availableType 2 As Type 1 but suite in range of 150sq.m. - 400sq.m.Type 3 Converted former house usually just off town centre. Good quality conversion. Best quality fittingsthroughout; self contained suite in size range 50sq.m. - 150sq.m. with central heating and limited car parking

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

56

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

Type 5

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

43

50

50

53

38

45

45

47

28

40

40

42

27

35

37

40

#

#

#

#

65

68

68

68

58

60

60

60

50

50

50

50

48

48

48

48

20

20

20

20

65

65

65

75

63

58

58

69

48

48

48

64

40

40

40

48

#

#

#

#

60

60

60

66

50

50

55

63

40

40

47

56

40

40

50

54

13

#

#

#

78

85

85

85

68

65

65

65

53

55

55

55

53

50

50

50

23

#

#

#

LincolnYear Nottingham Derby Leicester Northampton

Table 4.17 - Industry Rentals £/m2/ann

From

To

Typical

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

03

04

05

06

250

275

275

300

300

325

325

350

250

300

300

325

400

475

475

475

500

625

625

625

450

525

525

525

300

375

375

375

450

525

525

525

375

425

425

425

370

370

370

450

650

660

660

700

615

650

650

650

620

450

450

450

750

700

650

650

675

500

500

500

LincolnYear Nottingham Derby Leicester Northampton

Table 4.18 - Industrial Land Values £million per ha

Source: July 2006 Valuation Office Property Reports # indicates no data availableType 1 Small starter units 25sq.m. - 75sq.m. Type 2 Nursery units 150sq.m. - 200sq.m. Type 3 Industrial/warehouseunits circa 500sq.m. Type 4 Industrial/warehouse units circa 1000sq.m. Type 5 Converted ex mill units

Source: July 2006 Valuation Office Property Reports


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

57

Data Analysis

4.46 There continues to be an increase, comparing2004 and 2005 data, in the amount of floor spacecommitted to warehousing in the East Midlands,particularly in Northamptonshire.There are declinesin floor space committed to retail, offices andfactories although in the case of offices this is a smalldecline.The direction of change, with a fewexceptions, is the same across the East Midlands.

4.47 Table 4.13 indicates that there has also been anincrease in the total of employment land committedin 2005/06 - approximately 3,086 ha., compared toapproximately 2,834 ha. in 2004/05.

4.48 Whilst the number of local authorities able tosupply information on floor space, land losses, retailcommitments and leisure developments showed anincrease on the previous year, this section of theregional monitoring form was not completed bymany others. The information provided is presentedin the tables above and due to its incompletenessneeds to be viewed with care but it represents someprogress in establishing more detailed monitoring ofland use.The information provided by localauthorities on leisure development, which listed a setof developments, has not been produced in thisreport but is available on the database that supportsthe evidence in this report available onwww.emra.gov.uk .

4.49 The rentals paid in all types of non residentialproperty have increased or in a limited number ofcases remained static. This may in part be due toinflation but also reflects the continuing demand fornon residential property in the East Midlands,reflecting a stable, yet positive, private sector view ofthe region.

Policy Commentary

4.50 Ensuring the adequacy of availableemployment land supply, including the monitoringof take-up and the review of land allocations, iscentral to the success of the economic policies of theRSS and a number of studies including the Quality ofEmployment Land Supply Study (QUELS) publishedin July 2002 has already been undertaken in relationto this issue. More recently, Roger Tym & Partners

undertook the ‘East Midlands Land Provision Study’of employment land provision comparing forecastfuture requirements and current supply in order topropose indicative land requirements to inform theemerging RSS.Their final report was published inDecember 2006 and highlights the complexitiesassociated with undertaking such an exercise andrecommends that local employment land reviewsshould be undertaken, perhaps by local authoritiesworking jointly across Housing Market Areas, in orderto develop the overall conclusions of their study.

4.51 The recently completed Strategic DistributionStudy by MDS Modal and Roger Tym & Partnersconfirmed the importance of the sector to the economy of East Midlands, accounting for anestimated 9% of both employment and output - ahigher share than in any other region.The studyrecommended that a transparent framework isrequired to balance market needs against policyobjectives in order to realise the sector’s potential forthe foreseeable future.

4.52 The conclusions reached in the previous AMR inrelation to this policy remain valid. Pressure for thedevelopment of B8 uses, particularly along the M1corridor, is significant and will continue because the locational advantages are such that they arepreferred locations for distribution companies.

4.53 In order to meet the Regional EconomicStrategy’s objectives for economic development itwill be necessary for the regional offer of employment sites to be improved. A portfolio ofquality sites will be required across the region withan emphasis on quality sites which will help developkey sector priorities.

4.54 Northamptonshire is currently in the process ofdeveloping new spatial strategies in line with theMilton Keynes & South Midlands growth agenda andreview of the Regional Spatial Strategy.This requiresthe generation of 147,000 new jobs by 2031.Toachieve this various research has been undertakensuch as the Northamptonshire Commercial Propertyand Employment Land Assessment, NorthNorthamptonshire Retail Study and NorthamptonTown Centre Study.These will be developed throughemerging core spatial strategies which will in turnlead to an increase in the growth of retail and

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

58

employment land. Current market demand showsthat there may be a shortage of immediatelyavailable commercial space in the short term, with alonger term need to replace non-competitive siteswith high quality fit for market locations.

4.55 Derby’s employment land supply is currentlyhealthy and is meeting its requirement to provide anadequate supply of different types to meet differentmarket needs. The amount of land developed foremployment uses in 2005/06 is around the averagetake-up rate exhibited in the City in recent years.Theamount of land under construction points to apotential increase in the 2006/07 period, which isencouraging and demonstrates the success of thepolicy.

4.56 In Nottinghamshire over the last 3 years, theproportion of PDL development has remainedreasonably consistent after subtracting the MantonColliery site take-up (2004/05) which heavily skewsthe figures, whereas the amount of greenfielddevelopment has steadily declined. Notablegreenfield development is now complete on theSherwood Business Park in Ashfield (close to the M1)and the Millennium Business Park north west ofMansfield.There are a number of significantoutstanding PDL and greenfield sites available, mostnotably in Ashfield (where the majority of such sitesare near to the M1), Mansfield, Newark & Sherwoodand Rushcliffe.

4.57 Significant Nottinghamshire sites includeNottingham Business Park currently being developed

as a sub regional business park and expansion landat the Boots site. Major redevelopment in theRegeneration Zone at the Waterside is also planned.

4.58 The employment land area completed inLincolnshire in 2005/06 was over twice that of theprevious year.This is encouraging but should betreated with caution as these are the only two yearsfor which complete data is available. Despite therange of data sources, it is not yet possible to saywhether the target ‘to meet local needs’ is being metin Lincolnshire.

4.59 In Leicestershire there have been slightfloorspace decreases across all uses.This is similar tothe result for England and the East Midlands as awhole, except for warehouse floorspace (whichincreased slightly in the East Midlands).Table 4.14shows a total of 15.8 ha of employment land lost,from just the 4 out of 7 districts in Leicestershire ableto return data.This shows that allocations are beingreviewed, and the recent sub regional employmentland study will take this process further.There is lessland committed in Leicestershire than elsewhere, butallocations are affected by the end date of 2006 forlocal plans in the County, and the early stage in LDFpreparation. Most development in Leicestershire iseither in use class B8 or ‘mixed’ - i.e. not tied to anyspecific B use class at the time of monitoring.Thisalso demonstrates a responsive position to marketneeds.

Policy 23: Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development

Local authorities, emda and Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships should work together on a sub-areabasis to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, including those in Market Towns

Target: To meet local needs

Indicators:• Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development by local authority area

• % of completed retail, office and leisure development in town centres

• Outstanding planning permissions and allocations for retail, office and leisure development

Results:4.60 See policies 2 and 22 for employment land and floorspace figures

4.61 Data from www.iggi.gov.uk on Town Centres for 2002.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

59

11.75

13.00

13.50

6.50

17.00

5.00

9.50

21.75

30.25

14.00

4.00

5.25

35.25

5.75

18.00

34.00

45.50

89.50

11.50

7.25

157.25

43.00

9.25

4.00

172.25

64.75

16.00

14.50

10.00

11.00

9.50

18.00

5.50

6.25

20.25

11.25

27,060

25,390

28,440

15,380

36,550

14,560

22,410

47,650

61,510

32,000

6,880

11,910

80,860

14,540

31,530

72,690

119,210

208,880

5,950

21,580

336,810

275,240

24,180

10,270

403,620

356,360

43,830

29,540

16,020

17,470

16,390

40,380

16,700

10,100

49,190

27,420

4,350

10,010

4,150

1,410

12,170

1,970

2,420

10,890

19,470

10,080

2,480

2,010

24,880

830

11,550

35,090

55,790

150,350

18,130

#

378,630

108,390

620

#

466,850

198,620

19,990

7,900

5,020

9,800

3,350

7,960

890

1,030

7,610

3,170

DistrictsNameArea

(Hectares)Retail Floorspace

(sq m)Office Floorspace

(sq m)

Table 4.19 - Town Centre Floorspace 2002

Alfreton

Ripley

Belper

Heanor

Sutton-in-Ashfield

Kirby-in-Ashfield

Hucknall

East Retford

Worksop

Gainsborough

Bolsover

Shirebrook

Boston

Eastwood

Beeston

Loughborough

Chesterfield

Derby Centre

London Road, Derby

Belgrave Road

Leicester Centre

Leicester Retail Core

Bulwell

Sherwood

Nottingham Centre

Nottingham Retail Core

Corby

Daventry

Bakewell

Matlock

Ashbourne

Louth

Mablethorpe

Horncastle

Skegness

Rushden

Amber Valley

Amber Valley

Amber Valley

Amber Valley

Ashfield

Ashfield

Ashfield

Bassetlaw

Bassetlaw

Bassetlaw; West Lindsey

Bolsover

Bolsover

Boston

Broxtowe

Broxtowe

Charnwood

Chesterfield

City of Derby

City of Derby

City of Leicester

City of Leicester

City of Leicester

City of Nottingham

City of Nottingham

City of Nottingham

City of Nottingham

Corby

Daventry

Derbyshire Dales

Derbyshire Dales

Derbyshire Dales

East Lindsey

East Lindsey

East Lindsey

East Lindsey

East Northamptonshire

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

60

23.25

22.25

16.50

20.75

8.00

13.50

20.00

25.50

26.25

5.25

71.25

31.75

17.00

29.75

12.00

13.75

7.50

73.25

6.75

10.25

7.00

11.50

22.25

37.25

7.50

21.25

4.00

23.50

54,800

46,540

34,730

33,210

8,420

22,750

36,400

52,580

77,090

6,590

168,830

120,990

37,460

72,410

20,240

31,420

14,940

195,850

11,080

23,350

11,960

24,530

41,360

90,270

13,440

41,630

5,910

59,510

11,210

8,330

5,380

15,580

4,810

6,540

7,480

21,610

14,620

3,130

109,490

25,150

6,890

22,370

7,410

6,890

3,010

146,630

5,130

1,430

2,900

5,670

10,460

30,510

2,900

13,700

2,040

17,630

DistrictsNameArea

(Hectares)Retail Floorspace

(sq m)Office Floorspace

(sq m)

Ilkeston

Long Eaton

Arnold

Market Harborough

Lutterworth

Glossop

Buxton

Hinckley

Kettering

Bailgate

Lincoln

Mansfield

Melton Mowbray

Newark-on-Trent

Ashby-de-la-Zouch

Coalville

Wellingborough Road

Northampton

Oadby

Wigston

West Bridgford

Swadlincote

Spalding

Grantham

Bourne

Stamford

Towcester

Wellingborough

Erewash

Erewash

Gedling

Harborough

Harborough

High Peak

High Peak

Hinckley and Bosworth

Kettering

Lincoln

Lincoln

Mansfield

Melton

Newark and Sherwood

North West Leicestershire


Northampton

Northampton

Oadby and Wigston

Oadby and Wigston

Rushcliffe

South Derbyshire

South Holland

South Kesteven

South Kesteven

South Kesteven

South Northamptonshire

Wellingborough

www.iggi.gov.uk# indicates data not available


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

61

www.iggi.gov.uk

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.East Midlands Regional Assembly, 100038615, 2005

Figure 4.8 - Retail Floorspace in Town Centres 2002

Figure 4.9 - Rateable Value of Retail Floorspace in Tkown Centres 2002

www.iggi.gov.uk


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

62

Table 4.20 Retail Gains Total Commitments 2005-06 (m2)

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

N/K

0

56,754

0

0

0

N/K

0

0

N/K

56,754

N/K

3,830

0

160

6,003

10,700

N/K

0

0

N/K

20,693

N/K

0

0

0

33

0

N/K

7.094

0

N/K

7,127

N/K

0

0

0

14

43,646

N/K

0

0

N/K

43,660

N/K

1,6621

4,300

0

4,566

0

N/K

6,573

0

N/K

32,060

N/K

12,959

1,626

0

558

0

N/K

2,352

0

N/K

17,495

N/K

33,410

62,680

160

11,174

54,346

11,777

16,019

0

N/K

189,566

City Centre

TownCentres

DistrictCentres

LocalCentres

Edge ofCentre

Out ofCentre

Total

Source Local AuthoritiesNo data provided by: Blaby, Bolsover, Broxtowe, Daventry, Melton, Newark & Sherwood, North West Leicestershire,Northampton, Rushcliffe ,South Holland, South Northamptonshire, Derby, RutlandZeros indicate no land of that type above threshold, N/K is not known as this part of the questionnaire was notcompleted

Table 4.21 Retail Gains Total Completions and Under Construction 2005-06 (m2)

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

East Midlands

68,000

0

0

0

0

0

N/K

0

0

N/K

68,000

0

6,970

0

9,149

23,763

1,003

N/K

0

0

N/K

28,382

0

0

0

1,111

135

0

N/K

0

0

N/K

1,246

0

0

0

0

26

5,438

N/K

4,357

0

N/K

7,063

0

25,295

0

2,581

29,976

8,587

N/K

0

0

N/K

24,175

0

0

0

0

277

0

N/K

0

0

N/K

0

68,000

32,265

0

12,841

54,413

15,028

35,204

4,357

0

N/K

151,435

City Centre

TownCentres

DistrictCentres

LocalCentres

Edge ofCentre

Out ofCentre

Total

Source Local AuthoritiesNo data provided by: Blaby, Bolsover, Broxtowe, Daventry, Melton, Newark & Sherwood, North West Leicestershire,Northampton, Rushcliffe ,South Holland, South Northamptonshire, RutlandZeros indicate no land of that type above threshold, N/K is not known as this part of the questionnaire was notcompleted


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

63

Data Analysis

4.62 The paucity of information on retailing andleisure contained in the local authority monitoringquestionnaires was a problem identified in theprevious AMR. It is pleasing to note that an increasednumber of authorities have been able to supplysome information on this issue this year and this ispresented in Tables 4.20 and 4.21. Despite this, theinformation from the questionnaires remains partialwith many local authorities being unable to provideany data making meaningful analysis difficult.

4.63 It has only been possible to once again use theinformation provided in the 2004/05 monitoringreport referring to the 2002 IGGI data that looked atthe distribution of land in town centres. It has notbeen possible to analyse the change in thedistribution of town centre land.

Policy Commentary

4.64 Despite some progress since the last AMR, thepaucity of information about retail and leisuredevelopments in the East Midlands continues to hamper a realistic assessment of the success of thispolicy and the extent to which the requirements ofthe sequential test for the location of such facilitieshave been satisfied.

4.65 Those authorities that have not already done soare again urged to put in place systems and practicesto ensure that the sequential location of proposedand developed retail and leisure facilities can bereported upon more accurately in future AMRs.

4.66 From the limited available data on the locationof retail developments supplied by the localauthorities, 74% of commitments and 84% of developments completed or under constructionwere located within city, town, district and localcentres thereby promoting their vitality and viabilityas advocated by the policy.

4.67 The proposed expansion of Nottingham’sBroadmarsh Centre is a prime example of city centreretail development, while Derby’s Eagle Centreextension will provide an additional 48,000 squaremetres of floorspace. Both schemes will significantlyenhance city centre retail vitality and viability while

permission also exists for the redevelopment ofDerby’s bus station into a major leisure destination. Inaddition, Derby Cityscape, Derby’s UrbanRegeneration Company, continues to work to bringforward schemes, such as the ‘Friar Gate Studios’creative industries development.

4.68 An example of a retail development to improvethe vitality and viability of a district centre is thelong-awaited start of construction work in Matlock inDerbyshire which will provide housing and a towncentre relief road as well as a new supermarket.

4.69 In Northamptonshire there is a recognisedneed to improve the retail offer of the county andreduce leakage.There is a strong policy push forNorthampton to become a regional centre in its ownright, as part of MKSM growth plans.

4.70 Leicestershire County Council, through theLeicestershire Rural Partnership, provides grants forretailers under the Living and Working Over the Shopgrant scheme as part of the Market Towns Initiative.The Market Towns Initiative also provides acomprehensive development programme topromote the economic wellbeing of market townsand rural centres.

Policy 24: Regional Priorities for RuralDiversification

Local authorities and Sub-Regional StrategicPartnerships should work together to promotethe continued diversification and furtherdevelopment of the rural economy

Target: Increase in new business start ups and newjobs

Indicators:• Number of new business start ups

• New jobs created

Results:

Table 4.22 - New business start ups

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

64

310

270

310

310

175

260

140

245

395

205

270

295

270

325

225

295

415

410

295

155

150

445

375

250

260

230

280

265

120

70

40

20

25

45

50

-10

40

90

15

40

90

25

65

30

75

145

85

70

35

5

55

125

55

60

35

85

80

30

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

OU

OU

OU

VAT Reg’s 04VAT Reg’s 03 VAT Reg’s 05 Net Change inStock During 05

RuralCategory

Daventry

Derbyshire Dales

East Lindsey

Harborough

Melton

North Kesteven

Rutland

South Holland

SouthNorthamptonshire

West Lindsey

Bassetlaw

EastNorthamptonshire

High Peak

Newark andSherwood

North EastDerbyshire

North WestLeicestershire

Rushcliffe

South Kesteven

Amber Valley

Bolsover

Boston

Charnwood

Hinckley andBosworth

Kettering

South Derbyshire

Wellingborough

Ashfield

Chesterfield

Corby

325

305

385

340

150

295

125

245

415

225

295

295

290

370

270

335

355

450

325

160

160

435

370

280

255

220

260

295

110

335

255

345

365

150

255

120

210

370

215

300

285

280

350

250

310

400

430

315

155

160

425

350

285

270

255

260

225

130


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

65

505

185

235

555

290

225

270

200

905

575

120

12,015

105

55

70

95

80

25

70

0

170

0

0

2,245

OU

OU

OU

OU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

VAT Reg’s 04VAT Reg’s 03 VAT Reg’s 05 Net Change inStock During 05

RuralCategory

Derby City

Lincoln

Mansfield

Northampton

Blaby

Broxtowe

Erewash

Gedling

Leicester City

Nottingham

Oadby and Wigston

East Midlands

565

215

245

630

275

260

295

225

875

630

135

12,690

510

170

235

610

255

210

275

245

840

650

150

12,205

21.5

21.3

18.1

17.5

21.5

100.0

2,620

2,505

2,160

2,145

2,585

12,015

21.8

20.8

18.0

17.9

21.5

100.0

% of TotalRuralCategory

VAT Reg’s 03 VAT Reg’s 04 % of Total VAT Reg’s 05 % of Total

R80

R50

SR

OU

LU

Total

2,810

2,660

2,205

2,320

2,695

12,690

22.1

21.0

17.4

18.3

21.2

100.0

2,620

2,605

2,215

2,140

2,625

12,205

Source: NOMIS VAT registrations data 2005, 2004, 2003Net Change is the net gain or loss in the stock of registered enterprises - equal to registrations less de-registrationsThe rural classification used to identify the rural nature of local authorities is the Defra rural and urban classificationwhich can be found at the following website: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/rural_resd/rural_definition.asp.The classification shows the percentage of the area classified as rural, and then identifies the area as being either majorurban (MU;1); large urban (LU;2); other urban (OU;3); significant rural (SR;4); rural-50 (R50;5) and rural-80 (R80;6) whereR50 is where at 50% is rural and R80 where at least 80% is rural

Table 4.23 - East Midlands VAT Registrations

Table 4.24 - Change in Number of Jobs

33,662

33,001

39,709

34,049

19,193

7.6

7.0

1.9

2.2

5.6

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

Jobs in 2004*Jobs in 2003 Jobs in 2005 % Change 2004-05

RuralCategory

Daventry

Derbyshire Dales

East Lindsey

Harborough

Melton

29,536

31,290

40,179

30,612

17,769

31,276

30,839

38,955

33,308

18,180

Source: NOMIS VAT registrations dataDefra rural definitions

Table 4.22 - Continued

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

66

North Kesteven

Rutland

South Holland

SouthNorthamptonshire

West Lindsey

Bassetlaw

EastNorthamptonshire

High Peak

Newark andSherwood



Rushcliffe

South Kesteven

Amber Valley

Bolsover

Boston

Charnwood

Hinckley andBosworth

Kettering

South Derbyshire

Wellingborough

Ashfield

Chesterfield

Corby

Derby City

Lincoln

Mansfield

Northampton

29,812

12,794

33,341

26,571

23,551

42,887

25,996

30,026

41,515

25,540

48,357

43,169

48,267

48,251

21,828

26,568

58,741

40,916

36,378

30,326

31,850

44,337

48,269

28,838

121,161

51,669

39,850

124,136

-1.1

2.2

4.5

3.8

0.8

5.3

8.9

-1.0

9.4

4.3

2.9

12.1

1.4

1.2

9.4

6.5

-1.3

1.1

3.1

4.0

-0.5

7.2

-0.3

1.3

4.0

-0.3

7.7

-1.7

R80

R80

R80

R80

R80

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

R50

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

SR

OU

OU

OU

OU

OU

OU

OU


RuralCategory

30,636

11,795

33,167

24,646

24,500

42,553

23,373

31,163

37,425

25,780

43,523

36,531

48,917

47,313

20,242

26,217

56,068

37,729

33,434

28,531

32,785

39,847

48,337

28,219

112,330

50,700

35,933

118,798

30,130

12,514

31,908

25,588

23,367

40,731

23,873

30,341

37,949

24,488

46,990

38,498

47,612

47,657

19,960

24,945

59,504

40,455

35,291

29,160

31,998

41,350

48,396

28,468

116,502

51,805

37,013

126,337



Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

67

Blaby

Broxtowe

Erewash

Gedling

Leicester City

Nottingham

Oadby and Wigston

Total

45,589

35,329

39,446

29,967

159,556

184,911

18,848

1,858,204

9.9

5.8

6.1

7.8

0.8

1.6

4.0

3.0

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU


RuralCategory

35,405

32,743

37,160

31,237

155,889

179,416

16,568

1,768,296

41,470

33,384

37,162

27,796

158,270

182,071

18,117

1,803,658

Source: Annual Business Inquiry* 2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring reportThe rural classification used to identify the rural nature of local authorities is the Defra rural and urbanclassification which can be found at the following website:http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/rural_resd/rural_definition.asp.The classification shows the percentage of the area classified as rural, and then identifies the area as being eithermajor urban (MU;1); large urban (LU;2); other urban (OU;3); significant rural (SR;4); rural-50 (R50;5) and rural-80(R80;6) where R50 is where at 50% is rural and R80 where at least 80% is rural

3.5

5.3

2.0

1.9

3.1

3.0

Jobs 2004*Rural Category Jobs 2003 Jobs 2005 % Change 04-05

R80

R50

SR

OU

LU

Total

274,130

289,265

282,319

434,164

488,418

1,768,296

276,065

290,482

288,970

449,871

498,270

1,803,659

285,683

305,757

294,858

458,260

513,646

1,858,204

Table 4.25 - Number of Jobs in Rural Categories

Source: Annual Business InquiryDefra Rural categories*2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring report

Figure 4.10 - Percentage Change in Number of Jobs 04-05

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.East Midlands Regional Assembly,100038615, 2006


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

68

Data Analysis

4.71 The number of new VAT registration in the EastMidlands fell marginally from 12,205 in 2004 to12,015 in 2005. However the number of new startups stayed the same in very rural areas, leading to aslight increase in the proportion of new start ups inthese areas from 21.5% in 2004 to 21.8% in 2005.

