6 socio-economic issues - nuneaton and...

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Socio Economic Issues

BIR.3173_06_SocioEc_130117 Callendar Farm Phase 2, Nuneaton

6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 This Chapter provides an assessment of the likely socio-economic effects of the

proposed Phase 2 development at Callendar Farm, Nuneaton, and also considers the

cumulative assessment of other neighbouring potential developments. This

assessment has considered the likely impact of the Proposed Development as

described in Chapter 4 and shown on the Parameters Assessment Plans (Figures 4.1-

4.3).

6.1.2 The baseline conditions have been established for the site based on an examination of

available information on the population within a defined study area. The economic

characteristics of the area are also examined, along with the services and facilities

available to serve the local population. Potential impacts on population, health and

education provision, recreation facilities, employment and affordable housing are then

identified. Mitigation