4.72 The net change figure for 2005 has beenincluded following the suggestion made in the2004/5 monitoring report. It measures the net gainor loss in the stock of registered enterprises - equal toregistrations less de-registrations.There was no gainor a small loss in only four local authority areas, allbut one of which were in the large urban category. Inall other local authority areas there was a net gain inenterprises. New start ups in rural areas wouldappear to be on a par with those in urban areas.

4.73 The limitation of the data used is that verysmall firms or those exempt from VAT are notincluded in the VAT registration statistics.

4.74 The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) data showsthat there was a 3 per cent growth in employment inthe East Midlands from 2004 to 2005. The largestpercentage change over this period was in the morerural areas of the region. Some care needs to betaken when interpreting the ABI data as it hasexperienced classification and accuracy problems inthe past, and is subject to future data revision.

Policy Commentary

4.75 Despite the continuing decline in the numbersemployed in the Region’s primary industries, there isevidence to suggest that policies geared towards thediversification and development of the rural economy are succeeding. It is noteworthy that for thethird consecutive year, more than 42% of newbusiness start-ups occurred in district council areasdefined as the most rural (i.e. R50 and R80).

4.76 Overall from 2004 to 2005 the East Midlandssaw a 3% increase in the number of jobs (comparedwith a 2.1% increase from 2003 to 2004).The largestincrease was in rural (R50) areas.The map shows thatsome rural areas have seen a decline in the numberof jobs, but overall, rural areas appear to beperforming as well as large urban areas.

4.77 Leicestershire County Council, throughthe Leicestershire Rural Partnership,provides grant schemes toencourage and supportdiversification in ruralareas.These includethe New Life forRedundantBuildings Initiative,the Rural MicroBusiness Grantand the RuralRetailDevelopmentScheme. TheFarmersDevelopment Grant,funded by emdathrough theLeicestershire EconomicPartnership (LSEP), isadministered by the County Councilto help farm-based diversification.

Policy 25: Regional Priorities for Tourism

Development Plans, Local DevelopmentFrameworks, tourism strategies and SSPPartnerships should seek to identify areas ofpotential for tourism growth which maximiseseconomic benefit whilst minimising adverseimpact on the environment and local amenity

Targets:• 15,000 new jobs in tourism by 2008• Visitor spending in region to increase by 2% by

2010• Tourism to contribute 4.5% of region’s GDP by 2010

Indicators:• Number of new of jobs in tourist related activities • Visitor spending in region • Number of overnight stays in region


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

69

Results:Table 4.26 - Jobs in tourist related activities

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Rutland

East Midlands

England

9,228

25,639

9,240

17,269

16,245

21,004

12,282

20,860

1,219

132,987

1,791,173

7,999

21,023

9,909

18,318

21,900

19,492

13,317

22,424

1,173

135,554

1,835,608

8,116

22,091

10,366

19,653

20,257

21,031

14,388

24,602

1,356

141,858

1,840,952

1.5

5.1

4.6

7.3

-7.5

7.9

8.0

9.7

15.6

4.7

2.9

Jobs in 2003 Jobs in 2004* Jobs in 2005 % Change in jobs 2004/05

Derbyshire andPeak District

Leicestershire andRutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

East Midlands

24,510

19,158

16,73

12,624

21,622

94,563

24,316

18,979

16,156

12,607

21,547

93,635

24,015

18,995

16,399

13,138

22,547

95,124

2002 2004 2005

Source: Annual Business Inquiry, National Statistics definition of tourism related industries* 2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring report

Figure 4.11 - Proportion of Workforce in Tourism Related Industries 2005

© Crown Copyright.All rights reserved.East Midlands RegionalAssembly, 100038615, 2006

Source:Annual Business Inquiry

Table 4.27 - Employment Supported by Tourism Expenditure (Full time Equivalents)

Source: STEAM (Scarborough Tourism Economy Activity Model) www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

70



Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

East Midlands

1,287

1,109

864

702

1,257

5,206

1,293

1,109

828

721

1,264

5,216

1,285

1,112

850

762

1,342

5,351

2002 2004 2005

Table 4.28 - Spend by Visitors (Staying and Day) £Million




Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

East Midlands

9.05

6.20

12.36

5.92

7.86

41.38

9.50

6.20

12.10

6.08

7.72

41.59

9.67

6.32

12.35

6.32

8.08

42.74

2002 2004 2005

Table 4.29 - Number of Overnight Stays (Overseas and Domestic Visitors) £Millions


Data Analysis

4.78 In the 2004/05 Annual Monitoring Report datafrom the United Kingdom Tourism Survey (UKTS) wasused although this only provided a partial measure.In this Report information has been used from TheSTEAM (Scarborough Tourism Economy ActivityModel) which more directly relates to the indicatorsrequired and is consistent with data used by otheragencies in the East Midlands. The way the UKTSinformation is collected and the way it is presentedmeans that it would not have been compatible withthe information presented in the 2004/05 report.The ABI employment data shows that although mostareas have seen an increase in employment intourism between 2004 and 2005 there was a declinein Lincolnshire, although it still remains an importantsector of that local economy.

Policy Commentary

4.79 Tourism remains an important source ofemployment for the East Midlands, particularly inNottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire (in terms of the numbers employed) and in Rutland

(in terms of the proportion of total jobs), but withsignificant numbers of jobs throughout the Region.

4.80 The tourism data reliability issues identified inthe previous AMR have now been addressed by theuse of STEAM data. Increasing levels of employmentsupported by tourism expenditure, spend by visitorsand numbers of overnight stays are an indication ofprogress being made in this policy area although itseems likely that further potential remains in view ofthe number of recognised attractions in the region.

4.81 In Northamptonshire for example, destinationmanagement is a goal to increase visitor spend andovernight stays including a review of touristinformation centres and the promotion of activitiessuch as walking and fine dining. Specific policies arebeing developed to ensure opportunities for ruraldiversification activities, which may includeincreasing provision of rural facilities.

4.82 Leicestershire County Council, through theLeicestershire Rural Partnership administers the RuralVisitor Grant Scheme (RVGS) to help businesses raisethe quality and accessibility of their tourism product,and improve the visitor experience throughout


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

71

Leicestershire. Also important (across Policies 24 and25) is the National Forest Woodland EconomyBusiness Support (WEBS) Project in Derbyshire andLeicestershire to assist in the development of forestryrelated businesses that have supported tourism, localwood fuel industries and skills development.

Policy 26: Regional Priorities for ICT

Local Authorities and Sub-Regional StrategicPartnerships should work with the private sectorand regional bodies to improve the Regionalcoverage of broadband infrastructure,particularly in rural and peripheral areas;

progressively improve the level of service fromexisting broadband infrastructure; and promotethe take up and use of ICT by businesses, and thepublic and voluntary sectors

Targets:• Full Regional coverage by 2006• 20% of businesses trading online by 2010

Indicators:• Proportion of region’s homes with access to high-

speed broadband services• Take up of broadband services

Results:

Data Analysis

4.83 As of the fourth quarter of 2005 nearly all EastMidlands’ households (99.9%) including those in ruraland sparsely populated areas had access tobroadband (up from 94% in quarter three of 2004).The actual take-up of the broadband services is moredifficult to measure but qualitative evidencesuggests that, as in the rest of the UK, this isincreasing.

Policy Commentary

4.84 Information and Communications Technology(ICT) developments are widely acknowledged as ameasure of an area’s competitiveness and desire toadvance.

4.85 The statistics indicate that with 99.9% regionalbroadband coverage by the final quarter of 2005, thetarget of full coverage has been virtually achieved.

4.86 The Regional Economic Strategy for the EastMidlands 2006-20 ‘A Flourishing Region’ identifies theprovision and use of ICT infrastructure as critical to

improving the productivity of business and thefuture competitiveness of the region but also statesthat in order to remain competitive, the public andprivate sectors need to plan for investment in thenext generation technologies and infrastructure,particularly in the more remote rural areas, so thatthe newest technological benefits remain available to all.

4.87 In September 2004,The Information andCommunications Technology Toolkit wascommissioned by the East Midlands Development Agency (emda) with in-kind support from theRegional Assembly for use by planning authoritiesand construction developers. Subsequently, theSouth East of England Development Agency (SEEDA)funded an update of the Toolkit in January 2006.

4.88 The Toolkit is intended to ensure that newproperty developments (from individual propertiesright up to major urban developments) are planned,designed and built with ICT in mind, based onestablished best practice.This will result in animprovement in the property stock and it will bringthe benefits of ICT to communities and businesses.

Table 4.30 - Proportion of households covered by broadband (%)

99.7

48

11

99.8

Q3 2004 Q1 2005 Q4 2005 Q3 2004 Q1 2005 Q4 2005

East Midlands UK

DSL

Cable

FWA

Total

93

55

21

94

97

55

21

98

99.9

55

21

99.9

93

48

11

94

97

48

11

98

Source: Ovum www.dti.gov.uk

SECTION 5 environmentEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

72

Actions

Continuous assessment by Natural Englandhelps the East Midlands Regional Assembly(EMRA) target its action

EMRA has set milestone targets nationally foreach year to 2010, in order to achieve its aims

Lobby CLG, the Department for EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs (defra) & the EuropeanUnion to maintain grant support

Further significant region-wide positive changein the farmland bird index is not likely tohappen until there has been widespreadimplementation of the new agri-environmentschemes

Defra’s Countryside Stewardship agri-environment scheme, the Entry and HigherLevel of the Environmental Stewardshipscheme, has been implemented, withparticularly high rates of take-up compared toother regions; these will show biodiversitybenefits over time

The launch in October of the Region’sBiodiversity Strategy; Putting Biodiversity Backon the Map, will be a key tool in guiding EMRA’swork on biodiversity; its priorities for action arereflected in the revised Regional SpatialStrategy (RSS)

The Regional Forestry Framework for the EastMidlands;‘Space4trees’ was published in 2005.This will guide the future work of the ForestryCommission and its partners in the region

The existing indicator, whilst acting as a veryuseful first step towards gaining a betterunderstanding of the region’s diverselandscapes, needs to be refined and furthermore meaningful indicators developed

There is a need for criteria based policies inLocal Development Documents andSupplementary Planning Documents (SPDs).Work has been done in the Region to developdetailed SPDs for use by Development ControlOfficers.This work needs replicating morewidely

Key Points

In the Peak District National Park 72% of SSSIs, werein unfavourable condition, in comparison to 42%nationally

The Moors for the Future project has improvedconditions but the programme is in jeopardy due tothe uncertainty over future ESA grant support

The population of both farmland and woodlandbirds show increases, with the recorded populationsof farmland birds almost returning to their 1994levels and those for woodland birds remainingsignificantly above the 1994 recorded population

The figure for woodland creation is once againsignificant but falls well short of the rate required tomeet the target set out in the RSS

Take up of Landscape Character Assessmentcoverage has now made significant progress acrossthe Region

Planning permissions granted contrary toEnvironment Agency advice on water qualitygrounds show a substantial decline and well on theway to meeting the target of zero permissionsgranted


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

73

Actions

The Region’s response to the EU WaterFramework Directive will be led by theEnvironment Agency and will be worked outover the coming months

Progress is being made on undertakingStrategic Flood Risk Assessments, which are theresponsibility of local authorities; the role of theEnvironment Agency in these studies, as set outin PPS25, needs to be established in each case

SuDS still appears to be an issue that does notengage local authorities. Action is required toensure increased implementation through theRegional Plan

The move towards carbon neutral and zerocarbon development (in the emerging RegionalPlan) may well provide another driver in favourof CHP

Key Points

Studies by the Regional Assembly as part of thedevelopment of the revised RSS have shown thatthe region will be short of water in the future ifmeasures are not taken to reduce water use,particularly in new developments

The EU Water Framework Directive will continue tobe a key driver for the protection and improvementof the water environment for the next 25 years, withits central concept of integrated water resourcemanagement for water basins

A significant number of Strategic Flood RiskAssessments have either been undertaken, or areplanned, to better understated and respond todevelopment proposals in relation to flood risk

Only 6 local authorities supplied figures onSustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS); in allplanning permission was granted for 13developments which contained SuDS

The uptake of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) hasremained less than expected

The region has seen much increased interest inwind development and the number of installationsis expected to increase markedly in the next year

The region has challenging targets for renewableenergy generation and there is uncertainty that allthe targets will be met

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

74

INTRODUCTION

5.1 This section provides analysis on the following Environment Policy Areas contained in RSS8:

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


27 ProtectingandEnhancingtheRegion’sNatural andCulturalAssets

Cases ofdamage tonatural andcultural assetsandcompensatorymeasures

Improvementsin thecondition ofland classifiedas Sites ofSpecialScientificInterest (SSSI)

RSS Core

RSS Core SignificantEffectIndicator

No net lossof culturalassets

95% ofSSSIs infavourableconditionby 2010

Little new dataavailable

Good progressbeing made

NaturalEngland,EnglishHeritage

NaturalEngland

28 Priorities forEnhancingthe Region’sBiodiversity

Change inareas ofbiodiversityimportance,including:priorityhabitats andspecies (bytype); andareasdesignated fortheir intrinsicvalueincluding sitesofinternational,national,regional orsub-regionalsignificance


To meetRegionalBiodiversityHabitatManagement& RecreationTargets listedin Appendix 5of RSS8

Population ofwild birdsshowing smallrecovery

BiodiversityAction Plans

29 A RegionalTarget forIncreasingWoodlandCover

Area of newwoodlandcreated

RSS Core 65,000hectares by2021

Woodlandcreation issignificant butbehind target

ForestryCommission

30 Priorities fortheManagementandEnhancementof the Region’sLandscape

% of regioncovered byLandscapeCharacterAssessments(LCAs)


100% ofrural areas

Coverage ofLCAs increasing

LA returns


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

75

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


31 RegionalPriorities forthe HistoricEnvironment

Number oflistedbuildings atrisk

RSS Core Decreasefrom 2001levels

Little changefrom previousyear

LA returns

32 RegionalPrioritiesfor SportsandRecreational facilities

Number ofnew sportsandrecreationalfacilitiesprovided perpopulationserved

RSS Core Targets setin RegionalSportsStrategy

Data not yetavailable

-

33 A RegionalApproach tothe WaterEnvironment

Planningpermissionsgrantedcontrary toEnvironmentAgency adviceon waterqualitygrounds

RegionalCore SignificantEffectIndicator

Reduce tozero

Data showssubstantialdeclinetowards zerotarget

EnvironmentAgency

34 RegionalPrioritiesforStrategicRiverCorridors

EnvironmentAgency WaterQualitymeasures

Access tourbanwaterfronts

Biodiversityand wildlifehabitats

RSS Core SignificantEffectIndicator

Contextual

Contextual

Water qualitytargets setby theEnvironmentAgency

Targets to bedevelopedrelating tourbanwaterfrontareas andprotectionandrestorationof wildlifehabitatsalong rivercorridors inboth urbanand ruralareas (seepolicy 28also)




EnvironmentAgency

-

BiodiversityAction Plans

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

76

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


36 A RegionalApproachtoManagingFlood Risk

Planningpermissionsgrantedcontrary toEnvironmentAgency adviceon flooddefencegrounds

Planningpermissionsgranted withSustainableDrainageSchemes(SuDS)

No. propertiesat 1% floodrisk

No. ofstrategic floodriskassessmentsundertaken

RegionalCore

RSS Core

Contextual

RSS Core SignificantEffectsIndicator

Targets tobedeveloped

New Govt.Guidancehelping tomove towardstarget

Few LAsreturned data

1st year dataavailable

Increase in thenumber ofassessments inplace

EnvironmentAgency

LA returns

EnvironmentAgency

LA returns

40 RegionalPrioritiesfor EnergyReductionandEfficiency

Capacity ofadditionalCombinedHeat andPowerfacilities

RSS Core 511 MWeby 2010


EnergyTrends

41 RegionalPrioritiesforRenewableEnergy

Capacity ofadditionalrenewableenergyfacilities

RSS Core To meettargets inAppendix 6of RSS8

Steadyprogress beingmade

EnergyTrends


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

77

Data Issues

5.2 Where possible indicators are shown thatcompare the East Midlands with other regions of theUK and intra-regionally. However, in many cases datais not available at the intra regional level. In addition,and where available, changes in data over time havebeen presented although consistent time series datais not always available.

5.3 A number of data issues were raised in the2004/05 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) whichhave been addressed in assembling the data for the2005/06 Report. For example the questionnaire usedto collect information on Sustainable DrainageSchemes (SuDS) requested information on sitesrather than dwellings. More authorities hadcompleted a Landscape Character Assessment and anumber indicated they were in the process ofundertaking such an Assessment. Such work inprogress is not always picked up in the indicatordefinitions.

5.4 Much of the information gathered comes fromsecondary sources and from information provided byorganisations such as the Environment Agency.There are still some indicators where information isdifficult to obtain e.g. data on the area of newwoodland created.

5.5 Issues remain regarding the definition of some

indicators and whether they are either logical in theway that they are formulated or measure the impactof the policy concerned.

5.6 Some indicators are defined in terms of the casesor case studies rather than in quantitative terms.While the use of specific examples provides valuablequalitative information it is not clear how suchqualitative indicators can be used for generalcomparisons or for time series analysis.

Policy 27: Protecting and Enhancing theRegion’s Natural and Cultural Assets

The cultural assets of the region include listedbuildings, conservation areas, historic parks andgardens, registered battlefields and scheduledancient monuments

Targets:• No net loss of natural or cultural assets

• The Government’s Public Service Agreement (PSA)target is to have 95% of the Sites of Special ScientificInterest (SSSI) areas in favourable or recoveringcondition by 2010

Indicators:• Cases of damage to natural and cultural assets andcompensatory measures

• Improvements in the condition of land classified asSSSI

Results: Significant Effects Indicator

Figures 5.1 a and b- SSSI condition Sept 2006

England

East Midlands

Source: Natural England

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

78

5.7 The condition of the SSSI land in England isassessed by Natural England. There are six reportablecondition categories: favourable; unfavourablerecovering; unfavourable no change; unfavourabledeclining; part destroyed and destroyed. If a SSSI iscurrently assessed as being in unfavourable no change,unfavourable declining, part destroyed or destroyedcondition it is described as being in adverse conditionand is ‘not meeting the PSA target’. If a SSSI is currentlyassessed as being in favourable or unfavourablerecovering condition it is described as ‘meeting the PSAtarget’. Favourable condition means that the SSSI isbeing adequately conserved and is meeting itsconservation objectives. However, there is scope for theenhancement of these sites.

Data Analysis

5.8 As of September 2006, 68% of the SSSI areas in theEast Midlands were classed as favourable orunfavourable recovering, i.e. meeting the PSArequirement. In England, as of September 2006, 73% ofthe SSSI areas were classed as favourable orunfavourable recovering. The East Midlands still lagsbehind the nation as a whole. However during themonitoring period 2005/06 the East Midlands has madesignificant progress with the proportion of land classedas favourable or unfavourable recovering, rising from52%, as of September 2005, to 68% at September 2006.The increase for England over the same period was 68%to 73%.The condition of blanket bog in the Dark Peak isthe greatest contributor to unfavourable condition.

Moorland restoration work undertaken by Moors for theFuture and its partners - the National Trust and privatelandowners - have moved this figure upwardsconsiderably but the programme is in jeopardy due tothe uncertainty over future ESA grants support.

5.9 Information at county level reflects the significantprogress made in the region towards achieving the PSAtarget. All counties have shown an increase in the SSSIareas classed as favourable or unfavourable recovering(Table 5.1) with three counties - Derbyshire, Lincolnshireand Northamptonshire - registering substantialincreases.

Policy Commentary

Cultural Assets

5.10 The loss of landscape or townscape character haveproved difficult aspects to monitor using objectivemethodologies, although there is evidence that localauthorities are preparing Conservation Area Appraisals,which will define the special character of these areas, inresponse to the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI219).

5.11 At present, monitoring is focusing on assets ‘at risk’rather than a systematic collection of loss or damage tohistoric assets.This approach allows English Heritage,local authorities and their partners to target resourceson saving these assets from loss or further damage.The2004/5 Annual Monitoring Report did report on the lossof parkland between 1918 and 1995.This data is nowavailable by local authority area from the Heritage

Table 5.1 - County SSSI condition Sept 2006

Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

% AreaMeeting

PSATarget 06

% AreaMeeting

PSATarget 05

% AreaFavourable

% AreaUnfavourable

Recovering

% AreaUnfavourable

No Change

% AreaUnfavourable

Declining

% AreaDestroyed

/ Part Destroyed

35.67%

66.86%

60.65%

70.42%

67.23%

51.89%

67.25%

74.30%

84.79%

69.93%

18.26%

22.32%

59.64%

60.33%

11.58%

33.63%

44.93%

14.66%

24.46%

58.35%

29.63%

24.34%

0.48%

12.93%

24.78%

18.48%

8.18%

25.23%

2.13%

5.29%

0.00%

0.23%

0.00%

0.14%

0.00%

Source: Natural England


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

79

Counts website (see link below).This data showssome regional hotspots where parkland lossbetween these dates was over 70% e.g.Northampton, districts on the edge of Leicester andareas around the main towns in the former coalfieldareas, notably Chesterfield and Mansfield.

5.12 The implementation and monitoring of Policy27 should be considered alongside that of Policy 31Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment.Theprimary source of data on the historic environment isthe annual national and regional ‘Heritage Counts -State of the Historic Environment’ reports (seewww.heritagecounts.org.uk ).

Natural Assets

5.13 The Government has set a target for 95% ofSSSIs to be in favourable condition or movingtowards it by 2010. This is now a key target forNatural England, its partners and for the owners andoccupiers of these most valuable wildlife andgeological sites.

5.14 To monitor progress towards this target, NaturalEngland is visiting and assessing each of the 4000plus SSSIs in England at least once every six years.This continuous assessment has given NaturalEngland a good understanding of the reasons whysome sites are not meeting the needs of the wildlifethey are designated to support. It also helps targetactivities more efficiently and identify policy blocksto better conservation. Additionally, it has enabledthe setting of milestone targets nationally for eachyear to 2010.

5.15 The East Midlands Region as a whole has madegood progress over the past three years, but isbehind the national target. Across the lowlandcounties of the Region the situation is close to thenational average.

5.16 Within Derbyshire there were two reasons forwhy substantial improvements were made in2005/06. Firstly, as a result of ESA delivery process anumber of Moorland Management Plans haverecently been agreed and are being implemented.This has affected four major SSSIs. Secondly, theMoors for the Future, Heritage Lottery funded projecthas made real progress in the last two years. InLincolnshire, improvements have been made on the

Wash through securing the support of the EasternSea Fisheries Committee in developing sustainableshell fisheries. Improvements in Northamptonshirehave come in the main through the notification of alarge SSSI - the Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI.

5.17 A particular concern is that in the Peak DistrictNational Park 72% of SSSIs, were in unfavourablecondition, in comparison to 42% nationally. For anarea with international importance such as a SpecialProtected Area (EU Birds Directive) and Special Areafor Conservation (EU Habitats Directive) this issignificant from a planning and management pointof view at local, regional and national level. There area number of reasons why the condition of someSSSIs is poor. In the East Midlands the main reasonsinclude:

• overgrazing and inappropriate burning in extensiveareas of the Peak District and Derbyshire uplands,

• lack of management, deer and grazing control andpresence of non-native species in woodlands,

• under grazing or lack of grazing in the lowlands,

• pollution of our rivers and lakes,

• unsustainable fishing in The Wash.

5.18 For many sites, the issues are relativelystraightforward with advice and managementagreements sufficient to address the problems. Inother cases, changes in policy and action acrosswhole landscapes are required.

Policy 28: Priorities for Enhancing theRegion’s Biodiversity

Local Authorities, environmental agencies,developers and businesses should work togetherto promote a major ‘step change’ increase in thelevel of the Region’s biodiversity

Target:• To meet Regional Biodiversity Habitat Managementand Recreation Targets

Indicator:• Change in areas of biodiversity importance,including: priority habitats and species (by type); andareas designated for their intrinsic value includingsites of international, national, regional or sub-regional significance

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

80

Results:

Significant Effects Indicator

Table 5.2 Percentage Change All Farmland Bird Species 1994-2004

North West

North East

Yorkshire andHumber

East Midlands

East of England

West Midlands

South East

South West

England

No of speciesDeclining (% Total)

% Change inIndicator

No SpeciesIncreasing (% Total)

Total Number of Species

23

15

21

12

7

-2

-3

1

5

23 (27)

27 (31)

18 (21)

22 (27)

25 (33)

30 (38)

30 (38)

24 (31)

29 (30)

49 (58)

47 (55)

48 (57)

40 (49)

36 (47)

37 (46)

34 (43)

36 (46)

44 (46)

85

86

84

81

76

80

79

78

96

Source: Defra

Figure 5.2 East Midlands Wild Bird Indicators 1994-2004 (brackets indicate number of species)

Source: Defra


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

81

Data Analysis

5.19 As in previous years it has again been difficultto collect information on this indicator. A proxyindicator has been used - data on the population ofwild birds and farmland birds from UK SustainableDevelopment (UKSD).

5.20 The 2004/05 monitoring report showed adecrease of 95 in the population of farmland speciesin the East Midlands between 1994 and 2003. Thelatest data comparing the period 1994 to 2004 showsa reversal of this decrease so that the population offarmland birds is nearly the same as that in 1994.

5.21 The population of woodland birds increased by14% in the East Midlands between 1994 and 2003.The direction of change has remained the samealthough the rate of increase in the population hasbegun to level off, although there has been a slightincrease between 2003 and 2004.

Policy Commentary

5.22 The view of the RSPB is that the proxy indicatorused here is a very poor measure of the influence of

the RSS on the region’s biodiversity. Of all major landuse sectors, the RSS probably has least influence overthe overall quality of farmland habitats for wild birds,which is what determines long-term trends infarmland bird populations across most of theRegion’s land area. Local losses of farmland todevelopment do occur, but probably do not affectthese population trends to any measurable extent ata regional level.

5.23 That said, the East Midlands results appear toreflect national monitoring, which shows that overallwild bird populations are generally steady. Theregional trend for farmland birds is similar to thenational short-term trend, which shows that the rateof decline of most farmland birds appears to beslowing down. Some species may even have reachedthe ‘bottom of the curve’ and show localisedrecovery, though care should be exercised inclaiming that strategic land use planning hasinfluenced this. Regional woodland bird populationsshowed a moderate rise, differing from the slightdecrease seen nationally. The degree to which thisincrease is due to unrelated factors is impossible tojudge.

Figure 5.3 Percentage Change in Wild Birds Indicator 1994-2004

Source: Defra

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

82

Policy 29: A Regional Target for Increasing Woodland Cover

Local authorities, environmental agencies, developers and businesses should help to create new areas ofwoodland to meet a regional target of an additional 65,000 hectares of tree cover by 2021

Indicator and Target:• Area of new woodland created - 65,000 hectares by 2021

Results:

5.27 The Secretary of State in a recent Parliamentary answer has provided an estimate of trees planted in theRegion over the last 5 years. He explained that data “on the number of trees planted in each region is notcollected. However, we do know the area of woodland created and the area restocked after felling that has beengrant aided by the Forestry Commission and the area of woodland creation and restocking carried out by theForestry Commission itself.These figures are given in the following tables. In addition planting is carried out inconnection to development and by a large range of bodies, including the voluntary sector and localgovernment.”

5.24 Although this proxy indicator shows littlesignificant change over time, we know that there is agreat deal of activity across the region by a widerange of public and voluntary bodies to deliverenhanced biodiversity, both through direct deliveryof new or enhanced habitats and influencing thepolicy framework.The monitoring and reporting ofdirect biodiversity delivery projects by otherorganisations (e.g. areas of Biodiversity Action Plan(BAP) habitats created by wildlife trusts) may beeasier in future as the Biodiversity Action ReportingSystem (BARS) has been introduced, which isdesigned to capture such information.

5.25 Across the region the successor to Defra’sCountryside Stewardship agri-environment scheme,the Entry and Higher Level of the EnvironmentalStewardship scheme has been implemented, withparticularly high rates of take-up compared to other

regions.The new entry level scheme introduceshigher levels of environmental management acrosswhole farms for the first time, which will showbiodiversity benefits over time. However, these maystill be modest and more resources to support moreHigher Level Stewardship (HLS) agreements areneeded if agri-environment is to make a significantdifference to biodiversity in the Region.

5.26 For Policy 28 to be monitored effectively infuture, it is imperative that the region puts in placethe necessary processes and resources to measureareas of priority habitats lost or created through theplanning system.The launch in October of theRegion’s Biodiversity Strategy;‘Putting BiodiversityBack on the Map’ will be a key tool in guiding workon biodiversity and its priorities for action arereflected in the draft Regional Plan.

Table 5.3 Grant aided woodland creation claims paid in financial year (area in hectares)

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

East Midlands 569 584 626 725 575

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

East Midlands 90 72 31 71 35

Table 5.4 Grant aided woodland restocking claims paid in financial year (area in hectares)

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-061

East Midlands 120 229 155 159 0

Table 5.5 Forestry Commission woodland creation planting year (September to August) (area in hectares)

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-061

East Midlands 89 182 54 152 12

Table 5.4 Grant aided woodland restocking claims paid in financial year (area in hectares)

1 Figure to 31 March 2006, not complete planting year

1 Figure to 31 March 2006, not complete planting year


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

83

5.28 Thus only partial information on this indicatorhas been found and this is the first time thesecomprehensive figures have been fully available.

Data Analysis

5.29 Although partial data has been found on theoverall increase in woodland in the East Midlands, asignificant development is undoubtedly the increasein woodlands that form part of the National Forest.The National Forest covers 200 square miles ofLeicestershire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Initially6% of the land in the area had been woodland. Thishas now increased to around 16% with the plantingof over 6 million trees (www.nationalforest.org).

Policy Commentary

5.30 Over the last decade the rate of woodlandcreation supported through grant has been between500 and 850 hectares per annum.The figure for thisyear is significant but falls well short of the raterequired to meet the target set out in the RSS of65,000 ha by 2021.

5.31 2005 year saw the publication of the RegionalForestry Framework for the East Midlands;‘Space4trees’. This important publication seeks tointegrate forestry with wider socio, economic andenvironmental objectives. It will guide the futurework of the Forestry Commission and its partners inthe region.

Policy 30: Priorities for the Management andEnhancement of the Region’s Landscape

Development Plans, LDFs and other Strategiesshould:

• Continue to promote the highest level oflandscape character protection

• Promote initiatives to protect and enhance thenatural and heritage landscape assets

• Be informed by Landscape Character Assessments

Target:• % of region covered by Landscape CharacterAssessments - 100% of rural areas

Indicator:• % of region covered by Landscape CharacterAssessments

Results:

Significant Effects Indicator

Figure 5.4 - Landscape CharacterAssessments in the East Midlands 2006

Source: Natural England© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.East Midlands Regional Assembly, 100038615, 2006

Data Analysis

5.32 The information for this policy area has beenprovided by Natural England who undertook asurvey in February/March 2006.This showed that 17local authorities had a Landscape CharacterAssessment (LCA) in place and that other localauthorities were at different stages of development,with a number of studies underway. The NaturalEngland view is that Derbyshire Dales is partiallycovered by a LCA, Leicestershire has a Landscape andWoodland Strategy which does not give sufficientLCA coverage to Districts, although some Districtshave done their own LCAs . Northamptonshire weredue to launch their LCA in November 2006;Harborough and Hinckley & Bosworth were due tohave their LCAs completed in November 2006.Information on Landscape Character Assessmentswas also gathered via the monitoring questionnairessent to local authorities, which largely confirmed theinformation from Natural England.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

84

Policy Commentary

5.33 Whilst take up of Landscape CharacterAssessment coverage has now made progress acrossthe region there are issues as to how these will beinterpreted as criteria based policies in LocalDevelopment Documents, used to help guide thedesign and siting of development and whether theywill be formally adopted as Supplementary PlanningDocuments (SPD). The Countryside Agency (nowNatural England), with others, has worked with HighPeak Borough Council to develop detailed SPD foruse by Development Control officers to help themand others interpret landscape character guidance inorder to assess whether development proposals arehelping to protect and enhance character or erode it.This work, along with developing an understandingof the Region’s landscape capacity and sensitivity toaccommodate change, needs replicating morewidely.

5.34 The holistic nature of landscape characterneeds more recognition. Northamptonshire CountyCouncil’s characterisation work has adopted an‘environmental character’ approach which looks athistoric character, ecological character and currentlandscape character, recognising that character isvery much about a holistic approach and not justvisual character.

5.35 The launch of the NorthamptonshireEnvironmental Character and Green InfrastructureSuite in November is a very important step forwardin providing a policy and implementation tool for usein a variety of circumstances.

5.36 Now that Historic Landscape Characterisation(HLC) is an acknowledged part of landscapecharacterisation, there is a need to monitor progresson achieving regional coverage. Currently, HLC hasbeen undertaken in Derbyshire, Northamptonshireand Nottinghamshire. Leicestershire has started itsHLC project, which also covers Leicester City andRutland.

5.37 The existing indicator, whilst acting as a veryuseful first step towards gaining a betterunderstanding of the region’s diverse landscapes,

needs to be refined and further more meaningfulindicators developed. Such indicators need to stemfrom the detailed Landscape Character Assessmentsthat are being prepared across the region and usedto assess characteristic changes in landscape as wellas informing the targeting of regional landscapeenhancement opportunities

Policy 31: Regional Priorities for the HistoricEnvironment

Development plans and other strategies shouldseek to understand, conserve and enhance thehistoric environment

Target:• Number of listedbuildings at risk todecrease from 2001levels

Indicator:• Number of listedbuildings at risk

Results:5.38 EnglishHeritage’s Registerof Buildings at Risk2006 recorded 133entries of Grade I andII* buildings in the EastMidlands compared to 134in 2005. Seven have beenremoved and six added from last year. Thenumber of buildings at risk by East Midlands Countyis Derbyshire 41; Leicestershire 16; Lincolnshire 41;Nottinghamshire 16 and Northamptonshire 19(www.english-heritage.org.uk/bar) .


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

85

Data Analysis

5.39 Table 5.7 shows the percentage of Grade IIbuildings at risk for the period 2004/05 and 2005/06.There are problems according to English Heritage indrawing conclusions about trends in this indicator,partly because of the confusion over definitions andnon responses from some local authorities.Nevertheless what appears to have happenedbetween the two monitoring periods is that twocounties show a decrease in the percentage ofbuildings at risk and three counties show an increase.Other counties either remain unchanged or data forthese areas is unavailable.

5.40 The English Heritage Buildings at Risk (BAR)register includes Grade I and II* listed buildings andstructural scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) atrisk.The figures of 133 and 134 for 2006 and 2005respectively include the SAMs.The figures for Grade Iand II* listed buildings alone are 120 in the 2006register and 118 in the 2005 register.The Countyfigures include both the listed buildings and theSAMs.

Policy Analysis

5.41 The effectiveness of the BARs indicator as aproxy for monitoring the impact of theimplementation of the policy on the historicenvironment is still limited by the lack of consistencyin collection of data on Grade II BARs.The nationalregister only covers Grade I and II* BARs; Grade I andII* listed buildings only represent 9.5% of the 29,750listed buildings in the Region.

5.42 There are concerns about the Grade II data as itis not collected on a consistent basis across theRegion. During the year there was no review ofscheduled monuments at risk, except for thosestructural monuments covered by the national BARsregister.

5.43 The reasons why a building becomes ‘at risk’may have nothing to do with the developmentprocess or the implementation of other plans andprogrammes and it does not directly show whetherthe decisions that are being taken are based upon anunderstanding of the historic environment. Hence, itis important that other data and information is used

Table 5.7 - Grade II Listed Buildings at Risk 2006 - Significant Effect Indicator

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

7

198

21

415

264

41

56

313

211

#

338

5,632

370

3,913

6,434

5,756

1,441

4,183

#

2.1

3.5

5.7

10.6

4.1

0.7

3.9

7.5

7.4

N/K

6

201

23

383

293

N/K

56

313

N/K

339

4,376

373

3,828

5,609

N/K

1,442

4,185

1,700

1.8

4.6

6.2

10.0

5.2

N/K

3.9

7.5

N/K

Grade IIBuildings at

Risk 2004/05

All Grade IIBuildings2004/05

2004/05 % at risk

Grade IIBuildings at

Risk 2005/06

All Grade IIBuildings2005/06

2005/06 % at risk

In total 205 at risk from 2,899 grades I, II* and II

Source: Local Authorities - note in 2005 there may have been confusion over definitions and II* may have beenincluded by some authorities2005/06 data excludes North Kesteven,Wellingborough, Kettering, Northampton and Rutland# data not available. N/K data not provided in local authority questionnaire

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

86

in the monitoring of this policy. StrategicEnvironmental Assessment, which meets therequirements of the EU Directive, was introducedduring 2004 and provides the opportunity to ensurethat the impacts of plans and programmes on thehistoric environment are made explicit.

5.44 The annual Heritage Counts reports on thestate of the historic environment, which arepublished every November and include a regional aswell as a national report and data, are available onwww.heritagecounts.org.uk or via the HELM portalwww.helm.org.uk .

5.45 The effect of development on the historicenvironment may result in loss or change in historictownscape and landscape character, e.g. as a result oftown centre redevelopment. Some changes mayenhance historic character or the setting of historicassets.There are tools, based upon characterisation,which can ensure that the historic environment isfully taken into account in areas of change, e.g. aspart of masterplanning. Boston has undertaken abaseline urban character study of its town centre toguide change and Lincoln City undertook an ‘Inquiryby Design’ in October 2005, to shape thedevelopment of a masterplan for its historic centre.

5.46 Conservation-led regeneration can ensure thatlocal character and sense of place is maintained andenhanced. Heritage area-based grant funding on apartnership basis continued during the year. HeritageEconomic Regeneration Schemes (HERS) werelaunched in 1999 by English Heritage. In 2005/6 over40 schemes were running across the Region. Inaddition, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) wassupporting a number of Townscape HeritageInitiative schemes, such as at Belper in the DerwentValley Mills World Heritage Site.

5.47 Good schemes that retain the historic characterof buildings and find new uses for them continue tocome forward.The continued use as a museum ofNewarke Houses in Leicester, a Grade II* listedbuilding in the heart of the Old Town, was facilitatedby funding from the HLF.The scheme included theprovision of a lift.Willoughby House in Nottingham, aGrade II* listed Georgian town house, had functionedas offices for almost 100 years but was in need of a

new single use. Its conversion to a flagship store forPaul Smith required a flexible approach to shopfittings by the architect and designers, which placedan emphasis on retaining the historic character of thebuilding as an integral part of the shoppingexperience.

Policy 32: Regional Priorities for Sports andRecreational Facilities

Local Authorities should work with County basedSport Partnerships, the East Midlands RegionalSports Board, Sport England and other relevantbodies to ensure that there is adequate provisionof sports and recreational facilities

Target:• Targets set in the Regional Sports Strategy

Indicator:• Number of new sports and recreational facilitiesprovided per population served

Results:• No data was available for 2005/06 as was the case in2004/05

Data Analysis

5.48 As in the previous monitoring report noprogress in collecting data for this policy has beenmade due to difficulties such as definitions of sportsand recreation facilities and difficulty whenconsidering the size of facilities e.g. one large facilitymay be better than several smaller ones.

Policy Commentary

5.49 The East Midlands now has five establishedCounty Sports partnerships to co-ordinate a strategicapproach to the development of sport and facilitydevelopment at county level. Monitoring of sport bySport England now covers three areas; participation -the numbers of people taking part in sport;frequency - how often do people take part in activityand access and use of quality facilities.These havebeen developed into Comprehensive PerformanceAssessment Indicators (CPA). These surveys were dueto establish baseline positions in 2005 and thenrepeated at regular, although different, intervals afterthat.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

87

These should provide much improved and valuableindicators on the progress of this policy in future.

Policy 33: A Regional Approach to the WaterEnvironment

Development plans and policies of the EnvironmentAgency and other agencies need to take water-related issues into account at an early stage

Target:• Planning permissions granted contrary toEnvironment Agency advice on water qualitygrounds - reduce to zero

Indicators:• Planning permissions granted contrary to

Environment Agency advice on water qualitygrounds

Results:Significant Effects Indicator

5.50 The Environment Agency has provided a list ofapplications objected to on water quality grounds for2004/05. It was not possible in this monitoringprocess to check whether the local authorities hadapproved them or not in their planning systems.The2005/06 objections can be obtained via the followingweb link: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/103599/water_qual_obj_05_1404483.doc

Table 5.8 - Applications Objected to by Environment Agency on Water Quality Grounds 2004/05

Derbyshire Dales District Council

Derbyshire Dales District Council

Leicestershire County Council

Lincolnshire County Council

Newark & SherwoodDistrict Council

Newark & SherwoodDistrict Council

North East DerbyshireDistrict Council

North West LeicestershireDistrict Council

Rushcliffe BoroughCouncil

Rushcliffe BoroughCouncil

Rutland County Council

04/07/0621

04/08/0677

2005/0281/07

NAM/W128/-/04/CM/fst

04/03062/FUL

04/01738/OUT

04/00090/FL

JK/05/00409/OUT

04/00419/FUL

04/00696/FUL

FUL/2005/0121/NH

Other - Minor

Residential - Minor

Waste - Minor

Other - Minor

Minerals - Minor

Residential - Minor

Residential - Minor

Residential - Minor

Residential - Minor

Residential - Minor

Cemetery - Minor

Pollution Risk to Groundwater

Pollution Risk to Groundwater

Risk of Pollution to Surface Water

Risk of Pollution to Surface Water

Required Circular 3/99Assessment



Require Circular 3/99Assessment

Risk of Pollution to Surface WaterRequired Circular 3/99 Assessment


Proximity to Potable Water

Local PlanningAuthority (LPA)

LPA Reference Nature of ProposedDevelopment

Reason for Agency Objection

Source: Environment Agency

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

88

Data Analysis

5.51 The data on planning permissions grantedcontrary to Environment Agency advice on waterquality grounds shows a substantial declinecompared to previously available data and well onthe way to meeting the target of zero permissionsgranted.

Policy Commentary

5.52 Water resources for the Future; A Strategy forthe East Midlands (Environment Agency, 2001) setsout the regional priorities for water resourcemanagement. Water resources remain a key issue forthe region, not least because of the increasedpressure that will come from the Milton Keynes &South Midlands Growth Zone. Much of the Region’ssurface water is utilised during the summer andmuch of the groundwater is subject to anunacceptable abstraction regime. Studies by theRegional Assembly as part of the development of therevised RSS have shown that the region will be shortof water in the future if measures are not taken toreduce water use, especially in new developments.The EU Water Framework Directive will continue tobe a key driver for the protection and improvement

of the water environment for the next 25 years, withits central concept of integrated water resourcemanagement for water basins. Further details of theRegion’s response to this will be led by theEnvironment Agency and will be worked out overthe coming months.

Policy 34: Regional Priorities for StrategicRiver Corridors

Development plans and other strategies of localauthorities and other agencies should seek toprotect and enhance the natural and culturalenvironment of the Region’s strategic river corridors

Targets:• Water quality targets set by the EnvironmentAgency

• Other targets to be developed

Indicators:

• Environment Agency water quality measures

• Access to urban waterfronts

• Biodiversity and wildlife habitats

Results:Significant Effect Indicator

Figure 5.5 - East Midlands General Quality Assessment Grades: Chemistry

Source:Environment Agency


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

89

Figure 5.6 - East Midlands General Quality Assessment Grades: Biology


Figure 5.7 - East Midlands General Quality Assessment Grades: Nitrate


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

90

Figure 5.8 - East Midlands General Quality Assessment Grades: Phosphate


Table 5.9 - State of East Midlands Watercourses 2001-2005 (%)

Poor or bad

Fairly good or fair

Good or very good

4.1

30.8

65.1

3.5

37.7

58.8

5.1

40.9

54.0

5.7

39.8

54.5

6.0

34.6

59.3

GQA Chemistry

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

GQA Biology

Poor or bad

Fairly good or fair

Good or very good

#

#

#

3.5

39.3

57.1

3.4

37.2

59.4

3.6

35.3

61.1

3.3

31.8

64.9

GQA Nitrate

High or very high

Moderate ormoderately low

Very low or low

69

26

5

66

29

5

60

33

7

61

34

6

58

36

6

GQA Phosphate

Very high orexcessively high

Moderate or high

Very low or low

65

24

11

63

27

9

64

27

9

63

29

8

61

28

11



Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

91

Data Analysis

5.53 The Environment Agency monitored the qualityof over 3,500km of water courses in the EastMidlands in 2005 and found that:

• 94% had good or fair chemical quality (1% worsethan previous year),

• 97% had good or fair biological quality (no changefrom previous year),

• 58% were poor nitrate quality (1% better thanprevious year),

• 61% were poor phosphate quality (2% worse thanprevious year).

Policy Commentary

5.54 Water Quality in the East Midlands has shown asignificant improvement in terms of both chemicaland biological standards since 1990. In this time, thelength of river and canal achieving a good or verygood chemical quality, according to the EnvironmentAgency’s General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme,has almost trebled, with 60% (2100km) of the3500kms of classified watercourse achieving the topgrades in 2005. Although relatively static since thestart of the new millennium, the past ten years hasseen an additional 642kms achieve the top qualitybands.

5.55 Although not as marked, the improvement inchemical status is mirrored in biological quality, within excess of 2250kms of river being classified as goodor very good in the last survey.This represents a 60%increase since 1990 and in excess of 30% in the lastdecade.

5.56 The district’s rivers remain highly nutrientenriched, however, despite a 15% reduction in thetotal length of the GQA network recording high orexcessively high nitrate concentrations since 1995.Over the same time period, phosphateconcentrations have remained very stable with themajority of stretches falling being classed as highlynutrient enriched.Water bodies in the East Midlandsare still eutrophic and characterised by high turbidity,algae dominated, with no/few submerged aquatic

plants (oxygenators) and generally poor ecologically- in some instances resulting in unfavourablecondition where SSSIs are concerned.

5.57 Under the England Catchment SensitiveFarming (CSF) Initiative, changes in farm practices arebeing sought to reduce diffuse water pollution fromagriculture.The region has three CSF prioritycatchment initiatives and three CSF associatecatchment initiatives, all of which commenced in2006.The Environment Agency has developed amonitoring and evaluation framework to determinewhether the programme has achieved the objectiveof raising awareness of diffuse water pollution fromagriculture, and encouraging early voluntary actionfrom farmers and land managers to tackle it.TheRegional Assembly’s Environment Groupcommissioned a major study of soils in 2006 as partof its study on landscape scale run off (‘spongylandscapes’) and this will also feed into theunderstanding of solutions to this problem.

5.58 The RSS policy on strategic river corridors isnow well accepted and assisted by guidance notesissued to all Local Planning Authorities on asuggested Local Development Document CoreStrategy Policy(www.emra.gov.uk/publications/RPG_src.asp) which,with the supplementary supporting information,provides a helpful method of transition from thestrategic to local policy.

5.59 The policy was helpful in securing a 1.5Milliongrant from the EU Interreg funding for a panEuropean project, SPARC, administered in the Regionby the Environment Agency. Less well developed areuseful key indicators for measuring the success ofthis policy.The policy seeks integrated managementof river corridors. Inevitably, therefore, singleindicators do not do the job but there are difficultiesin finding a suite of indicators without involvingexcessive expense or unnecessary detail.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

92

Policy 36: A Regional Approach to ManagingFlood Risk

Development plans and strategies of relevantagencies should include policies to preventinappropriate development where there wouldbe an adverse impact on the coastal and fluvialfloodplain areas; deliver a programme of floodmanagement schemes and require sustainabledrainage

Targets:• To be developed

Indicators:• Planning permissions granted contrary to

Environment Agency advice on flood defencegrounds

• Planning permissions granted with SustainableDrainage Schemes (SuDS)

• Number of properties at 1% flood risk

• Number of strategic flood risk assessmentsundertaken

Results:Figure 5.9 - Flood risk in the East Midlands

Flood Risk

5.60 The total number of planningpermissions granted contrary toEnvironment Agency advice on flood riskgrounds was 20 in 2004/05. In 2003/04 itwas 133.This represents a significant fall.This is mainly due to the publication ofdraft planning advice by the Governmentwhich recognises the risks and promotesa sequential approach to selection ofland for development.The new PlanningPolicy Statement (PPS 25) was publishedat the end of December 2006.

5.61 The number of properties in a 1%flood risk area is approximately 173,000in East Midlands. 1% flood risk meansthat there is a risk of flooding and thatthese properties are in the floodplain.TheEast Midlands has nearly as manyproperties in areas with a moderate orsignificant chance of flooding - almost154,000 - as the South East of England.The East Midlands has almost twice theproportion of land at significant chanceof flooding than the next highest region(East of England). It also has the highestproportion of land (16%) at a moderateor significant risk of flooding.This is thefirst year that this data on the number ofproperties affected has been madeavailable and the figure is approximate.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

93

Figure 5.10


Table 5.10 - Planning applications approved contrary to Environment Agency advice on flood risk grounds

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

Minor Development

East Midlands

Major Development

62

39

132

19

3

4

1

1

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottingham

Nottinghamshire

Peak District

Rutland

Areas Covered

None

Chesterfield (adopted local plan considers flood risk), River Trent in Erewash

Leicester

Loughborough (planned), Hinckley & Bosworth (planned), Melton, Oadby &Wigston (planned)

Boston (in progress), East Lindsey, Lincoln Policy Area, North Kesteven, SouthHolland, South Kesteven,West Lindsey

Corby (in progress), Daventry (planned), Northampton,Wellingborough, EastNorthamptonshire, Kettering

River Leen and Daybrook (in progress)

Ashfield, Newark & Sherwood (planned), Rushcliffe (planning)

Mapped in local plan

None

Table 5.11- Strategic Flood Risk Assessments 2006- Significant Effects Indicator


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

94

Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDs)

5.62 Six local authorities provided figures onplanning permissions with Sustainable DrainageSchemes (SuDS).These responses showed that 7planning permissions were issued with SuDS on newdomestic dwelling sites and 6 on newindustrial/business developments in 2005/06.

Data Analysis

5.63 The Environmental Agency has indicated thatapproximately 173,000 properties are at 1% flood riskin the East Midlands.

5.64 Table 5.11 shows the areas covered by StrategicFlood Risk Assessments. Twenty two local authorityareas currently do not have such assessments,however, the vast majority of these authorities arecurrently undertaking one, or have plans tocommission on in the future.There has been anincrease in the number of assessments in placecompared to those reported in the previousmonitoring report.

5.65 The 2004/05 monitoring forms sent to localauthorities asked a new question relating toSustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS).There wasvery little response to the question. For the 2005/06monitoring process the question was retained butrephrased to cover ‘sites’ developed rather than‘individual buildings’. Even so the response to thequestion remains low. Only 6 local authoritiessupplied figures. SuDS still appears to be an issuethat does not engage local authorities.

Policy Commentary

5.66 Flood risk is a key issue for the Region, giventhe amount of land at particular risk and it isacknowledged that this could be further exacerbatedby climate change.The use of Sustainable DrainageSchemes (SuDS) is seen as an important spatialplanning potential response to this problem. It isacknowledged that in many quarters it is a poorly

understood technique that the developmentindustry appears reluctant to take on board, butequally there is an issue about getting SuDS adoptedby the maintenance organisations.The RegionalAssembly’s Environment Group’s study of the SuDs ata landscape scale and the relationship betweenlandscape, flooding and soils (referred to as the‘spongy landscapes’ study) will add to knowledgeand understanding in this area.The Region needs tofind ways to play its part to help address theseproblems and the difficulties local authorities have inmonitoring the number of schemes that areimplemented. Progress is being made onundertaking Flood Risk Assessments, which are theresponsibilities of local authorities; the role of theEnvironment Agency in these studies, as set out inPPS25, needs to be established in each case.

Policy 40: Regional Priorities for EnergyReduction and Efficiency

Local Authorities, energy generators and otheragencies should promote: a reduction in energyusage at the regional level in line with the ‘energyhierarchy’; and the development of CombinedHeat and Power (CHP) and district heatinginfrastructure necessary to achieve the RegionalTarget of 511 MWe by 2010 and 1120 MWe by2020

Target:• A reduction in energy usage at the regional level in

line with the ‘energy hierarchy’; the development ofCombined Heat and Power (CHP) and districtheating infrastructure necessary to achieve theRegional Target of 511MWe by 2010 and 1120MWeby 2020

Indicators:• Capacity of additional Combined Heat and Power

facilities

Results:

England

East Midlands

2003

Number of Schemes Electrical Capacity (Mwe)

2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

1,328

76

1,321

76

1,328

79

3,760

244

4,665

233

4,782

234

Table 5.12 - Change in number of CHP schemes and their electrical capacity in the period 2003-2005

Source: Energy Trends


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

95

Data Analysis

5.67 Combined heat and Power (CHP) is thesimultaneous generation of useable heat and power(usually electricity) in a single process. Capacity inthe East Midlands in 2005 was 234MWe compared to233MWe in 2004. This represents a decline incapacity from 244MWe in 2003. The region is only50% towards the 2010 target of 511MWe.

Policy Commentary

5.68 The Government’s Energy Review hasrecognised the difficulty for CHP in terms of financialviability, but although gas prices have risen steeply,CHP is heavily dependant on an appropriate heatload and without this the efficiency gains are notcost-effective.

5.69 Heat is still not fully recognised within energypolicy, so without a specific market for heat, CHP willremain at a disadvantage and will remain vulnerableto price changes.

5.70 The Governments Energy Review does identifydistributed generation as an important area todevelop. CHP is more suited to distributedgeneration and the new policy drivers may provemore supportive.

5.71 Steeply rising gas prices have given a betterframework for private industry investment in CHP,particularly for large energy users. Medium termmarket indicators do still show higher gas pricesremaining, which may again stimulate the privatemarket in CHP.

5.72 There is little in current planning that canprovide support for CHP, but the move towardscarbon neutral and zero carbon development maywell provide another driver in favour of CHP.

Policy 41: Regional Priorities for RenewableEnergy

Development Plans should include policies tofacilitate the delivery of the indicative targets forrenewable energy

Target:• 671.6 MWe of grid connected renewable electricity

generating capacity (equates to 10.6% of electricityconsumption at 2010)

Indicator:• Capacity of additional renewable energy facilities

Results:

Figure 5.11 - Sites Generating Electricity

Source: Energy Trends Hum

ber

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

96

Figure 5.12 - Number of Sites by English Region, 2005




Figure 5.13 - Generation of Electricity from Renewable Sources/GWh

Figure 5.14 - Generation by English Region, 2005

East

Mid

lan

ds

East

No

rth

Eas

t

No

rth

Wes

t

Lon

do

n

Sou

th E

ast

Sou

th W

est

Wes

t M

idla

nd

s

York

s/H

um

ber

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

East

Mid

lan

ds

East

No

rth

Eas

t

No

rth

Wes

t

Lon

do

n

Sou

th E

ast

Sou

th W

est

Wes

t M

idla

nd

s

York

s/H

um

ber

Other BiofuelsLandfill gasWind/WaveHydro

Other Biofuels

Landfill gas

Wind/Wave

Hydro

Nu

mb

er o

f Sit

es

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

GW

h


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

97

Data Analysis

5.73 Figure 5.13 shows the steady progression theEast Midlands is making in generating electricityfrom renewable resources. In 2002 approximately400 GWh were generated from renewable resourcescompared to over 600 GWh in 2005. The mainsources of this renewable energy are other bio-fuelsand landfill.

Policy Commentary

5.74 National policy has continued to improve theprospects for renewable energy.The Government’sPlanning Policy Statement on Renewable Energy(PPS 22) in particular has provided a positiveframework.

5.75 The Region has seen much increased interest inwind development and the number of installations isexpected to increase markedly in the next year.Planning approvals are comparable with other areasof the country, so there is no evidence that anytechnology is disadvantaged within the Region.

5.76 Other renewables technologies are still at adisadvantage, but the continuing policy support islikely to begin to lead to further activity in theseareas. Biomass heat installations have continued togrow and the market is maturing, but theseinstallations are not included in the figures as they donot generate electricity.There is however significantco-firing of biomass in the region’s coal fired largescale power stations.

5.77 The market for small scale generation iscontinuing to be supported and the main barrierremains cost. A number of schools and communitygroups are however actively installing small scalegeneration and this interest is likely to continue togrow.

5.78 The region still has challenging targets andthere is uncertainty that all the targets will be met.Regional partners continue to work to supportinitiatives in this area.

Figure 5.15 - Installed Capacity of Sites Generating Electricity from Renewable Sources/MW



Figure 5.16 - Capacity by English Region, 2005

East

Mid

lan

ds

East

No

rth

Eas

t

No

rth

Wes

t

Lon

do

n

Sou

th E

ast

Sou

th W

est

Wes

t M

idla

nd

s

York

s/H

um

ber

Other Biofuels

Landfill gas

Wind/Wave

Hydro

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

MW

SECTION 6 minerals, aggregates & wasteEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

98

Actions

The environmental capacity of the Region tocontinue to supply national needs has to beconsidered. The role of recycled and secondaryaggregates will continue to play a growing partin sustainable aggregate provision

The publication of Minerals Policy Statement(MPS1) in late 2006 will mean that any revisionof the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) policyshould consider the mineral resources availablefor a range of regionally significant mineralsagainst the existing and future patterns ofsupply

It will be important to monitor progress inimplementing the spatial dimensions of theRWS through development frameworks acrossthe region

The RWS recognises the need to also addressthe commercial and industrial sector andcontinued implementation of the RWS in theseother areas is important if overall sustainablewaste management is to be achieved

Key Points

The Region accepted the national apportionedrequirement for aggregates provision and theregion is one of the largest suppliers

The supply of aggregates is lower than theapportionment figure; this continues a trend oflower production over the past 5 years

The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (RWS)was published in January 2006

32.7% of household waste is now recycled orcomposed in the East Midlands, suggesting asignificant movement in the right direction and thatshort term targets have been achieved and thatlonger term targets are achievable


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

99

INTRODUCTION

6.1 This section provides analysis on the following regional minerals, aggregates and waste related policiescontained within RSS8.

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


37 RegionalPrioritiesfor Non-EnergyMinerals

Production ofprimary landwon aggregatesproduced byMineralsPlanningAuthority (MPA)

Production ofrecycled andsecondaryaggregates byMPA

RegionalCore

RegionalCore

Annual regionalapportionmenttargets set outin Figure 1 ofRSS8

Supplyremains lowerthanappointmentfigure

No new dataavailable

EastMidlandsAggregatesWorkingParty(EMAWP)

EMAWP

38 RegionalWasteStrategy

Production ofStrategy

RSS Core Strategy inplace byJune 2005

Strategypublished inJanuary 2006

RegionalTechnicalAdvisoryBody onWaste (RTAB)

39 RegionalPriorities forWasteManagement

Capacity ofwastemanagementfacilities by typeby WastePlanningAuthority (WPA)

Amount ofcontrolled wastearising andmanaged bymanagementtype

% of eachmanagementtyperepresents oftotal wastemanaged byWPA

Proportion ofwaste divertedfrom landfill

RegionalCore

RegionalCore

RegionalCore

RSS Core

To meetregionaltargets infigures 2and 3 ofRSS8

Zero growthin controlledwaste by2016 at theregionallevel

A minimum of50% ofhouseholdwaste recycledor compostedby all WasteCollectionAuthorities by2015

Decrease inwastedisposed of inlandfill tomeet nationaltargets

Region ismovingtowards 2020targets

Data showsmixed picture& some datastill awaited

32.7% ofhouseholdwaste currentlyrecyled orcomposed

Defra andLA returns

Defra andLA returns

Defra andLA returns

LA returns

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

100

Data Issues

6.2 This section contains the data on minerals,aggregates and waste which is currently available.There are issues over the quantity and quality ofwaste arisings and management data, particularly forconstruction and demolition waste. Municipal solidwaste data is much more reliable as much of this is arequirement for Best Value Performance Indicatormeasures completed by local authorities.

6.3 Some of the data comes from surveys which arenot undertaken annually e.g. Commercial andIndustrial Waste Arisings. The next set of Commercialand Industrial Waste Arisings data for 2004/05 is dueto be published shortly. This will be the last data setthat will be comparable with previous years and itsaccuracy is regarded as limited. The EnvironmentAgency will be changing the data collection systemto one based on site returns at waste managementfacilities rather than one based on the examination ofthe waste produced at point of origin. This data isexpected to become available in March 2007.

6.4 Construction and demolition waste also suffersfrom a lack of up to date data. A new constructionand waste survey has been commissioned. Data willstill only be available at a regional level and is likelyto have high confidence intervals (in the past for theEast Midlands these have been + or - 38%).

6.5 There has also been a change in the method of

collection of municipal waste data which can maketime series analysis less robust. From 2004/05onwards data is collected from local authorities viathe Waste Data Flow online system operated by theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Defra). Previously local authorities supplied datathrough the Municipal Waste Management Survey.Data which might have been quoted in earlierregional monitoring reports has been subject torevision and may therefore differ from that previouslyreported.

Policy 37: Regional Priorities for Non-EnergyMinerals

This policy is to be implemented throughDevelopment Plans, Local DevelopmentFrameworks and Regional AggregatesApportionment with the East Midlands RegionalAggregates Working Party and the MineralsPlanning Authorities taking the lead to:

• Identify sufficiently environmentally acceptablesources to maintain an appropriate supply ofaggregates and other minerals

• Indicate areas within which sites needed for landwon minerals should be safeguarded fromdevelopment

• Identify and safeguard opportunities for thetransportation of minerals by rail, water or pipeline

Targets:

Table 6.1 - National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2001 - 2016 Million Tonnes (Mt)

East Midlands

England

Land-won Sand & Gravel

Guidelines for land-won production in Region

Land-won Crushed Rock

165 (11.0 per year)

1068 (71.2 per year)

523 (34.9 per year)

1618 (107.9 per year)

Source: EMAWP (2003), National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001 - 2016 (June 2003)

Indicators:

• Production of primary land won aggregates produced by Minerals Planning Authority (MPA)

• Production of recycled and secondary aggregates by MPA


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

101

Results:

Table 6.2 - Rock Landbanks for Aggregates* East Midlands as at 31/12/04

Derbyshire

PDNP

Leicestershire/Rutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

Total Lstn/Dol

Derbys/PDNP

Leicestershire

Total IGN Rock/Sstn

Lincolnshire

TOTAL Chalk

TOTAL ROCK

6.944

4.581

1.617

0.959

0.429

0.166

14.696

2004 AggregateSales

(Million Tonnes)

Permitted Reservesat 31/12/04

(Million Tonnes)

Average AnnualSales 2002 - 2004

(Million Tonnes)

Landbank as at31/12/04

(Years)

LIMESTONE/DOLOMITE

IGNEOUS ROCK/SANDSTONE

CHALK

Source: EMAWP 2004*N.B. it is important to note (particularly in the case of limestone/dolomite) that the figures in this table relatesolely to aggregates uses and related reserves

0.16

13.017

13.177

0.277

0.277

28.150

1,034.81

128.903

31.21

50.012

3.79

3.68

1252.405

8.339

384.87

393.209

11.511

11.511

1657.125

6.759

4.58

1.63

1.077

0.453

0.16

14.659

0.196

13.78

13.976

0.261

0.261

28.896

153.1

28.1

19.1

46.4

8.4

23

#

42.55

27.9

#

44

#

#

Derbyshire

PDNP

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

TOTAL Sand &Gravel

1.367

#

1.422

2.995

0.618

3.886

10.288

2004 AggregateSales

(Million Tonnes)

Permitted Reservesat 31/12/04

(Million Tonnes)

Average AnnualSales 2002 - 2004

(Million Tonnes)

Landbank as at31/12/04

(Years)

SAND/GRAVEL

21.873

#

9.258

20.725

3.138

37.26

92.254

1.463

#

1.48

3.134

0.687

3.77

10.534

14.95

#

6.3

6.6

4.57

9.9

#

Table 6.3 - Sand and Gravel Landbanks for Aggregates East Midlands 31/12/04

Source: EMAWP 2004N.B. it is important to note that the figures in this table relate solely to aggregates uses and related reserves

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

102

Data Analysis

6.6 The national and regional guidelines foraggregate provision indicate that the average annualproduction in the East Midlands for sand and gravelshould be 11.0 million tonnes (MT) a year and forland won crushed rock, 34.9 MT. The sale informationshows that in 2004 sales of rock were 28.15(compared to 28.45MT in 2003) thus remainingbelow the guideline figure. Sales information forsand and gravel in 2004 is 10.20MT (compared to10.9MT in 2003) again below the guideline annualfigure for the East Midlands.

6.7 Data for recycled and secondary aggregates islargely based on surveys and it is recognised thatthere are difficulties in obtaining reliable information.The information provided in this report is the same

as was reported in the 2004/05 monitoring reportand is drawn from the survey undertaken by CapitaSymonds in 2003.The results of the survey werepublished in ‘Survey of Arisings and Use ofConstruction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes asAggregate in England’ (October 2004) and estimatedproduction of recycled aggregate in the EastMidlands in 2003 to be 4.26 million tonnes (+/- 14%).In addition, 0.62 MT (+/- 19%) of recycled soil wasproduced and reused. The recycled material wasestimated to be 49.4 % of the construction,demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) generatedin the East Midlands compared to 50.0% in England.

Policy Commentary

6.8 The RSS has taken on board the nationalrequirements for aggregates provision and as the

2003

2004

Sales Aggregate Permitted Reserves

LIMESTONE/DOLOMITE

IGNEOUS ROCK/SANDSTONE

14.11

14.70

1528.2

1252.4

2003

2004

14.34

13.18

410.1

393.2

CHALK

2003

2004

#

0.28

10.1

11.5

TOTAL ROCK

2003

2004

28. 45

28.15

1948.4

1657.1

SAND/GRAVEL

2003

2004

10.90

10.29

94.1

92.3

Table 6.4 Comparison of East Midlands Rock and Sand Landbanks 2003 and 2004

Source: EMAWP 2003 and 2004

Recycled and Secondary Aggregates

Table 6.5 Estimate of use/disposal of Construction, Demolition and Evacuation Waste in 2003 (million tonnes)

East Midlands

England

Recycled asaggregate

and soil

Used for landfillengineering or

restoration

Used tobackfill

quarry voids

Used atregistered

exempt sites

Disposed ofas waste at

landfills

TotalCDEW

4.88

45.45

0.84

6.45

1.84

13.41

1.10

16.43

1.22

9.19

9.88

90.93

Source: Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction, Demolition and Evacuation Waste as Aggregate in England2003 (ODPM Oct 2004)


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

103

region is one of the largest suppliers nationally it hasa significant role to play in the nation’s economicprosperity. Whilst the supply of aggregates is lowerthan the apportionment figure this continues a trendof lower production over the past 5 years. However,at a national level, the demand model is deemed tobe robust. It is recognised that the environmentalcapacity of the Region to continue that supply needsto be considered, particularly in areas such as thePeak Park and other regionally significantenvironmentally sensitive areas. Therefore the role ofrecycled and secondary aggregates will continue toplay a growing part in sustainable aggregateprovision.

6.9 The publication of MPS1 in late 2006 will meanthat any revision of RSS policy should consider themineral resources available for a range of regionallysignificant minerals against the existing and futurepatterns of supply.

Policy 38: Regional Waste Strategy (RWS)

A Regional Waste Strategy will be drawn up basedon the following principles:

• Working towards zero growth in waste at theregional level

• Reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill

• Exceeding Government targets for recycling andcomposting

• Taking a flexible approach to other forms ofwaste recovery

6.10 This policy was implemented by the RegionalAssembly and the RTAB working through a sub-group called the Regional Waste StrategyDevelopment Group (RWSDG).The RWSDG consistedof various stake holders including; the waste industrytrade body ESA (Environmental Services Association),representatives of environmental groups,representatives of the waste collection and disposalauthorities, representatives of various educationalestablishments and representatives of the Waste andResources Action Programme (WRAP), as well as theEast Midlands Development Agency and theGovernment Office for the East Midlands. The broadscope of the RWS means that whilst it has planning

policies at its core, it goes beyond a traditional land-use planning document. The lead partners for someof the proposed actions are not planning or wasteauthorities.

Targets:• To produce a Regional Waste Strategy.

Indicators:• Production of Strategy

Results and Data Analysis

6.11 The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy waspublished in January 2006(www.emra.gov.uk/waste/documents.htm).Subsequent documents include Waste PlanningGuidance for the East Midlands Assembly (August2006) and the Waste Treatment Capacity Study (July2006).

6.12 The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy is akey element of Regional Policy, providing a strategicframework which will allow the Region as a whole torapidly progress to more sustainable ways toproduce and consume goods, and then recycle orrecover as much value as possible from that wastewhich is produced. It also has an important role toidentify the current capacity of the Region tomanage waste and to set out the wastemanagement infrastructure which will need to bedeveloped to meet future needs.

6.13 The Regional Spatial Strategy sets out theprinciples and priorities for waste management:

• To work towards zero growth in waste at theRegional level by 2016

• To reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill inaccordance with the EU Landfill Directive

• To exceed Government targets for recycling andcomposting

• To take a flexible approach to other forms of wasterecovery

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

104

6.14 The main priorities identified in the strategyare:

• Priority Issue 1: Planning our future wastemanagement infrastructure

• Priority Issue 2: Awareness raising, education andpromotion of best practice to achieve behaviouralchange

• Priority Issue 3: Improving the efficiency of ourresource, the reduction and sustainablemanagement of commercial and industrial waste

• Priority Issue 4: Prevention and improvedmanagement of hazardous wastes

• Priority Issue 5: Prevention and improvedmanagement of Municipal Solid Wastes

• Priority Issue 6: Procurement and MarketDevelopment

• Priority Issue 7: Reduction and Management ofConstruction and Demolition Waste

• Priority Issue 8: Managing the waste impacts ofRegional and Sub-Regional growth

• Priority Issue 9: Addressing agricultural and ruralwaste management

• Priority Issue 10: Reducing Fly-Tipping

Policy Commentary:

6.15 The RWS continues to provide the policyframework for implementing the regional prioritiesfor waste through a number of means includingthose outside of the development plan system.Action on the list of priorities is progressing, althoughsome areas are developing faster than others. Havingsaid that it is still a relatively recent document whichcontinues to be implemented and the subsequentadditional documents mentioned above will assist inthe achievement of the priorities set out in the RWSin terms of spatial guidance for waste planningauthorities and providing additional data analysis.

6.16 One of the key outcomes of the RWS is toensure that sufficient sites are delivered on theground through waste development frameworks, allof which are at an early stage in their production andthe adoption of site allocations are unlikely to be

completed across the region before 2010. Equally, itwill be important for local planning authorities totake on board waste related issues arising out ofother development, such as housing, industry andcommerce, in order to achieve sustainabledevelopment. The launch of the RWS helped todeliver the message but it will be important tomonitor progress in implementing the spatialdimensions through development frameworks acrossthe region.

Policy 39: Regional Priorities for WasteManagement

This policy is to be implemented through theRegional Waste Strategy, Municipal WasteManagement Plans and Recycling Plans with theRegional Technical Advisory Body for Waste andLocal Authorities taking the lead

Targets:

• Zero growth in all forms of controlled waste by 2016

• Recycling and composting of municipal solid waste-25% by 2005, 30% by 2010, 50% by 2015

Indicators:

• Capacity of waste management facilities by type byWaste Planning Authority (WPA)

• Amount of controlled waste arising and managedby management type

• % of each management type represents of totalwaste managed by WPA

• Proportion of waste diverted from landfill

Results:

6.17 The Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006)suggests that in 2004 around 22 million tonnes ofcontrolled waste was generated in the East Midlands.The largest proportions of waste generated werecommercial & industrial waste (approximately 33%)and construction & demolition waste (approximately55%).


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

105

Capacity of Waste Management Facilities

6.18 The following information is taken from The Waste Planning Guidance Report produced by SLR Consultingin August 2006 for the Regional Assembly. The report provides a detailed analysis of the capacity for wastemanagement in the East Midlands.The report contains three studies:

• Spatial Planning Guidance for future Waste Management• Significant Waste Sites Study• Waste Import/export Study(www.emra.gov.uk/regionalplan/documents/waste_planning_guidance.pdf)

Table 6.6 - Existing capacity 2005 (000s tonnes)

Derbyshire,Derby City

Leicestershire,Leicester City,Rutland

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire,Nottingham City

Regional Total

441

478

570

906

636

3,031

1,161

264

316

205

961

1,907

210

296

113

19

288

926

1,188

1,199

567

1,479

1,150

5,583

3,000

2,237

1,566

2,609

3,035

12,447

Recycling/composting Landfill Diversion Re-use Disposal Total

Table 6.7 - Capacity Requirement 2020 (000s tonnes)



Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire


Regional Total

2,047

2,240

1,573

1,543

2,218

9,621

187

195

123

121

214

840

999

999

651

651

1,042

4,342

1,301

1,301

825

871

3,054

7,352

4,534

4,735

3,172

3,186

6,526

22,155


Source:Waste Planning Guidance for EMRA, SLR Consulting Ltd (August 2006)


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

106

Table 6.8 - Existing MSW Capacity 2005 (000s tonnes)



Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire


Regional Total

85

98

182

102

128

595

110

150

260

#

#

#

#

#

#

433

398

272

274

334

1,711

518

606

454

376

612

2,566



Table 6.9 - MSW Capacity Requirement 2020 (000s tonnes)



Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire


Regional Total

326

333

213

222

386

1,480

187

195

123

121

214

840

#

#

#

#

#

#

138

139

90

101

172

640

651

667

426

444

772

2,960


Incineration (energy recovery)

Incineration (clinical & hazardous)

Materials recovery facility

Chemical treatment

Physio-chemical

Composting

Physical treatment

Soil screening & concretecrushing & composting

4

5

15

1

13

147

22

159

167.0

158.0

227.0

0.0

226.4

371.1

1412.2

2436.9

3

#

21

#

6

36.9

8.8

35

Type Number of Facilities Treatment Capacity T/A 000s Confidence %


6.19 The following table has been reproduced from the 2004/05 monitoring report as more recent informationin this format is not available.

Table 6.10 - Capacity of Waste Management Facilities


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

107

Wood

Metal

Other

Other (fuel)

Other (biological treatment)

Other (unknown)

Total

4

296

112

35

4

2

819

64.0

5618.6

925.9

122.0

647.0

0

12376.1

#

17

7

#

#

#

#

Type Number of Facilities Treatment Capacity T/A 000s Confidence %

Source: Enviros Consulting report for EMRA (2004)

6.20 The collection of municipal waste data for 2004/05 onwards is via Waste Data Flow - Defra’s online system forquantifying waste data reported by local authorities. The 2004/05 estimates were produced from information suppliedby local authorities into Waste Data Flow. Data for 2000/01 to 2003/04 is from the Municipal Waste ManagementSurveys. Information for the East Midlands as a whole is available and is presented in the following tables.

Table 6.11- East Midlands Municipal waste arisings from 2001/02 to 2004/05, thousand tonnes

Regular household collection

Other household sources

Civic amenity sites

Household recycling

Total household

Non household sources (excl. recycling)

Non household recycling

Total municipal waste

1,489

49

304

277

2,120

93

77

2,290

1,470

70

357

300

2,196

142

71

2,409

1,488

73

334

336

2,230

162

58

2,449

1,478

60

267

430

2,235

148

62

2,445

1,383

70

223

598

2,273

171

81

2,525

1230

76

187

698

2190

164

74

2,428

Household waste from: 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Source: Defra Municipal Waste Management Statistics and Waste Data Flow (2006)

00/01

01/02

02/03

03/04

04/05

05/06

00/01

01/02

02/03

03/04

04/05

05/06

22,039

22,421

22,068

20,936

19,822

17873

1,783

1,881

1,899

1,791

1,680

1,448

79%

78%

75%

72%

67%

62%

78%

78%

78%

73%

67%

60%

Table 6.12 - Management of municipal waste 2001/02 to 2004/05, thousand tonnes/%

LandfillIncineration

with EfWIncinerationwithout EfW

RDFmanufacture

2,391

2,438

2,600

2,596

2,811

2,853

152

156

142

151

167

121

9%

8%

9%

9%

9%

10%

7%

6%

6%

6%

7%

5%

20

9

7

8

7

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

67

84

87

12

19

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3,446

3,921

4,572

5,537

6,951

7,799

354

371

393

492

678

772

12%

14%

16%

19%

23%

27%

15%

15%

16%

20%

27%

32%

95

32

59

26

8

166

0

2

15

11

0

88

28,057

28,905

29,394

29,114

29,619

28,726

2,290

2,409

2,449

2,445

2,525

2.428

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

4%

Recycled/composted Other Total

Eng

lan

d

East

Mid

lan

ds



East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

108

Figure 6.1


Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Nottinghamshire

Nottingham City

Leicester City

Derby City

Rutland CC

East Midlands(000s)

228,838

145,442

190,275

187,538

232,937

75,009

87,807

69,733

11,994

1,230

Table 6.13 - Local Authority Municipal Waste Arisings 2005/06

RefuseCollection

OtherHousehold

CASites

HouseholdRecycled

15,848

6,557

14,593

766

#

23,058

8,743

6.,41

239

76

19,142

49,689

25,311

31,079

42,208

3,231

5,028

9,079

2,427

187

96,244

139,274

116,036

116,109

149,126

24,609

19,635

31,863

4,664

698

360,071

340,962

346,215

335,491

424,271

125,907

121,213

116,816

19,323

2,190

29,599

34,011

11,719

24,351

#

34,574

20,744

8,559

214

164

3,060

460

9,681

11,327

15,248

26,769

5,183

1,192

1,235

74

392,730

375,434

367,615

371,169

439,520

187,251

147,140

126,567

20,773

2,428

TotalHousehold

Waste

NonHousehold

Residual

NonHousehold

Recycled

TotalMunicipal

Waste

Source: Defra Waste Data Flow (2006)

Sub regional data


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

109

North East

North West

Yorkshire and Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East

London

South East

South West

England

4.1

7.5

7.3

13.1

9.1

15.2

9.0

16.4

14.9

11.2

5.2

9.2

8.9

13.7

10.2

17.4

9.3

17.7

16.6

12.5

6.6

11.3

11.2

15.1

13.0

19.4

10.9

19.6

18.6

14.5

12.2

14.2

14.5

19.3

15.7

23.4

13.3

22.8

21.4

17.8

15.4

19.2

18.6

26.3

19.9

29.8

17.6

26.1

26.6

22.5

21.1

23.8

21.8

31.8

25.1

34.1

20.7

29.2

31.4

26.7

Table 6.14 - Regional household recycling and composting rates 2000/01 to 2005/06 (%)

Region 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6

Paper and Card

Glass

Compost

Scrap metals andWhite Goods

Textiles

Cans

Plastics

Co-mingled

Other

Total

116

72

279

47

7

6

4

131

36

698

16.6

10.3

40.0

6.7

1.0

0.9

0.6

18.8

5.2

#

1,475

760

2,439

532

86

74

38

860

532

6,796

21.7

11.2

35.9

7.8

1.3

1.1

0.6

12.7

7.8

#

Table 6.15 - Material Sent for Recycling and Composting 2005/06

Household Waste East Midlands (000 tonnes) % England (000 tonnes) %


Recycling

Source:Waste Data Flow (2006)

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

110

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

05/06

Derby City

Rutland

Leicester City

Nottingham

Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Nottinghamshire

Northamptonshire

123,383

20,834

#

158,852

391,937

#

359,990

441,626

373,464

117,879

19,508

123,799

127,975

363,280

339,964

345,875

407,596

334,785

16.46

12.29

17.42

11.14

16.95

19.54

18.59

25.28

18.5

10.08

12.72

9.71

7.45

9.71

21.07

15.34

12.10

16.09

0

0

10.64

46.34

0

0.14

0

11.93

0

72.83

75.01

62.22

35.07

73.45

59.29

66.07

50.69

63.39

504

534

434

467

484

545.1

514

537

517.6

Table 6.16 - Best Value Performance Indicators 2005-06

DateReceived

Authority Name

TotalMunicipal

Waste(tonnes)

TotalHousehold

Waste(tonnes)

BVPI 82a - %household

wasterecycled

BVPI 82b - %household

wastecomposted

BVPI 82c -waste used to

recover energy- incineration

BVPI 82d -%

disposedof - landfill

BVPI84 kg -

perhead


04/05

04/05

04/05

03/04

04/05

04/05

04/05

04/05

04/05

Derby City

Rutland

Leicester City

Nottingham

Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Nottinghamshire

Northamptonshire

132,578

20,060

152,319

170,242

407,974

385,821

362,662

466,665

373,464

#

#

#

#

289,446

352,215

350,248

427,983

337,552

14.31%

16.82%

15.20%

20.19%

15.48%

8.55%

17.38%

12.00%

11.52%

13.12%

0.01%

0.01%

0.00%

12.00%

0.00%

19.43%

20.20%

22.03%

18.45%

#

#

#

#

77.22%

65.80%

72.80%

56.00%

71.40%

#

#

#

#

504.47

568.78

526.5

568

525.21

Table 6.17 - Best Value Performance Indicators 2004-05

DateReceived

Authority Name

TotalMunicipal

Waste(tonnes)

TotalHousehold

Waste(tonnes)

BVPI 82a - %household

wasterecycled

BVPI 82b - %household

wastecomposted

BVPI 82c -waste used to

recover energy- incineration

BVPI 82d -%

disposedof - landfill

BVPI 84kg - per

head


6.21 The following commercial and industrial information has been retained from the 2004/05 monitoringreport as more up to date information is not yet available.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

111

Industry

Food, drink & tobacco

Textiles/wood/paper/publishing

Chemical/non-metallic minerals

Metal manufacture

Machinery & equipment(other manufacturing)

Power & Utilities

Total

Commerce

Retail & wholesale

Public sector

Other services

Total

Grand Total

282

281

583

138

209

1,056

2,550

411

172

595

1,178

3,728

137

3

7

1

1

2

152

24

3

6

33

185

413

511

201

88

289

1,053

2,555

519

59

285

863

3,418

36

23

63

2

17

4

145

39

17

57

113

258

23

65

52

4

18

7

170

26

9

32

67

237

102

60

17

2

13

4

198

38

6

25

69

267

994

943

923

235

548

2,126

5,771

1,056

266

1,000

2,322

8,093

Table 6.18 - East Midlands’ business sector and disposal/recovery option 2002/03 (thousand tonnes)

Sector Group LandDisposal

LandRecovery

Re-used/Recycled

Thermal Treatment & Transfer

NotRecorded

TOTAL

Source: C&I survey 2002/3

Table 6.19 - East Midlands’ business sector and sub-region (thousand tonnes)

Industry Total 98/99

Industry Total 02/03

Commerce Total 98/99

Commerce Total 02/03

Grand Total 98/99

Grand Total 02/03

1,148

1,058

444

464

1,592

1,522

752

868

498

551

1,249

1,419

476

710

336

345

811

1,055

590

563

383

394

974

957

2,558

2,570

522

568

3,080

3,139

5,524

5,771

2,183

2,322

7,707

8,093

Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire TOTAL

Source: C&I survey 2002/3 & 1998/99

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

112

Industry 98/99

Industry 02/03

Commerce 98/99

Commerce 02/03

Total 98/99

Grand Total 02/03

2,905

2,550

883

1,178

3,787

3,728

70

152

12

33

82

185

2,526

2,555

414

863

2,940

3,418

123

145

97

113

220

258

272

170

56

67

328

237

23

198

326

69

349

267

5,919

5,771

1,787

2,322

7,707

8,093

Table 6.20 - East Midlands’ sub-region & disposal/recovery option (thousand tonnes)

Sector Group LandDisposal

LandRecovery

Re-used/Recycled

Thermal Treatment & Transfer

NotRecorded

TOTAL perSub Region

45,479 0 269,809 0 116,390 34,217 65,493 531,387

Table 6.21 - Deposits of Hazardous Waste in East Midlands 2003

Incinerationwith energy

recovery

Incinerationwithout energy

recovery

Landfill Longterm

storage

Recycling/Reuse

Transfer(Shortterm)

Treatment TOTAL

Note: only the totals for industrial and commercial waste combined can be compared with 2002/3 due todifferent sector classificationsSource: C&I survey 2002/3 & 1998/99

Figure 6.2

Source: C&I survey 2002/03 & 1998/99

Hazardous Waste

6.22 In 2002 the East Midlands produced 253,317 tonnes of hazardous waste. In 2003 this had risen to 267,950tonnes. However, the East Midlands is a large importer of hazardous waste from other regions and in 2003 theamount of hazardous waste deposited, treated or managed in the East Midlands was 531,387 tonnes.



Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

113

Data Analysis

6.23 The existing waste capacity information showsthat 24.4% of waste capacity is available for recyclingand composting.The expectation is that this willmove towards 43.4% in 2020. The existing capacityfor reuse of waste accounts for 7.4% of wastecapacity and is expected to rise to 19.6% by 2020.The expectation for municipal solid waste (MSW)capacity is that it will move from an existing 23.2%being recycled to 50% being recycled by 2020. Thefollowing analysis on household waste recyclingsuggests a significant movement in the direction ofmore waste being recycled or composted in the EastMidlands and that short run targets have beenachieved and that longer term targets are achievable.

6.24 The best value performance figures for 2005/06show that Derby City recycled or composed 26.54%of its household waste; Rutland 25.01%; Leicester City27.13%; Nottingham 18.59% (much of Nottingham’swaste is incinerated); Derbyshire 26.66% (22.86% in2004/05); Leicestershire 40.61% (34.20% in 2004/05);Lincolnshire 33.93% (27.2% in 2004/05);Nottinghamshire 37.38% (33.71% in 2004/05) andNorthamptonshire 34.59% (28.6% in 2004/05). Inother words there continues to be an increasingproportion of household waste that is either recycledor composted. The total amount of household wasteproduced in the East Midlands according to the bestvalue data is 2,180,661 tonnes, of which 713,697tonnes is recycled or composted i.e. 32.7% ofhousehold waste in the East Midlands is eitherrecycled or composted.

6.25 In addition to the Best Value data, informationfrom the Waste Data Flow database shows theincrease in recycling that has occurred in the EastMidlands over the past five years.The percentage ofmunicipal waste recycled in 2005/06 wasapproximately 32% of waste collected, placing theEast Midlands second out of the English regions, afterthe East of England. It also means that the 2010target of 30% of waste recycled or composted hasalready been achieved in 2006.

6.26 A comparison of the data from 2000/01 to2004/05 (Table 6.12) of the proportions of wastedisposed of as landfill by local authorities in the EastMidlands shows that nearly all the local authoritieshave lowered the proportion of waste going tolandfill. This is in line with the previous informationon the proportion of waste being recycled andcomposted.

Policy Commentary

6.27 The introduction of the RWS in 2006 continuesto support the implementation of regional prioritiesfor increasing the recycling and diversion ofmunicipal solid waste and the data shows progresstowards targets. In line with national policyobjectives the concentration of policy is on municipalwaste. The RWS recognises the need to also addressthe commercial and industrial sector and continuedimplementation of the RWS in these other areas isimportant if overall sustainable waste managementis to be achieved.

Derby City

Rutland

Leicester City

Nottingham

Derbyshire

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Nottinghamshire

Northamptonshire

78.1

78.6

73.3

27.5

77.2

65.8

73.8

56.0

71.4

72.83

75.01

62.22

35.07

73.45

59.29

66.07

50.69

63.39

5.28

3.59

10.98

-7.57

3.77

6.51

7.73

5.31

8.01

Table 6.22 - % Hazardous Waste Diverted from Landfill

2004/05 2005/06 % waste diverted from Landfill between 2004/5 and 2005/6


SECTION 7 transportEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

114

Actions

Consider whether frequency of data recordingfor some indicators should be reduced in orderto achieve better data

Existing actions are not achieving significantreduction in the rate of traffic growth. Othermeasures like road user charging and parkinglevies need to be investigated

Tram systems appear effective but are onlyappropriate in major cities. Need to findeffective ways of achieving very significantgrowth in bus use elsewhere

Local Transport Authorities and theDepartment for Transport should demonstratethat future road expenditure will be used in themost effective way

Ensure that transport implications areunderstood and plan development andtransport in a more integrated way

Key Points

Changes are mainly small and most are not capableof being measured sufficiently accurately to reliablydetect annual changes

Road traffic continues to grow

The Nottingham Tram system has contributedtowards a slight increase in public transport usageover the past year

There has been a slight reduction in road casualtiesin the Region but this may be due to factors outsidethe remit of the Regional Spatial Strategy

Additional planned development in the Region willhave major implications for the transport network


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

115

INTRODUCTION

7.1 The data in this report has been gathered from a number of sources, including non-local authoritysecondary data sources such as the Department for Transport website and monitoring returns from localtransport authorities.

7.2 This section provides analysis on the following regional transport related policies contained within RSS8:

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


42 RegionalTransportObjectives

- - - No indicatorsat present

-

44 RegionalTrafficGrowthReduction

Levels of trafficgrowth

Scale ofcongestion inurban areasand on inter-regional routes

RSS CoreSignificantEffectIndicator


Reduction incongestionin urbanareas and oninter-regionalroutes

Slight fall invehicle kmstravelled in2005

Difficultiesexistmeasuringcongestion

DfT

-

45 Behavioural Change

Number ofbusinesses andschools withtravel plans

% of workforceemployed bycompanieswith travelplans

% of pupilsattendingschools withtravel plans

Journeys madeby cycle

Number andlength of newcycle routesprovided

RSS Core

RSS Core

RSS Core

RSS Core


Year onyearincrease innumber ofcompanies,schools andemployeescovered bytravel plans

Increase injourneysmade bycycle

-

Significantincreases innos. ofbusiness andschools withtravel plans

Fall due todefinition oftravel plansbeingintroduced

Increasesthroughoutregion

No changefrom previousyear

Increase inlength of routesdeveloped inprevious 12months butdecrease innumber of newroutesdeveloped

LA returns

LA returns

LA returns

LA returns

LA returns

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

116


PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


46 RegionalPrioritiesfor ParkingLevies andRoad UserCharging

- - - No targets orindicators

-

47 RegionalCarParkingStandards

New non-residentialdevelopmentcomplyingwith RTS car-parkingstandards

RegionalCore

To meetstandardsset out inAppendix 7of RSS8

Very little datacollected byLocalAuthorities

LA returns

48 A RegionalApproachtoDevelopingPublicTransportAccessibilityCriteria

- - - No targets orindicators

-

49 RegionalHeavy RailInvestmentPriorities

Punctualityand reliabilityof services


Punctualityandreliability ofrail servicesimprovedto at least85% by2006 andfurtherimprovedby 2008

Increase inpunctualityhasencouragedrail patronage

Office ofRailRegulation

50 RegionalPrioritiesfor Busand LightRailServices

Level of busand light railpatronage(Number ofboardings)

RSS Core An increaseat theregionalleveltowards thenationaltarget of12% by2010

Increase in busand light railpatronagecompared toprevious 12months

DfT

51 RegionalPrioritiesforIntegratingPublicTransport

Populationserved byintegratedticketingschemes

RSS Core Increase inpopulationcovered byschemes

Data notcollected thisyear

LA returns


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

117


PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


52 RegionalTrunk RoadInvestmentPriorities

Number ofpeople killedor seriouslyinjured in roadaccidents

Scale ofcongestion inurban areasand inter-regional routes

RSS Core

RSS Core

A decreasein accidentsat theregionalleveltowards thenationaltarget of40% by2010

Reductionofcongestionin urbanareas andon inter-regionalroutes

Reductionfrom previousyear in numberof peoplekilled orseriouslyinjured

Difficultiesexistmeasuringcongestion

LA returns

-

53 RegionalMajorHighwayInvestmentPriorities

Number ofpeople killedor seriouslyinjured in roadaccidents

Scale ofcongestion inurban areasand inter-regional routes

RSS Core

RSS Core

A decreasein accidentsat theregionalleveltowards thenationaltarget of40% by2010

Reductionofcongestionin urbanareas andon inter-regionalroutes

See policy 52

See policy 52

LA returns

-

54 Development of aRegionalFreightStrategy

Tonnage of railfreightoriginating orterminating inregion

RSS Core Strategy inplace byJun 2005

Extra 1MTrail freightoriginatingorterminatingin theregion

Strategypublished inJuly 2005

Data on railfreight notavailable

EastMidlandsRegionalAssembly

-

-

-

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

118

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


55 Developmentat EastMidlandsAirport (EMA)

% ofpassengersaccessing EMAby publictransport

RSS Core Increase inpassengersaccessingEMA bypublictransport

Limited dataon passengersaccessing EMAby publictransport

EMA

Data Issues

7.3 Although this is the 5th Annual MonitoringReport it continues to be difficult to get data formany of the transport indicators. This is in part dueto the unavailability of data in a consistent formbecause it comes from irregular surveys or becauseobtaining measurement at a regional level is stilldifficult, for example with congestion data. Theinfrequent nature of some data sets and the delay inproducing others means that in a number of casesthe data used in the current monitoring report for2005/06 is only available for previous years and istherefore not a measure of the implementation of apolicy during the current monitoring period.

7.4 There are a number of policy areas and targetssuch as policy 49 Regional Heavy Rail Investment,where there are issues around the extent to whichthe Regional Spatial Strategy/Regional TransportStrategy could, or should, be expected to have aninfluence on the indicators, such as punctuality andreliability of services, when compared to otherfactors.

7.5 A number of the indicators used only partiallyevidence some of the priorities. For example, policies52 and 53 are concerned with regional roadinvestment priorities but people killed or seriouslyinjured in traffic accidents is used as an indicator.

7.6 Because of revisions to data undertaken by theDepartment for Transport some time series datapresented in this report differs from data in previousmonitoring reports. In some case, such as travelplans, there have been revisions to the definition thatmake comparisons over time more problematic.

Policy 42: Core Strategy and RegionalTransport Objectives

Local Authorities should have regard to thefollowing objectives when drawing up their LocalTransport Plans and LDDs:

• Support sustainable development in the region’sPUAs and SRCs

• Promote accessibility and overcomeperipherality in the region’s rural areas

• Support regeneration priorities

• Promote improvements to inter-regional andinternational linkages

• Improve safety and reduce congestion

• Promote opportunities for modal shift

Targets and Indicators:• None

Results and Data Analysis• No indicators at present

Policy Commentary

7.7 The policy seeks to ensure that local authoritieshave regard to the Core Strategy and RegionalTransport Objectives when drawing up LocalTransport Plans and Local Development Documents.

Policy 44: Regional Traffic Growth Reduction

Local authorities, public and local bodies, and serviceproviders should work together to achieve aprogressive reduction over time in the rate oftraffic growth.This should be achieved bypromoting measures to:

• encourage behavioural change

• reduce the need to travel

• restrict unnecessary car usage

• manage the demand for travel

• significantly improve the quality and quantity ofpublic transport

• encourage cycling and walking for short journeys

Targets:A progressive reduction over time in the rate of trafficgrowth and congestion

Indicators:• Levels of traffic growth

• Scale of congestion in urban areas and on inter-regional routes


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

119

Results:Traffic Growth - Significant Effect Indicator

Figure 7.1 - Traffic increase on major roads1 1995-2005

1 Motorways and A roadsSource: National Road TrafficSurvey, Department forTransport (2006)

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

6.8

6.8

6.2

6.3

6.5

6.8

6.8

8.1

8.1

8.3

8.5

6.6

6.5

5.9

5.5

5.6

6.2

6.4

8.9

9.2

9.8

13.6

13.7

14.5

14.9

15.4

15.6

15.7

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.7

0.5

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.9

4.9

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.9

4.8

4.4

4.2

5.9

6.1

6.1

6.3

6.4

7.0

7.1

6.7

6.9

7.0

7.0

7.0

36.7

36.6

38.0

39.2

39.9

40.7

40.6

Rural Urban Minor

Motorway Trunk Principal Total Trunk Principal Total Rural Urban All

Table 7.1- East Midlands motor vehicle traffic billion vehicle kilometres

Source: DfT Transport Statistics (2006)

North East

North West

Yorkshire & Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East

London

South East

South West

England

53.9

47.4

51.2

52.5

49.4

55.6

27.3

50.9

59.4

50.2

57.6

52.8

54.1

54.4

53.6

58.3

32.3

61.1

59.5

55.2

52.6

54.0

53.3

53.5

47.6

53.3

27.1

53.1

58.8

51.3

Region AM peak1 Off-peak2 PM peak3

Congestion - Significant Effect IndicatorTable 7.2- Average trunk road traffic speed by time period - Regions and Country: 2003/ mph

1 Between 07:00 and 10:00 2 Between 10:00 and 16:00 3 Between 16:00 and 19:00Source:Trunk Road Speeds Survey (2003)

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

120

Data Analysis

7.8 The East Midlands, along with the South West,had the highest growth in traffic with an increase of21% on major roads between 1995 and 2005. Thenumber of vehicle kilometres travelled in the EastMidlands in 2005 was 40,633 million compared to38,075 million in 2001. The 2005 figure represents aslight decrease on the 2004 figure of 40,654 millionkilometres. The distribution across different types ofroad is shown in Table 7.1

7.9 Although now classified as a significant effectsindicator, there are still difficulties in measuringcongestion, in particular identifying some averagecongestion figure for the East Midlands as a whole.Congestion is by its nature localised either in urbanareas, or more particularly on roads in urban areas, oron major roads. While it is desirable and feasible toestablish that congestion occurs on particular routesand at particular times this tends to be a local issue(covered in local transport plans) and is either due tovolume of traffic, a pinch point, road works or anaccident.

7.10 A measure of congestion that has been used isaverage journey time per person mile related to thechange in travel expressed in person miles.Nottingham City and Leicester City, along with otherlarge English conurbations, have contributed to theformulation of this indicator for urban congestion(LTP7). However the indicator will be surrounded bya basket of other indicators as backgroundinformation, such as area wide network speeds,occupancy or bus mode share on the targetedroutes, area wide traffic (LTP2) and changes in peakperiod traffic flows to the City Centre (LTP6).The DfThas commissioned ITIS to help survey flows of traffic.

7.11 In the 2004/05 monitoring report a comparisonwas made of the traffic speeds at peak and off peakperiods (the expectation being that peak periodshave increased traffic flow and hence greaterpossibilities of congestion). There was littledifference in the speed of traffic on East Midland’strunk roads between peak and off peak periods.

Policy Commentary

7.12 As part of the work to accommodate the MiltonKeynes & South Midlands (MKSM) growth agenda,

Northamptonshire County Council and the HighwaysAgency have been working with North NorthantsDevelopment Company, Communities and LocalGovernment and DfT to come up with innovativemeasures to remove local traffic from the A14 aroundKettering.This includes proposals for challenginglevels of modal shift and demand management.

7.13 The local authorities in and around the ThreeCities sub area (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby)have been allocated £1.8 million for an in-depthinvestigation of the possible options for tacklingtraffic problems and improving roads and publictransport.The funds will be used to consider thepotential for possible road pricing schemes andother transport options to reduce congestion.

7.14 The proposals for significant growth within theRegional Strategy can be expected to lead tosignificant additional travel. Finding a way tominimise the effect of such development on trafficlevels presents a major challenge and one which willbenefit from a greater awareness and understandingof the interrelation between the location,composition and layout of development, changes tothe road network and the need for significantimprovements to public transport, walking andcycling. Developments over the last decade or sohave tended to be very reliant on the private car andhave generated many additional car journeys. Newdevelopment proposals will have to adopt asignificantly different approach if the goal of areduction in traffic growth is to be achieved.

Policy 45: Behavioural Change

The Regional Planning Body, public and localbodies and service providers should worktogether to encourage a reduction in the need totravel and to change public attitudes towards carusage and public transport. Measures shouldinclude:

• workplace and school travel plans

• quality public transport partnerships

• travel awareness programmes

• educational programmes

• pilot programmes promoting innovations inteleworking and personalised travel plans


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

121

Table 7.3 - Travel plans 2005/06

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Greater Nottingham

North Nottinghamshire

Rutland

19

11

13

#

29

56

40

0

25

17

47

25

37

44 (7 in progress)

79

52

0

38

22

56

136

141

87

44

9

59

85

40

117

229

165

90

78

11

No. of businesseswith a travel plan2004/05

No. of businesseswith a travel plan2005/06

No. of schoolswith a travel plan2004/05

No. of schoolswith a travelplan 2005/06

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Greater Nottingham


Rutland

9

13

5.3

#

#

23.8

21

0

16.2

20

28

41

51.4

19

18

25.39

38

#

#

7.8

#

3.6

15

23

0

46

31.2

37

42

67

58.6

36

32

30.5

% of workforceemployed bycompanies withtravel plans2004/05

% of pupilsattendingschools withtravel plans2004/05

% of workforceemployed bycompanies withtravel plans2005/06

% of pupilsattendingschools withtravel plans

# Data not availableSource: Local Authorities

Targets:• Year on year increase in the number of companies,

schools and employees covered by travel plans

• Increase in journeys made by cycle

Indicators:• Number of businesses and schools with travel plans

• % of workforce employed by companies with travelplans

• % of pupils attending schools with travel plans

• Journeys made by cycle

• Number and length of new cycle routes provided

Results:7.15 In the East Midlands, according to DfT’sTransport Statistics 2005, 3% of journeys to workwere made by cycle - a similar proportion as in 2004.

Table 7.4 - Proportion of Pupils and Workforce covered by Travel Plans (%)

# Data not availableLeicester is in the process of updating their databaseSource: Local Authorities

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

122

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Greater Nottingham


Rutland

Total

10

18

8

13

2

7

14

2

72

25,300

3,000

3,000

11,135

1000

5,000

20,000

5,000

73,435

7

1

7

15

13

1

11

8

1

63

3,100

3,000

12,000

14,000

25,700

2000

14,000

9,000

2,000

84,800

Number 2004/05

Length/metres2004/05

Number 2005/06

Length/metres2005/06

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

195

206

209

4199

4070

3858

2333

2258

2115

293

332

300

215

193

222

416

383

420

7652

7443

7125

Year/Mode Walk CarDriver

CarPassenger

Other Private Local Bus Other Public All Modes

Cycle Routes - Significant Effect Indicator

Table 7.5 - New cycle routes provided 2004/05 to 2005/06


Table 7.6 - Average distance travelled by mode of travel East Midlands (Miles per person per year)

Source: National Travel Survey

Figure 7.2 - Trips by purpose in the East Midlands: 2004/2005, %Trips per person per year

Source: National Travel Survey Regional Transport Statistics (2006)


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

123

East Midlands

England

78

71

1

1

3

3

5

7

1

7

11

10

1

1

Region Car M/cycle Bicycle Bus/coach Rail Walk Other Modes

Source: DfT Statistics

Data Analysis

7.16 The main indicators for this policy are travelplans developed and use of cycles and developmentof cycle routes. To supplement these indicators otherdata on different modes of transport has been usedto look at behavioural change.

7.17 In 2005/06 a minimum of 874 schools in theEast Midlands had travel plans in place comparedwith 531 in 2004/05, representing an increase ofapproximately 65%.

7.18 In 2005/06 a minimum of 279 businesses in theEast Midlands had travel plans in place compared to168 in 2004/05 representing an increase ofapproximately 66%. Despite an increase in thenumber of actual plans, the percentage of employeescovered by a travel plan in Greater Nottinghamdecreased between 2004/05 and 2005/06. This is dueto the introduction of a definition of what theauthorities deem to be a travel plan. A number oflarger employers with well established travel planshave not yet met the new standards, although mostare actively working to do so, and this has resulted ina fall in the proportion of employees covered by aplan. The overall increase in the number of plans isdue primarily to their adoption by small and mediumsized businesses.

7.19 Although there are some gaps in the dataregarding the number of new cycle routes and theirlength, it is possible to undertake some qualifiedanalysis. Although the minimum number of newcycle routes developed in 2005/06 at 63 was belowthe minimum number for 2004/05 at 72, theminimum length of new cycle routes in the EastMidlands increased. In 2005/06 84,800 metres ofcycle route was developed compared to 73,435metres in 2004/05. The proportion of people using acycle to journey to work remained the same in 2005,as 2004, at 3 percent.

Policy Commentary

7.20 Good progress is being made in terms ofincreasing the number of schools with travel plans,although their effect on mode share and travelcontinues to be inconclusive.With regard to otherareas that might be influenced by the policy, there islittle evidence to show that the policy is achievingthe desired outcomes. The introduction of workplacetravel plans is being achieved through conditionsattached to new planning permissions.There is someevidence to suggest that many workplace travelplans are not being fully implemented or monitored.There are also many uncertainties regarding effectiveenforcement and public transport accessibility in thelonger term, as well as some possible unwelcomeside effects.

Table 7.7 - Usual method of travel to work - East Midlands and England: Autumn 2005 (%)

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

44

53

49

31

26

31

20

15

16

5

6

4

1.1

1.2

1.6

3.3

2.9

2.8

Percentages 5-16yr olds Average length miles

Walk Car Bus Other Age 5 to 10 Age 11 to 16

Table 7.8 - Trips to and from School East Midlands

Source Regional Transport Statistics (2006)

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

124

Policy 46: Regional Priorities for ParkingLevies and Road User Charging

In developing proposals for the next round ofLTPs, all Highway Authorities should examine thefeasibility and appropriateness of introducingfiscal measures to reduce car use

Targets and Indicators:• None

Results and Data Analysis:

Policy Commentary

7.21 The recent successful TIF (Transport InnovationFund) bid by the six largest transport authorities inthe East Midlands will enable those authorities (andthe Government) to gain a greater understanding ofthe benefits that could be derived from Road UserCharging and some of the issues that will need to beexplored to make the introduction of such chargesmore acceptable to the public. Gaining publicacceptance is now the major hurdle that has to beovercome and decisions on the appropriateness,level and geographical coverage of such charges andthe extent to which they might replace existingcharging systems in whole or in part are now crucialto the successful introduction of Road User Chargingin some form outside London.

Policy 47: Regional Car Parking Standards

Development Plans and future LocalDevelopment Frameworks should specify themaximum amounts of vehicle parking for newdevelopment as set out in the RTS

Targets:• To meet standards set out in the Regional Transport

Strategy (RTS)

Indicators:• New non-residential development complying with

RTS car-parking standards

Results:

Data Analysis

7.22 Lack of monitoring systems has meant that nodata has been collected for this regional priority area

which refers to new proposals for the maximumamount of vehicle parking for new developmentswhich need to be reflected in local developmentframeworks and development plans. A moredetailed set of information relating to the standardsto be adopted is provided in Appendix 7 of thecurrent Regional Spatial Strategy.

Policy Commentary

7.23 The Regional Parking Standards Reviewshowed that most local planning authorities hadadopted maximum parking standards but thesewere not always being applied consistently. Concernsremain about the effectiveness of car parkingstandards as a means of influencing travel behaviourin the absence of suitable alternatives and effectiveenforcement regimes.There is evidence to suggestthat the planning process often gives more weight toother factors which can then take precedence whenit comes to determining parking provision.

Policy 48: A Regional Approach toDeveloping Public Transport AccessibilityCriteria

National and regional bodies should work withlocal authorities to develop a consistent regionalmethodology for determining public transportaccessibility criteria for inclusion in DevelopmentPlans and Local Transport Plans

Targets and Indicators:None

Results:

Data Analysis

7.24 No data has been collected for this regionalpriority area as it refers to the development of anapproach/methodology by regional and local bodiesto determine public transport accessibility criteria forinclusion in development plans and local transportplans.

Policy Commentary

7.25 The Government Office for the East Midlandsand Communities and Local Government (CLG) have


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

125

indicated that a National Core Indicator foraccessibility has been provided in the LocalDevelopment Framework (LDF) Monitoring GoodPractice Guide published in March 2005. Althoughthis indicator was not included in the Core OutputIndicators for Regional Planning published at thesame time, CLG state that its use at the LDF level willenable it to be used for RSS monitoring, although it isacknowledged that this was too late to inform thisReport.

Policy 49: Regional Heavy Rail InvestmentPriorities

DfT Rail, Network Rail, Local Authorities, publicbodies and train operating companies should

work to achieve an increase in rail passengerkilometres at the Regional level towards thenational target of 50% by 2010

Targets:

• Punctuality and reliability of rail services improvedto at least 85% by 2006 and further improved by2008

Indicators:• Punctuality and reliability of services

Results:

Growth in Rail Patronage - significant effectindicator

Data Analysis

7.26 Rail patronage in the East Midlands increasedby 60% from 1995/96 to 2004/05, compared togrowth of 38% in England.

Policy Commentary

7.27 The welcome increase in punctuality appears tohave been a contributory factor in encouragingincreased rail patronage. However, there is an urgentneed to consider longer term growth and identifyhow the network can be improved to cater for this.This is particularly important given the usually longlead times involved in delivering significant capacityimprovements.

Policy 50: Regional Priorities for Bus and LightRail Services

Local Authorities, public bodies and serviceproviders should work in partnership to increase thelevel of bus and light rail patronage at the Regionallevel towards the national target of 12% by 2010

Targets:• To increase the level of bus and light rail patronageat the Regional level towards the national target of12% by 2010

Indicators:• Level of bus and light rail patronage (number ofboardings)

Results:7.28 In 2004/05 there were 208 million (200 millionbus and 8 million tram) bus and light rail journeys inthe East Midlands, compared with 211 million in2005/06 (201 million bus and 10 million tram). Therehas therefore been an increase in the number ofjourneys made by public transport, particularly onthe tram in Nottingham.

7.29 According to the DfT Survey of Bus Operators,the number of bus vehicle kilometres has decreasedfrom 164 million in 2001/02 to 151 million in2005/06, although this is a slight increase on the2004/05 figure of 150 million kilometres.

Figure 7.3 - Regional Growth Index in rail patronage - East Midlands and England: 1995/96-2004/05

Source: Strategic Rail Authority andOffice of Rail Regulation RegionalTransport Statistics (2006)

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

126

Data Analysis

7.30 The 2005/06 information on bus and light railjourneys in the East Midlands shows an increase inthe use of public transport compared to 2004/05 butstill remains below the number of journeys taken bypublic transport in 2000/01. The Nottingham tramsystem (which has only one line) has shown a growthin patronage, with 10 million journeys beingundertaken in 2005/06 compared to 8 million in2004/05.

Policy Commentary

7.31 The national target of 12% growth in bus andlight rail patronage is lower than the growthanticipated in road traffic over a comparable periodand therefore represents a decline in the mode shareof the former. It seems extremely unlikely thatgrowth levels of the order necessary to achieve anactual increase in public transport mode share willoccur without substantial changes involving bothregulatory and financial reforms.The most effectivereforms will require the active support of centralGovernment, involving changes to the transport andplanning regimes, as well as in other areas of activity.

Policy 51: Regional Priorities for IntegratingPublic Transport

Development Plans, future Local DevelopmentFrameworks and Local Transport Plans should:

• promote the development of multi-modalthrough ticketing initiatives and the integrationof public and other transport servicessupporting health, education and social care

• promote the development of a hierarchy ofpublic transport interchange facilities at keylocations, starting with the Principal Urban Areasand Sub-Regional Centres

• promote safe and convenient access on foot andby cycle to public transport services

• consider settlements with existing or proposedpublic transport interchange facilities aslocations for new development

• promote the development of new park and ridefacilities in appropriate locations to reducetraffic congestion on routes into the Region’sPrincipal Urban Areas and alongside strategictransport corridors

Targets:• Increase in population covered by integrated

ticketing schemes

Indicators:• Population served by integrated ticketing schemes

Results:

Data Analysis

7.32 No data has been collected for this regionalpriority measure since as formulated it gives aconfusing message, since the more integratedschemes are the fewer there will be, so that inextremis the whole of the East Midlands would becovered by one scheme.

Policy Commentary

7.33 The achievement of a fully integrated publictransport system is highly desirable but littleprogress is being achieved because of a number ofsignificant hurdles, over which local and regionalauthorities currently have little or no control.Theremoval of these barriers and their replacement witha regime that positively seeks and encouragesgreater integration is essential if significant progressis to be made.

Figure 7.4 - Bus and light rail journeys in the East Midlands (Millions)

Source: DfT Transport Statistics


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

127

Policy 52: Regional Trunk Road InvestmentPriorities

This policy and the next highlight the need for theHighways Agency, working closely with regionalbodies and individual Transport Authorities andLocal Planning Authorities to ensure that all newhighway capacity is managed effectively toreduce congestion and improve safety

Targets:• A decrease in accidents at the regional leveltowards the national target of 40% by 2010

• Reduction of congestion in urban areas and oninter-regional routes

Indicators:• Number of people killed or seriously injured in roadaccidents

• Congestion in urban areas and inter-regional routes

Results:

Table 7.9 - Traffic accidents 2005/06

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

GreaterNottingham

NorthNottinghamshire

Rutland

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

0

11

18

6

11

18

22

32

27

0

5

8

6

6

6

5

5

2

1

22

45

27

35

34

51

84

60

2

15

48

10

49

69

42

30

37

2

141

483

59

308

442

518

434

357

21

0

1

0

1

6

3

2

2

0

17

42

8

23

41

57

56

52

2

Child Pedestrian Adult Pedestrian All Road Users All Children

Killed Killed orSeriously

Injured


Injured


Injured


Injured


Table 7.10 - People Killed or Seriously Injured In East Midlands 2003/04 - 2005/06

Derby

Derbyshire

Leicester

Leicestershire

Lincolnshire

Northamptonshire

Greater Nottingham


Rutland

Total

147

579

81

298

630

538

504

438

36

3,251

#

557

94

232

517

498

453

405

30

2,786

141

483

59

308

442

518

434

357

21

2,763

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

# Data not availableSource: Local Authorities

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

128

Table 7.11 - Regional expenditure on roads- East Midlands and Country: 2003-05 (£ Million)

Motorwaysand trunkroads1

96.0

46.0

13.7

207.9

2.2

59.7

14.3

24.8

464.7

856.3

410.5

210.3

2,378.8

60.6

931.2

288.7

298.4

5,434.8

120.3

47.4

14.6

269.1

2.8

59.6

14.3

26.2

554.3

1053.4

414.7

216.9

2,613.4

60.1

984.2

344.5

316.0

6,003.3

EastMidlands2003/04

England2003/04

EastMidlands2004/05

England2004/05

1. Figures are on a resource accounting basis2. Previously this table showed figures for ‘routine and winter maintenance and public lighting’.The HighwaysAgency is no longer able to separately identify this expenditure. Figures are now shown under a new headingand cannot be compared with those in earlier versions3. Payments to contractors under DBFO schemes4. Local authority expenditure excludes car parks5. Includes expenditure on patchingSource: Regional Transport Statistics (2006)

LocalRoads4

Other

New construction / improvement andstructural maintenance

Current maintenance including routine andwinter maintenance2

DBFO shadow tolls3

New improvement for highways, lighting,road safety and structural maintenance5

Revenue expenditure on bridge structuralmaintenance and strengthening

Routine and winter maintenance

Revenue expenditure on road safety

Revenue expenditure on public lighting

All road expenditure

Figure 7.5 - Expenditure on East Midlands Roads 2004/05

Source: Regional TransportStatistics (2006)

7.34 For data on congestion please see Policy 44.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

129

Data Analysis

7.35 The number of people killed or seriouslyinjured in 2005/06 in the East Midlands was less thanin 2004/05. In 2005/06 2,793 people were eitherkilled or seriously injured compared to a least 2,840in 2004/05.

7.36 £554.3 million was spent on East Midlands’roads in 2004/05 compared to £464.7 million in2003/04 and £257.2 million in 2002/03.There hasbeen a 19.3% increase in expenditure between2003/04 and 2004/05 in the East Midlands comparedto a10.5% increase in expenditure in England overthe same time period.

Policy Commentary

7.37 Further work needs to be done to demonstratethat new regional trunk road highway capacity isbeing planned and managed effectively in order tohelp maximise the aims of this policy.

Policy 53: Regional Major HighwayInvestment Priorities

Local Transport Authorities, working closely withLocal Planning Authorities and national andregional bodies should:

• work to progress the highway investmentpriorities

• ensure any additional highway schemes areconsistent with RTS and sub-area Objectives

• ensure all highway capacity is managedeffectively

Targets:• A decrease in accidents at the regional level towards

the national target of 40% by 2010

Indicators:• Number of people killed or seriously injured in road

accidents

• Congestion in urban areas and inter-regional routes

Results:7.38 For traffic casualties and investment please seepolicy 52.

7.39 For data on congestion please see Policy 44.

Data Analysis

7.40 See policies 52 and 44.

Policy Commentary

7.41 See commentary on Policies 52 and 44.

Policy 54: Development of a Regional FreightStrategy

The Regional Planning Body should work withemda,Transport Authorities, other public bodiesand representatives of the freight industry todevelop a broadly based Regional FreightStrategy in order to inform the next round ofLocal Transport Plans

Targets:• To produce a Regional Freight Strategy

• Extra 1mt rail freight originating or terminating inRegion

Indicators:• Tonnage of rail freight originating or terminating in

Region

Results:7.42 The Regional Freight Strategy was producedand published in July 2005.

Table 7.12 - Freight transport by road - Goods lifted by origin of goods -East Midlands andCountry: 1993-2005 Million tonnes

East Midlands

England

163

1,347

155

1,345

163

1,277

169

1,390

158

1,404

172

1,483

180

1,490

Origin 1993 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: Continuing Survey of Road Goods Transport Regional Transport Statistics (2006)

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

130

Data Analysis

7.43 The tonnage of road freight originating in theEast Midlands has continued to grow since 2000where 155 million tonnes were lifted, rising to 180million tonnes in 2005.

Policy Commentary

7.44 The production of the Regional Freight Strategywas completed in time to inform the second roundof Local Transport Plans, which were submitted toGovernment in March 2006. Monitoring confirms thatthere has been a significant growth in road freighttraffic over the last 5 years but this cannot becompared with rail freight because the data is notavailable.The ability of the Regional Freight Strategyto influence critical decisions about mode share andfreight movements does rely on the actions of theAssembly’s partner organisations, particularlyGovernment, which is now responsible fordetermining future rail policy and investment in therail system.The influence of Government on themanagement and investment in the road system isalso critical to this.

Policy 55: Development at East MidlandsAirport (EMA)

Development Plans, LDFs and LTPs should:

• provide for further operational expansion ofEMA within its boundaries subject to impacts

• consider the surface access needs of EMA

• assess the measures necessary to increase theshare of trips to EMA made by public transport

• ensure that transport proposals are compatiblewith the need to create effective publictransport links to EMA

Targets:• Increase in passengers accessing EMA by public

transport

Indicators:• % of passengers accessing EMA by public transport

Results:

Figure 7.6 - Passengers using the Skylink Bus Service to East Midlands Airport

Source: East Midlands Airport Masterplan (2006)

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

pax

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

131

Figure 7.7 - Air transport movements1 (aircraft landing or take-offs) at East Midlands airports1993-2005/Thousands

1 Figures include some double counting because domestic traffic is counted at airport on arrival and departureSource: Civil Aviation Authority

Terminal passengers (arrivals and departures) - significant effects indicator

Table 7.13 - Terminal passengers1 (arrivals or departures) at GB airports - East Midlands: 1993-2005 (Millions)

Figure 7.8 - Freight lifted 1,2 at East Midlands airports: 1993-2005 Thousands tonnes

East Midlands 1.4 2.2 2.4 3.2 4.3 4.4 4.2

Region 1993 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1 Figures include some double counting because domestic traffic is counted at airport on arrival and departureSource: Civil Aviation Authority

1 Figures include some double counting because domestic traffic is counted at airport on arrival and departure2 Excluding mail and passengers’ luggageSource: Civil Aviation Authority

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

132

Data Analysis

7.45 After a period of expansion since 1993 thenumber of air transport movements in 2005 showeda slight decrease. The number of terminalpassengers fell from 4.4 million in 2004 to 4.2 millionin 2005. The amount of freight lifted increased in2005 to 266.6 thousand tonnes from 253.1 thousandtonnes in 2004.

Policy Commentary

7.46 In their Masterplan EMA propose two targets:

• 30% of employees accessing the Airport by meansother than single car occupancy by 2016

• 10% of passengers accessing the Airport by meansother than a car by 2016

7.47 Airport traffic contributes a relatively smallpercentage of the overall traffic on the motorwaysystem, particularly at peak times. In the course oftechnical work on the North-South M1 MultiModalStudy, information was provided which showed thatthe number of HGVs going to and from the Airport asa percentage of total HGV movements on the M1was around 0.5%.

7.48 The Airport’s contribution to traffic tends to bespread during the day rather than concentratedaround peak congested hours, and while it mayproduce large volumes of traffic it does notcontribute a large proportion of traffic duringcongested hours.The majority of airport relatedfreight road-movements, including HGV traffic, takesplace off-peak and therefore has alimited impact on themotorway network. Freighttraffic predominantlyaccesses the airportduring the eveningsor night, i.e.between 8pm and6am, andtherefore hasvery little effecton motorwaypeaks.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

133

SECTION 8 sub areas

Actions

The Assembly is working with the EastMidlands Rural Affairs Forum and Governmentbodies such as Natural England to developmeasures

The Assembly will lead on a project to definespatial boundaries where these are necessaryfor policy implementation and monitoring



The Plan places further emphasis on the needfor partners to work together to ensure theconservation of the Park for future generations


Key Points

Further work is necessary to develop realisticmeasures for delivering rural priorities

A number of policies have been difficult tomeasure due to a lack of precise spatial boundaries

Lincoln Policy Area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy andimplementation framework for the Lincoln PolicyArea has been launched (September 2006)

Northern Sub-area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy andimplementation framework for the Northern Sub-area has been launched (September 2006)

Peak Sub-area:The new National Park Management Plan is due tobe published in 2007

Three Cities Sub-area:A new draft sub-regional spatial strategy andimplementation framework for the Three CitiesSub-area has been launched (September 2006)

INTRODUCTION

8.1 Since the analysis of sub-regional areas is relatively new the monitoring process has only been able to covera limited number of issues. Future sub-regional monitoring will be informed by the continual development ofsub-regional strategies and local development frameworks.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

134

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


5 ConcentratingDevelopmentin Urban Areas

% of Region’snewdevelopmentin PrincipalUrban Areas(PUAs)

Number ofnew houses,land andfloorspacedevelopedwithin andoutside PUAs

% of newdevelopmentin Northantsgrowth towns

RSS Core

RSS Core

RSS Core

Targets to bedeveloped

Spatialdefinitions,indicators andtargets need tobe developedto measurepolicy

As above

Covered byseparateMKSM AMR

-

-

--

-6 RegionalPriorities inRuralAreas

Numbers inemploymentin rural areas

Number ofbus passengerjourneys peryear in ruralareas

Accessibility toessentialservices inrural areas

RSS Core

RSS Core

Increase innumbers inemployment

Increase innumber ofbuspassengerjourneysfrom 2001levels

Improveaccessibilityto services

See policy 6 inEconomysection

Data currentlynot available

No furtherinformationavailable sinceprevious AMR

-

-

SERRL


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

135

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


7 a)Developmentin the EasternSub-Area

Employmentrates inmarket towns

Employmentrates(measured inJanuary andAugust) incoastal area

Visitorspending incoastal area

Indices ofDeprivation(IMD) inGainsborough, Mablethorpeand Skegness.Figures basedon 10% mostdeprived SOAs

Change innumber ofjobs related tofoodproductionanddistribution

RSS Core

Contextual

RSS Core

RSS Core

Contextual

Targets to bedeveloped

-

LabourForceSurvey/AnnualPopulationSurvey

emda

IMD fromODPM


Data notavailable

Ratesremained fairlyconstantalthough rateincreased inEast Lindsey

Slight increasein visitor spendbetween 2004and 2005

No update toIMD available

Update to ABIdata not yetavailable

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

136

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


7 b) LincolnPolicy Area

Number ofnew housesbuilt in PolicyArea

% change injobs in PolicyArea

% change inretailfloorspace inCity Centre

Increaseprovision anduse of publictransport inPolicy Area

Indices ofMultipleDeprivation(IMD); LAranks andscores

Contextual

Contextual

Contextual

Contextual

RSS Core

Draft SRSincluded indraft RSS(Sept 06)

Job creation,new retailfloorspaceand use ofpublictransport allgreater thanregionalaverage

IMD showsgreaterreduction ofdeprivationthan regionalaverage

LA returns


LA returns

-

IMD fromODPM


Between 2004and 2005 therewas a declinein employmentin two of thedistricts in thePolicy area andonly a smallincrease in thethird district

Data notavailable

Data notavailable


8 OvercomingPeripheralityin theEastern Sub-Area

Relevanttransportimprovements

Access to anduse of ICT

RSS Core

RSS Core Increaseduse of ICTinperipheralareas

Access tobroadbandextendedto all areas

-

BT

A number oftransportschemes havebeenimplemented

Target virtuallyachieved


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

137

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


9 Regenerationof theNorthernSub-Area

% change ineconomicactivity andemploymentrates


RSS Core

Contextual

Draft SRSincluded indraft RSSreview(Sept 06)

Higher rateof increasethanregionalaverage

IMD showsgreaterreductionindeprivationthanregionalaverage

Labour ForceSurvey/AnnualPopulationSurvey

IMD fromODPM

Change fromLFS to APSdata makescomparisondifficult


10 SpatialPriorities forDevelopmentin the PeakSub-Area

Employmentrates

Number ofnewaffordablehouses built

Visitorspending

Change innumber ofjobs,particularlyrelated tocreativeindustries

Contextual

RSS Core

Contextual

Contextual


Change fromLFS to APSdata makescomparisondifficult

Restrictedoccupancydwellingsbeingprovidedabove RSStarget foraffordablehousing

Visitorspendingremainingfairly constant

Between 2004and 2005employment inDerbyshireDales grew by7% and theHigh Peak fellby 1%

Labour ForceSurvey/AnnualPopulationSurvey

LA returns

STEAM


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

138

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


11 SpatialPriorities forDevelopmentoutside thePeak DistrictNational Park

Employmentrates

Number ofnewaffordablehouses built

Visitorspending

Change innumber ofjobs

RSS Core

Contextual

Contextual

RSS Core



LA returns

emda


Data notavailable

Data notavailable

Data notavailable

Data notavailable

12 ManagingTourismandVisitors inthe PeakSub Area

Number ofvisitors andamount ofspend pervisitor

Number ofnew visitorattractions inareasimmediatelyoutsideNational Park

Number ofjobs intourismrelatedactivities

RSS Core

RSS Core

RSS Core


See Policy 10above

Data notavailable

Between 2004and 2005 therewas anincrease inemployment intourism relatedindustries

-

-


-


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

139

PolicyNo.

Policy Title

Key Indicators

Core /Contextual


15 Developmentin the ThreeCities Sub-area

Number ofnew housesbuilt in PolicyArea

% change injobs in PolicyArea

% increase inretailfloorspace inCity Centre

Increaseprovision anduse of publictransport inPolicy Area


Contextual

Contextual

Contextual

RSS Core

RSS Core

Jobcreation,new retailfloorspaceand use ofpublictransport allgreaterthanregionalaverage

IMD showsgreaterreduction indeprivationthan regionalaverage

LA returns


LA returns

IMD formODPM

Increase innew housingdevelopment

Between 2004and 2005 Sub-area has seen a3.3% growth inemployment

Decline in retailfloorspacebetween 2001-05



35 Priorities fortheManagementof theLincolnshireCoast

Number ofBlue Flagbeaches

Change in areasof biodiversityimportance,including:priority habitatsand species (bytype); and areasdesignated fortheir intrinsicvalue includingsites ofinternational,national,regional or sub-regionalsignificance

Contextual

RegionalCore

Increase inblue flagbeaches

To meetRegionalBiodiversityHabitatManagementandRecreationTargets listedin Appendix5 of RSS8

Only 1 beachnow has blueflag


Blue Flag

Bio diversityaction plans

43 Sub areatransportobjectives

- - - Indicators andtargets need tobe developedto measurepolicy

-

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

140

Hamlet and Isolateddwellings - Sparse

Hamlet and isolatedDwellings - Less sparse

Village - Sparse

Village - Less sparse

Town and fringe -Sparse

Town and fringe - Less sparse

Urban >10K - Sparse

Urban >10K - Less sparse

36.1

60.9

16.5

40.5

92.2

72.4

100.0

99.6

55.2

87.7

55.9

81.2

100.0

98.6

100.0

100.0

57.4

78.2

38.7

65.8

92.0

91.6

94.3

99.9

44.3

73.9

59.4

76.9

98.8

98.9

99.2

100.0

36.7

71.5

20.2

52.0

99.4

88.9

95.6

99.9

23.7

61.3

25.3

53.6

27.8

63.1

99.9

98.1

34.5

69.7

5.5?

47.1

63.3

88.1

100.0

99.8

65.2

86.7

83.0

78.9

86.7

95.7

100.0

100.0

41.2

70.4

59.2

70.5

99.4

98.4

99.8

99.8

37.5

62.0

30.3

44.8

79.5

77.0

97.7

99.6

Banks &BuildingSocieties

(4km)

CashPoints(4km)

GPSurgeries

(4km)

PrimarySchool(3km)

Super-markets

(4km)

JobCentre(8km)

Libraries(4km)

PetrolStation(4km)

PostOffice(2km)

SecondarySchool (4km)

Source: SERRL, 2005. Rural Services Series

Data Issues

8.2 In some cases the precise geographic subregional area to be covered has not been defined;indicators also need to be refined and there are someindicators where recent data is sparse.

Policy 5: Concentrating Development inUrban Areas

This policy requires Development Plans, LDFs,LTPs and economic development strategies to:

• Locate significant levels of new development inPUAs

• Locate significant levels of new development inCorby, Kettering and Wellingborough

• Locate appropriate development of a lesser scalein Sub-Regional Centres

Targets: To be developed

Indicators:• % of region’s new development in Principal Urban

Areas (PUAs)

• Number of new houses, land and floorspacedeveloped within and outside PUAs

• % of new development in Northants growth towns

Results and Data Analysis:

8.3 Since work commenced on this current AnnualMonitoring Report work has taken place to provideclarification of the area covered by the Region’s threelargest PUAs.

Policy Commentary

8.4 Further work is needed to develop meaningfultargets as well as to define the remaining key urbanareas covered by this Policy before the next (2006/07)round of annual monitoring.

Policy 6: Regional Priorities in Rural Areas

This policy requires development plans, LDFs, LTPsand economic development strategies to ensurethat new development maintains the distinctivecharacter and vitality of rural communities,strengthens rural enterprise and linkages betweensettlements and their hinterlands

Targets:• Increase in numbers of bus passenger journeys

from 2001 levels

• Increase in numbers in employment

• Improvement in accessibility to services

Indicators:• Number of bus passenger journeys per year in rural

areas

• Numbers in employment in rural areas

• Accessibility to essential services in rural areas

Results:

8.5 Numbers in employment in rural areas is coveredin the economy chapter.

8.6 There is no data for the number of bus passengerjourneys in rural areas.

Table 8.1- % of residential delivery points within specified distance of service in the East Midlands


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

141

Data Analysis

8.8 The information on accessibility above wasprovided in the 2004/05 regional monitoring report.An updated version of this information is not yetavailable. Given the nature of the information whichlooks at the percentage of residences withinspecified distances of different services it is unlikelyto change significantly over a short time period asboth residences and service delivery points tend tobe static.

8.9 On the whole, larger more densely populatedareas have better access to services. However, ingeneral ‘villages-sparse’ tend to have the poorestaccess to services. Even though hamlets have smallerpopulations they tend to be located closer to urbanareas and hence have better access than smallervillages.

Policy Commentary

8.10 Bus passenger journeys have been dropped asan indicator in the draft Regional Plan, as they cannotbe measured for rural areas.

8.11 Further work is necessary to develop realisticmeasures for delivering rural priorities as well asdefining rural areas. In this the work of the East

Midlands Rural Affairs Forum and organisations suchas the Commission for Rural Communities will bevaluable.

Policy 7a:Development in the Eastern Sub Area

The policy aims (amongst other things) tostrengthen the Lincoln Policy Area and the sub-regional centres, regenerate and enhance othertowns - with attention given to food productionand distribution and tourism

Targets:• To be developed

Indicators:

• Employment rates in market towns

• Employment rates (measured in January andAugust) in coastal area

• Visitor spending in coastal area

• Indices of Deprivation in Gainsborough,Mablethorpe and Skegness

• Number of new jobs related to food production anddistribution

8.7 Figure A2.1 of Mapping Deprivation in the East Midlands- Implications for Policy produced by Anne Green forthe East Midlands Development Agency (emda) RES Evidence base(http://www.intelligenceeastmidlands.org.uk/popup.asp?thetype=2&thefile=uploads/documents/89137/20050830%5FAGreen%5Fdeprivation%5Ffinal%2Epdf) contains a map showing the rural classification of East Midlands areas.

Figure 8.1- Access to Services

Source: SERRL, 2005. Rural Services Series

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

142

Boston

East Lindsey

South Holland

Lincolnshire

East Midlands

76.2

70.9

77.7

75.3

75.4

76.2

74.3

77.6

76.5

75.8

Jan 2004 - Dec 2004 Jan 2005 - Dec 2005

Source: Annual Population Survey NOMIS

Results:

8.12 There are a number of market towns inLincolnshire as indicated on the Visit Lincolnshirewebsite www.visitlincolnshire.com . Employmentrates are available from the Annual PopulationSurvey for a number of geographical areas; thelowest geographical area being district localauthorities. Employment rates are not available formarket towns.

8.13 Employment rates in coastal areas are based onthe three local authorities that have as part of theirdistrict the Lincolnshire coast namely Boston, EastLindsey and South Holland. Employment rates datarelates to a one year period ending in the monthshown in the table. Employment rate data from theAnnual Population Survey is not available at a pointin time such as January or August. Unemploymentdata has been used to identify any seasonaldifferences in labour market performance.

Table 8.2 - Employment Rates in Coastal Areas (%)

Boston

East Lindsey

South Holland

Coastal wards

Non coastalwards

East Midlands

1.4

2.5

1.3

#

#

2.3

1.1

1.4

1.2

1.5

1.3

1.9

1.7

2.5

1.5

3.3

1.7

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.8

1.6

2.1

2.3

2.6

1.8

3.4

2.1

2.3

2.3

2.0

2.0

2.4

2.1

2.4

UnemploymentJanuary 04






Table 8.3 - Unemployment in Coastal Areas (%)

Source: NOMIS ‘Coastal wards’ refers to all wards which have a coastal boundary.Ward boundaries changed in 2001 so earlierdata are not comparable # data not available

Figure 8.2

Source:NOMIS Claimant Count


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

143

8.14 The 2004/05 monitoring report used information from the Lincolnshire Tourism Model to identify visitorspend in coastal areas of Lincolnshire. This information was only available for 2003. In this report data from theSTEAM (Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor) model has been used although this providesinformation for Lincolnshire as a whole rather than for the coastal areas.

Table 8.4 - Visitor Spend in Lincolnshire (£million)

Spend by staying visitors bothoverseas and domestic

Spend by day visitors

Total Spend

526.97

337.04

864.01

502.45

325.95

828.39

506.34

343.30

849.64

2003 2004 2005

Source: STEAM Model www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk

Table 8.5 - Index of Deprivation

Rank from all LAs in England * (of 354,1=most deprived)

Proportion of district’s population living inthe most deprived SOAs in the country**

89

21%

164

9%

East Lindsey (includesSkegness and Mablethorpe)

West Lindsey (includes Gainsborough)

*Measured from average score of SOAs **Worst 10% plus a small proportion of worst 10-30%Super Output Areas (SOAs) are groupings of Census Output Areas of about 1,500 populationSource: IEM data, ODPM

Figure 8.3 - Index of Deprivation in the Eastern Sub Area

A darker colour indicates more deprivationThe areas shown are Super Output AreasSource: IMD data, ODPM


East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

144

Boston

East Lindsey

Lincoln

North Kesteven

Rutland

South Holland

South Kesteven

West Lindsey

Eastern Sub Area

East Midlands

2,478

934

999

3,080

74

7,562

3,249

1,479

19,854

71,985

2,770

1,163

992

2,873

56

7,715

3,442

1,468

20,479

70,503

2,906

704

876

2,623

46

7,699

3,754

1,206

19,814

68,150

2,312

532

959

2,607

68

7,114

3,339

1,133

18,062

66,451

2,549

627

876

2,454

55

7,019

3,237

1,240

18,058

65,188

10.3

17.9

-8.7

-5.9

-19.1

-1.3

-3.1

9.4

0.0

-1.9

2001 jobs 2002 jobs 2003 jobs 2004 jobs* 2005 jobs % 2004 to 2005

Table 8.6 - Change in number of jobs related to food production and distribution

Source: ABI* 2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring report

The definition used for food production anddistribution covers a range of Standard IndustrialClassification codes, covering production andwholesale.

15 : Manufacturing of food and beverages

5117 : Agents involved in the sale of food,beverages and tobacco

5131 : Wholesale of fruit and vegetables

5132 : Wholesale of meat and meat products

5133 : Wholesale of dairy produce, eggs andedible oils and fats

5134 : Wholesale of alcoholic and other beverages

5136 : Wholesale of sugar and chocolate andsugar confectionery

5137 : Wholesale of coffee, tea, cocoa and spices

5138 : Wholesale of other food including fish,crustaceans and molluscs

5139 : Non-specialised wholesale of food,beverages and tobacco

Data Analysis

8.15 Employment rates in coastal local authorityareas were similar to those for Lincolnshire as awhole. In one area, South Holland, the employmentrate in 2005 at 77.6% was above that for Lincolnshireat 76.5%. According to the Annual PopulationSurvey, employment rates in 2004 and 2005remained fairly constant although there has been anincrease in the employment rate in East Lindsey from

70.9% in 2004 to 74.3% in 2005. The AnnualPopulation Survey data at the local authority levelhas a confidence interval for the data on average of+/- 3.5%.

8.16 To compare labour market performance incoastal areas in the winter (January) and summer(August), claimant count unemployment data hasbeen used since this is available monthly.Unemployment rates remain relatively low althoughthey have been gradually increasing over the pastfew years. Unemployment rates in the coastal areasare marginally higher in January than they are inAugust, reflecting the seasonality of employment.

8.17 The STEAM model suggests that overall therehas been a slight increase in visitor spend from 2004to 2005 in Lincolnshire, although still below that for2003. Much of the increase is due to increased spendby day visitors. The Lincolnshire Tourism Model 2003indicated that approximately 18% of the day visitorspend in Lincolnshire was spent in coastal areas (EastMidlands Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Report2004/05).

8.18 The Index of Deprivation 2004 remains thesame as in the 2004/05 monitoring report, revealingthat East Lindsey is in the most deprived 25% of localauthorities in the country.

8.19 Although the number of jobs in foodproduction and distribution remained constantbetween 2004 and 2005; between 2001 and 2005,according to the ABI, there has been a decline of1,796 jobs (approximately 9.0%) in food productionand distribution in the Eastern Sub-area.


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

145

Policy Commentary

8.20 The indicators do not give a complete pictureof whether the Policy is being implemented, due totheir narrow focus and the limitations of the data. Yetin the past year the following actions have beencarried out by the local authorities and a range ofpartners:

• The Lincolnshire Structure Plan was adopted, whichcontains many policies consistent with Policy 6 ofthe Regional Spatial Strategy

• The Lincoln Policy Area Sub-Regional Strategy wasdeveloped, setting out a blueprint to strengthenthe role of Lincoln as a Principal Urban Area

• The Coastal Action Zone was established

• Work has begun on the Gainsborough Masterplan

• Numerous smaller projects have contributed tospecific objectives of Policy 6, e.g:

• Lincolnshire Wolds Project

• Skegness Extreme Sports Centre

• Enhancement of Baston Fen

7 b: Lincoln Policy Area

Targets:• Job creation, new retail floorspace and use of public

transport all greater than regional average

• Index of Multiple Deprivation shows greaterreduction of deprivation than regional average

Indicators:• Increase provision and use of public transport in

Policy Area

• New houses built in Policy Area

• % change in jobs in Policy Area

• Increase in retail floorspace in City Centre

• Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Results:

Table 8.7 - Housing Completions in Lincoln Policy Area

City of Lincoln

Part North Kesteven

Part West Lindsey

Total Policy Area

Lincolnshire

% in policy area from whole county

372

247

344

963

3,723

25.9

374

298

305

977

3,769

25.9

1,500

1,659

1,556

4,715

18,578

25.4

Built 04-05 Built 05-06 Built 01-06


Table 8.8 - Change in number of jobs

Lincoln

North Kesteven

West Lindsey

East Midlands

52,961

29,094

23,717

1,760,820

53,021

28,639

23,356

1,752,349

50,700

30,636

24,500

1,768,556

51,805

30,130

23,367

1,803,659

51,669

29,812

23,551

1,858,204

-0.3

-1.1

0.8

3.0

2001 jobs 2002 jobs 2003 jobs 2004* jobs 2005 jobs % change 2004 to 2005

Source: Annual Business Inquiry* 2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring report

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

146

Data Analysis

8.21 The Lincoln Policy Area covers Lincoln and parts ofWest Lindsey and North Kesteven. Information hasbeen provided for these three authorities as it has notbeen possible to identify the ward level data coveringthe relevant parts of West Lindsey and North Kesteven,except for housing provision.

8.22 The level of housing completions in 2005/06 was977 compared to 963 in 2004/05. Around 25% ofhousing completions in Lincolnshire, over the past fiveyears, have been in the Lincoln Policy Area.

8.23 No data is currently available on the change inretail floor space in the city centre.

8.24 The Annual Business Inquiry shows that between2004 and 2005 there was a decline in employment intwo of the districts in the Lincoln Policy area and only asmall increase in employment in the other district. Thiscompares poorly with the 3.0% increase in the EastMidlands as a whole.

8.25 The Index of Deprivation 2004 data is the same asthat reported in the 2004/05 monitoring report,indicating that in Lincoln 29% of the population lived inthe most deprived Super Output Areas in the country.

Policy Commentary

8.26 In the draft Regional Plan (September 2006) thislimited analysis is superseded by indicators for all of the13 Policies in the draft Lincoln Policy Area Sub-RegionalStrategy (SRS). None of these include the Index ofMultiple Deprivation, as it cannot measure change overtime.

8.27 As with Policy 7a, the very fact that the LincolnPolicy Area SRS has been produced is a significant stepforward in implementing this Policy.

Policy 8: Overcoming Peripherality in theEastern Sub-Area

Improvements in transport infrastructure,connections through ports and multi-modalaccessibility will serve to reduce the problemsrelated to the peripherality of the area

Targets:• Transport schemes implemented

• Increased use of ICT in peripheral areas

• Access to broadband extended to all areas

Indicators:• Relevant transport improvements

• Access to and use of ICT

Table 8.9 - Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004

Rank from all LocalAuthorities in England* (of 354, 1=most deprived)

Proportion of district’spopulation living in themost deprived SOAs in thecountry**

72

29%

269

0%

164

9%

Lincoln North Kesteven West Lindsey



Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

147

Results, Data and Policy Commentary • No data is available for transport improvements

• Relevant transport improvements cover a range ofissues which need to be specified if this indicator isto be measured other than through policycommentary

• As indicated in the economy section, access to ICTbroadband is nearly 100% throughout the EastMidlands

8.28 Increased use of ICT has been deleted from thedraft Regional Plan, as it is too vague an indicator.

8.29 A number of transport schemes have beenimplemented, and these are monitored as part of theLocal Transport Plan process: e.g.

• Partney Bypass

• InterConnect extended to more routes

Policy 9:Regeneration of the Northern Sub area

The policy sets a priority of the economic, socialand environmental regeneration of the Sub-area.The Sub-regional centres are to be strengthened,jobs & services provided in other settlements, andenvironmental enhancement made afundamental part of regeneration

Targets:• Draft Sub-Regional Strategy included in draft RSS

Review

• Higher rate of increase than regional average


Indicators:• Increase in economic activity and employment rates

• Indices of Multiple Deprivation Local Authorityranks and scores

Results:

Table 8.10 - Economic Activity Rate (percentage of working age population)

Ashfield

Bassetlaw

Bolsover

Chesterfield

Mansfield

Newark & Sherwood


Northern Sub Area

East Midlands

78.5

70.7

68.4

71.7

67.1

71.6

76.5

72.3

76.0

68.0

73.3

69.4

69.8

71.9

74.7

73.6

71.6

76.3

72.5

74.0

72.4

78.3

67.3

75.9

78.5

74.2

76.2

76.3

70.5

70.1

72.7

67.7

74.2

80.4

73.2

76.1

71.4

75.8

69.2

71.7

69.8

80.1

75.9

73.6

76.1

79.9

79.0

75.5

81.0

75.5

80.7

79.8

79.0

79.5

Jun 2000-May 2001

Jun 2001-May 2002

Jun 2002-May 2003

Jun 2003-May 2004

Jun 2004-May 2005

Jan05-Dec05Annual

PopulationSurvey

Source: Labour Force Survey 4 Quarter Average

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

148

Table 8.11 - Employment Rates (percentage working age population)

Ashfield

Bassetlaw

Bolsover

Chesterfield

Mansfield

Newark & Sherwood


Northern Sub Area

East Midlands

83.4

74.2

74.6

78.4

71.5

75.4

81.1

77.0

79.8

71.4

77.6

72.9

77.3

76.1

79.3

77.6

76.1

80.0

76.5

77.3

77.8

83.5

71.3

81.3

81.5

78.5

79.9

81.0

74.0

74.1

77.6

72.1

76.2

84.3

77.1

79.7

76.8

81.4

74.0

74.5

73.1

82.3

77.9

77.4

79.5

75.4

76.0

69.4

76.5

68.9

78.5

76.4

74.7

75.8

Jun 2000-May 2001

Jun 2001-May 2002

Jun 2002-May 2003

Jun 2003-May 2004

Jun 2004-May 2005

Jan05-Dec05Annual

PopulationSurvey

Rank from all LAs inEngland * (of 354,1=most deprived)

Proportion ofdistrict’s populationliving in the mostdeprived SOAs in thecountry **

66

28%

82

25%

46

37%

73

31%

33

43%

143

15%

151

12%

Ashfield Bassetlaw Bolsover Chesterfield Mansfield Newark &Sherwood


Source: Labour Force Survey 4 Quarter Average

Table 8.12 - Index of Multiple Deprivation


Figure 8.4 - Index of Deprivation in the Northern Sub AreaA darker colourindicates moredeprivation.

The areas shownare Super OutputAreas.

Source: IMD data,ODPM

© CrownCopyright. Allrights reserved.

East MidlandsRegionalAssembly,100038615, 2004


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

149

Data Analysis

8.30 Although time series data is reported foreconomic activity rates and employment rates, careneeds to be taken when interpreting the data as twodifferent sources have been used. Up until the end ofMay 2005 the Labour Force Survey (LFS) has beenused and for the whole of 2005 the AnnualPopulation Survey (APS) (the successor to the LFS)which uses a different methodology for collectingdata has been used.Thus although in most cases thedata shows an increase in activity rates this is largelydue to different data sets being used. Theemployment rate data for the Northern Sub-area as awhole shows a slight decrease, but again care needsto be taken in comparing the APS data with thatfrom the LFS.

8.31 The APS data shows that, with the exception ofBolsover and Mansfield, the local authorities in theNorthern Sub-area have activity rates andemployment rates similar to that for the EastMidlands as a whole.

8.32 The Index of Deprivation 2004 shows that inthe Northern Sub-area five out of the seven localauthority districts are in the top 25% most deprivedlocal authorities in England.

Policy Commentary

8.33 The draft Northern Sub-Regional Strategy hasnow been prepared and is included in the draftRegional Plan.

8.34 Employment rate data shows that the NorthernSub-area has shown greater improvement than theregion as a whole, both for the period 2001-05 andfor the last year (using APS data).This is consistentwith the target, although it is unclear how much ofthis may be due to in-migration, as the same periodshowed increased population growth.The greaterimprovements have generally been in proportion tolower activity rates in 2001, although Chesterfieldand Newark and Sherwood had the greatestimprovements. (NB.The relationship is less strongwhen considering 2001-2005 LFS data only).

8.35 The Index of Multiple Deprivation cannot atpresent show change over time and the results areunchanged from last year.

Policy 10: Spatial Priorities for Developmentin the Peak Sub-Area

Plans should secure the conservation andenhancement of the Peak District National Park;policies should pay attention to business andaffordable housing provision. Emphasis should beon improving non-car and public transport access

Targets:• None

Indicators:• Number of new affordable houses built (regional

figure equates to approximately 25% of total stock)

• Employment rates

• Visitor spending

• Number of jobs, particularly related to creativeindustries

Results:

8.36 The Peak District National Park AuthorityAnnual Housing Report 2006(www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/ahr-1.pdf) shows that thereare an estimated 17,600 dwellings (residential andholiday units) in the National Park. In the last fiveyears the average rate of completion has been 110per annum. 109 new dwellings were built in 2005/06,of which 42% were on previously developed land. Ifconversion of agricultural buildings were to beincluded as ‘brownfield’, 78% of dwellings would beon previously developed land.

8.37 28% of residential dwellings completed overthe past 15 years have been tied to an occupancyrestriction.The proportion for 2005/06 was 39%. Twoaffordable housing schemes (10 units) for elderlypeople were completed in 2005/06. Surveys of localauthorities with areas in the National Park suggestthat there is a need for 50 new affordable dwellings ayear in the National Park. In 2005/06, 47 out of 71residential dwelling commitments (66%) had anoccupancy restriction attached. 36 of thecommitments were put forward by social housingproviders.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

150

Table 8.13 - Employment Rates

Derbyshire Dales

High Peak

East Midlands

82.5

77.4

76.1

82.0

77.7

75.8

% working age pop.in employment 04-05*

% employed Jan-Dec 05 APS

Derbyshire Dales

High Peak

East Midlands

31,110

32,850

1,760,820

30,839

30,341

1,803,659

33,001

30,026

1,858,204

7.0

-1.0

3.0

Total jobs 2001 Total jobs 2004* Total jobs 2005 Change in jobs %

Total Tourism Spend (£millions)

Total tourist Numbers (millions)

Average Spend per visitor (£)

Spend by overseas and domestic staying visitors (millions)

Number of overseas and domestic staying visitors (millions)

Average Spend per staying visitor (£)

Spend by day visitors (millions)

Number of day visitors (millions)

Average Spend per day visitor

1,287

36.58

35.18

420.36

3.19

131.77

866.98

33.39

25.96

1,293

36.25

35.67

442.09

3.47

127.40

851.34

32.78

25.97

1,285

35.83

35.86

446.09

3.48

128.19

839.3

32.35

25.94

2003 2004 2005

Source: APS Jan-Dec05*LFS Jun 2004-May 2005 % working age people 4 quarter average

Table 8.14 - Change in number of jobs


Table 8.15 - Tourist Visitors and Spend in Peak District and Derbyshire

Source: STEAM Model www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk

8.38 The Peak District National Park Visitor Survey 2005 (www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visitorsurvey.pdf) found thatthe average amount of money spent by a visitor per day (day and staying) who spent money was £13.73 (dayvisitor £5.21 and staying visitor £29.37). However, because a large proportion of visitors did not spend anymoney the overall average per visitor was £9.65 (£3.30 for day visitors and £25.72 for staying visitors).


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

151

Data Analysis

8.39 Although there is no specific number ofaffordable houses given in the data, the implicationsfrom the data and the number of houses withoccupancy restrictions demonstrate progress beingmade towards providing affordable housing in thePeak District.

8.40 Employment rates in the High Peak andDerbyshire Dales are above that for the EastMidlands. Comparison over time is againcomplicated by the move to the APS from the LFS.The ABI data shows that between 2004 and 2005,employment in Derbyshire Dales grew by 7.0% whilethat in the High Peak fell by 1.0%.

8.41 Two sources of information have been used tolook at the number of visitors to the Peak District andvisitor spend. The STEAM model (ScarboroughTourism Economic Activity Monitor) providesestimates for 2003, 2004 and 2005. However, it coversthe Peak District and Derbyshire county and thereforeoverestimates the numbers and spend in the PeakDistrict. What it suggests is that the average spendper visitor has remained fairly constant. The datafrom the Peak District National Park Survey suggestsmuch lower spend by day visitors than is estimated inthe STEAM model. The relationship between theaverage spend for staying visitors between the twodata sources is more difficult to unravel as one refersto the spend per stay and the other to the daily spendper day. What is apparent is that staying visitorsaccording to the 2005 survey spend approximatelyfive times more than day visitors, largely due to theaccommodation costs incurred.

Policy Commentary

8.42 There are a host of plans and strategiescovering the Peak Sub-area, either in part or as awhole. All of these plans are required to help tosecure the conservation and enhancement of theNational Park. Many have either recently beenreviewed or are currently under review.The NationalPark Authority is ensuring that the organisationsinvolved in the production of the plans andstrategies are made aware of the National Park’sspecial status when required. All six Local TransportPlans that cover the Park have recently been

reviewed to cover the period 2006 to 2011.Three ofthese recognise the need to conserve and enhancethe National Park. However, it is reasonable to expectthat recognition of the National Park will vary amongplans according to the extent of coverage of the Parkwithin their respective areas.The publication of thenew National Park Management Plan for the PeakDistrict in 2007 will place further emphasis on theneed for partners to work together to ensureconservation of the Park for future generations.

8.43 In addition to plans, partnerships have and arebeing set up to aid conservation of the Peak District,including the South Pennines Integrated TransportStrategy (SPITS), the Moors for the Future Project andlocal rural transport partnerships.

8.44 The social and economic needs of the PeakDistrict National Park also need to be addressed inplans and strategies that cover its geography. Severalpartnerships exist that attempt to address theseissues, including the Rural Action Zone and the PeakDistrict Rural Housing Forum.

8.45 The Peak District National Park Authoritymonitors housing development in the Park on anannual basis to assess if the pattern of supply issufficient to meet local need without causing unduedamage to the area. In the National Park, annualdwelling completions remain above the notional 50identified in the current Regional Spatial Strategy.Due to the high number of completions during2005/06 that had restricted occupancy, the averagefigure of dwelling completions with an occupancycondition is now above the RSS target for affordablehousing which equates to approximately 25% ofdevelopment.

8.46 With regards to provision for businesses, thePeak District National Park Authority undertakes asurvey of businesses on a 5 yearly basis in order toidentify need for new premises.The findings of thesurvey will inform the Local DevelopmentFramework for the National Park.

8.47 No new road developments are planned todirect traffic around the National Park at present.Plans to build a bypass around Mottram andTintwistle have been delayed due to the largenumber of objections received.The Public Inquiry isnow due to commence in May 2007.

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

152

Policy 11: Spatial Priorities for Developmentoutside the Peak District National Park

There is a concentration on local needs forhousing and employment, rather thanencouraging in-migration and commuting tonearby conurbations.The high qualityenvironment is to be respected

Targets: • None

Indicators:• Number of new affordable houses built (regional

figure equates to approximately 25% of total stock)

• Full time employment rates

• Visitor spending

• Number of new jobs created

Results• See below

Data Analysis and Policy Commentary

8.48 Due to the need for a definition of the area towhich this policy relates there is no data provided

specifically for this policy. However, data and policycommentary presented for Policy 10 above onprovision of and access to employment is relevanthere.

Policy 12: Managing Tourism and Visitors inthe Peak Sub Area

The aim of this policy is for management inaccordance with sustainable development criteriaand to ease pressures in the Peak District NationalPark

Targets:• None

Indicators:• Number of visitors and amount of spend per visitor

• Number of new visitor attractions in areasimmediately outside the National Park

• Number of jobs in tourism related activities

Results:

8.49 See the results for policy 10 above that covertourist visitor numbers and spend.

Data Analysis

8.50 The ABI data shows that between 2004 and 2005 there was an increase in employment in tourism relatedindustries in both Derbyshire Dales and High Peak and that these industries account for between, approximately,9.0% (High Peak) and 12.0% (Derbyshire Dales) of total jobs in the local economies.

Table 8.16 - Employment in Tourism Related Industries

Derbyshire Dales

High Peak

East Midlands

4,155

2,800

126,995

3,346

2,150

133,963

4,570

3,152

132,987

3,677

2,388

135,554

3,864

2,607

141,858

5.1

9.2

4.7

11.7

8.9

7.6

2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005 % change04-05

% all jobs which are in tourism 2005

Source: NOMIS* 2004 data has been revised by ONS and differs from that published in the previous monitoring report


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

153

Policy Commentary

8.51 Plans and strategies covering the Peak Sub-areaare required to help manage tourism in the area sothat the economic health of the community ispromoted without causing damage to theenvironment.The National Park Authority works toensure that the organisations involved in theproduction of the plans and strategies are madeaware of the special needs of the National Park.Thepublication of the new National Park ManagementPlan for the Peak District in 2007 will place furtheremphasis on the need for partners to work togetherto ensure conservation of the area for futuregenerations.

8.52 In addition to plans, partnerships have been setup in order to promote and manage tourism in thearea, for example Visit Peak District and the PeakDistrict and Derbyshire Destination ManagementPartnership.They work to increase the revenueproduced by tourism for the local economy andimprove the experience of the visitor.The NationalPark Authority, as a member of both these groups,provides the voice for the conservation of the Park.

8.53 There are also various award schemes set up forbusinesses in and around the Park, for example NewEnvironmental Economy, Sustainable DevelopmentFund, Environmental Quality Mark and Skills forSustainable Business.These schemes aim to helpbusinesses to develop based around the special

qualities of the area without damaging it.

Policy 15: Development in the Three CitiesSub-area

Plans should support the continued regenerationof Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, and maintainand strengthen their economic, commercial andcultural roles. Elsewhere appropriate levels ofdevelopment should be located within andadjoining settlements. Development associatedwith East Midlands Airport should be focussedwhere possible in surrounding urban areas

Targets:• Job creation, new retail floorspace and use of public

transport all greater than regional average


Indicators:• Number of new houses built in Policy Area

• Increase provision and use of public transport inPolicy Area

• % change in jobs in Policy Area

• % increase in retail floorspace in City Centre

• Indices of Multiple Deprivation; LA ranks and scoresor figures based on most deprived Super OutputAreas

Results:

Table 8.17- New Housing Developed

Derby

Amber Valley

South Derbyshire

Leicester

Blaby

Charnwood

Harborough

Hinckley & Bosworth

Melton


Oadby & Wigston

Erewash

Nottingham

887

292

777

1,044

162

920

206

591

124

309

149

252

1,277

917

416

506

1,147

252

713

270

468

163

412

127

708 net change in stock

1,389

Additional dwellings* (new build, conversion and

change of use) 04/05



East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

154

Broxtowe

Gedling

Rushcliffe

3 Cities Derby

3 Cities Leicester

3 Cities Nottingham

3 Cities

345

259

483

1,956

3,505

2,616

8,077

380

263

322

1,839

3,552

3,062

8,453





Source: Local Authorities* figures shown are gross completions (excludes losses through demolitions, conversions and changes of use)

Amber Valley

Blaby

Broxtowe

Charnwood

Derby

Erewash

Gedling

Harborough

Hinckley & Bosworth

Leicester

Melton


Nottingham

Oadby & Wigston

Rushcliffe

South Derbyshire

3 Cities Derby

3 Cities Leicester

3 Cities Nottingham

3 Cities Sub Area

East Midlands

53,742

34,502

31,260

54,624

118,546

38,743

32,671

28,979

38,575

158,981

17,474

42,542

179,914

17,057

35,146

21,511

193,799

392,734

317,735

904,268

1,760,820

47,657

41,470

33,384

59,504

116,502

33,384

27,796

33,308

40,455

158,270

18,180

46,990

182,071

18,117

38,498

29,160

193,319

416,294

318,911

930,202

1,803,659

48,251

45,589

35,329

58,741

121,161

35,329

29,967

34,049

40,916

159,556

19,193

48,357

184,911

18,848

43,169

30,326

199,738

425,250

332,823

960,485

1,858,204

1.2

9.9

5.8

-1.3

4.0

5.8

7.8

2.2

1.1

0.8

5.6

2.9

1.6

4.0

12.1

4.0

3.3

2.6

4.4

3.3

3.0

Number of jobs2001

Number of jobs2004*

Number of Jobs2005

% change 2004/05

Table 8.18 - Change in the number of jobs


Table 8.17- Continued


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

155

*Measured from average score of SOAs **Worst 10% plus a small proportion of worst 10-30% Super Output Areas (SOAs) are groupings of Census Output Areas of about 1,500 population (areas consist ofwhole districts)Source: IMD data, ODPM

Derby

Leicester

Nottingham

3 Cities Derby

3 Cities Leicester

3 Cities Nottingham

3 Cities Total

551

692

743

805

1,564

1,363

3,732

568

705

752

822

1,612

1,377

3,811

496

714

768

741

1,544

1,370

3,655

-10.0

3.2

3.4

-8.0

-1.3

0.5

-2.1

Floorspace 2001 Floorspace 2004 Floorspace 2005 % change since2001

Amber Valley

Derby

South Derbyshire

Blaby

Leicester

Charnwood

Harborough

Hinckley & Bosworth

Melton


Oadby and Wigston

Erewash

Broxtowe

Rushcliffe

Nottingham

152

69

213

318

31

257

336

278

294

196

300

148

194

310

7

9%

32%

4%

0%

41%

3%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

12%

4%

0%

63%

Rank from all LAs in England * (of 354, 1=most deprived)

Proportion of district’s population living inthe most deprived SOAs in the country**

Table 8.19 - Retail Floorspace Local Authority Area (1,000 sq metres)


Table 8.20 - Index of Multiple Deprivation

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

156

Data Analysis

8.54 The number of new houses built in the ThreeCities Sub-area increased from 8,077 in 2004/05 to8,453 in 2005/06.

8.55 According to ABI data, the Three Cities Sub-areahas seen a growth in employment of 3.3% between2004 and 2005, with Three Cities Nottingham havingthe highest growth of 4.4%, compared to 3.0%growth in employment in the East Midlands.

8.56 Information on the change in floor space in citycentres is not currently available. However data isavailable on the change in floor space in localauthority areas. This shows that for the Three CitiesSub-area there has been a decline in retail floor spaceof approximately 2% (77,000 sq metres) between2001 and 2005.

8.57 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 showsthat it is the cities which rank highly in terms ofdeprivation, with Nottingham in particular being anarea of high deprivation.

Policy Commentary

8.58 Housing development continues to beconcentrated around the Three Cities. Completions

have increased in the Three Cities Sub-area as awhole during 2005/06 but especially within Derby,Leicester and Nottingham.The draft Regional Plan(September 2006) proposes a significant increase innew housing within the Principal Urban Areas (PUAs).This acknowledges the scale of urban regenerationopportunities within the Three Cities. In October2006, the Government designated the Three Cities asNew Growth Points which will bring additionalinfrastructure funding to support the delivery of newhousing. Funding has also been awarded to carry outurban capacity studies for the Three Cities PUAs.

8.59 Although the data on retail floorspace changebetween 2001 and 2005 shows a small decline withinthe Three Cities Sub-area, it should be noted thatmajor retail developments are currently underway.For example, construction is well advanced on theShires extension (the Highcross Quarter) in Leicesterwhich will provide 53,754 sq metres of additionalfloorspace, including a new John Lewis store.Thisdevelopment is expected open in 2008. In Derby CityCentre the £330m Westfield development, which willhave 68,000 sq metres of retail floorspace and a 2,500seat cinema, is expected to be complete by the endof 2007. In Nottingham, the redevelopment of theBroadmarsh centre is expected to commence in

Figure 8.5 - Index of Deprivation in the 3 Cities Sub Area

A darker colourindicates moredeprivation.

The areas shownare Super OutputAreas

Source: IMD data,ODPM

© CrownCopyright. Allrights reserved.

East MidlandsRegionalAssembly,100038615, 2004


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

157

2007, providing a net increase in comparisonshopping floorspace of approximately 40,000 sqmetres. It should be complete in 2011/12.

Policy 35: Priorities for the Management ofthe Lincolnshire Coast

Local Authorities and other agencies shouldidentify arrangements for effective co-operationto manage the Lincolnshire Coast

Targets:• Increase in Blue Flag beaches

• To meet Regional Biodiversity Habitat Managementand Recreation Targets

Indicators:• Number of blue flag beaches

• Change in areas of biodiversity importance


8.60 In 2006, only one of Lincolnshire’s beaches hada blue flag. The 2004/05 regional monitoring reportindicated that all three of East Lindsey’s beaches hadblue flags. Data on biodiversity is not available at alocal level; regional data is provided in theenvironment section.

Policy 43: Sub-area Transport Objectives

Local authorities should have regard to sub-areatransport objectives when drawing up their LTPsand LDDs.

Targets:• None

Indicators:• None


8.61 There are currently no indicators for this policy

Policy Commentary

8.62 As part of the Regional Funding Allocationprocess, advice on regional transport prioritiesthrough to 2016 was submitted toGovernment in January 2006,and the advice was fullyaccepted in July 2006.The prioritisationmethodologyincludes scoringagainst the sub-area objectives inpolicy 43 of theRegional SpatialStrategy. It islikely a furtheriteration of theprioritisationprocess will beundertaken in 2008.

8.63 Local TransportAuthorities submittedtheir full second LocalTransport Plans (LTPs) at the end ofMarch 2006. LTP guidance recommendedthat LTP’s demonstrate conformity with RegionalTransport Strategies and consequently the RegionalAssembly developed a conformity checklist. This wascompleted by all the East Midlands LTP authoritiesand includes commentary on how their LTPconforms with Policy 43.

APPENDIX 1 data sources and referencesEa

st M

idla

nds

Regi

onal

Spa

tial S

trat

egy

Ann

ual M

onito

ring

Rep

ort 2

005/

06

158

This section outlines the sources for the data used throughout the report.Where available web references havebeen included, in some instances to specified documents and in others to a general website for a particularorganisation.

Section 3 - Housing:

• Local Authorities, 2006

• HM Land Registry, 2006http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/propertyprice/interactive/

• CLG Planning Statisticshttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1146082

• Home Office 2005/06http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

• ASHE 2005 Gross Annual Earnings of Residentshttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14203

Section 4 - Economy:


• NLUD National Land Use Database http://www.nlud.org.uk/draft_one/results/results_2005.htm

• Annual Population Survey (Labour Force Survey)www.nomisweb.co.uk

• Defrahttp://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralstats/rural-definition.htm

• Index of Multiple Deprivationhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128440

• Neighbourhood Statisticshttp://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

• CLG Planning Statisticshttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1146082

• IGGI Town Centre Retailhttp://www.iggi.gov.uk/towncent/

• NOMIS VAT registrations data 2005www.nomisweb.co.uk

• Annual Business Inquirywww.nomisweb.co.uk

• STEAM Tourism Datahttp://www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk/text.asp?PageId=123


Annual M

onitoring Rep

ort 2005/06

159

• Broadband OVUM 2005 for DTIwww.dti.gov.uk

• Valuation Office Property Reportswww.voa.gov.uk

Section 5 - Natural and Cultural Resources:


• Defra Wild Birds Indicatorhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wildlife/research/rwbi.htm

• National Foresthttp://www.nationalforest.org

• English Heritage 2006http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/hc2006/

• Energy Trendshttp://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statistics/publications/trends/index.htm

• Environment Agency, 2006http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk

• Natural England SSSIhttp://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi/reportIndex.cfm

• Flood risk map emda

Section 6 - Minerals, Aggregate Production and Waste Management:


• East Midlands Aggregates Working Party Survey, 2004

• CLG National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001-2016http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144267

• Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey 2006http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/wdf.htm

• C&I survey 2002/03

• Survey of arisings and use of construction and demolition wastehttp://www.communities.gov.uk/?id=1145756

• Environs Consulting Report for EMRA 2004http://www.emra.gov.uk/waste/Documents/EMidsWasteTreatmentCapacityStudyPart1_031204.pdf

• Waste Planning Guidance for EMRA by SLR Consultinghttp://www.emra.gov.uk/regionalplan/documents/Waste_Planning_Guidance.pdf

East

Mid

land

s Re

gion

al S

patia

l Str

ateg

yA

nnua

l Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t 200

5/06

160

Section 7 - Transport:


• Civil Aviation Authorityhttp://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=80&pagetype=88&pageid=3&sglid=3

• Strategic Rail Authorityhttp://www.sra.gov.uk/

• DfT Transport Statistics 2006http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=6875&l=1

Section 8 - Sub-Areas


• SERRL, 2005. Rural Services Series.http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/article.asp?aID=57&pID=2

• NOMIS claimant countwww.nomisweb.co.uk

• STEAM Tourism Datahttp://www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk/text.asp?PageId=123

• Index of Multiple Deprivationhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128440

• Annual Business Inquirywww.nomisweb.co.uk

• Annual Population Survey (Labour Force Survey)www.nomisweb.co.uk

• Neighbourhood Statisticshttp://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

• Blue Flagwww.blueflag.org

East Midlands Regional AssemblyFirst Floor SuiteCouncil OfficesNottingham RoadMelton MowbrayLeicestershireEast MidlandsLE13 0UL

Tel: 01664 502555Fax: 01664 568201Email: [email protected]: www.emra.gov.ukISBN: 1-905136-09-9 978-1-905136-16-2

Photography - EMRA is grateful to partners for allowingthe use of photographs in this publication.

This document is printed on recycled paper.

Designed and produced in the East Midlands by Rich Designs. Tel: 01623 741 741.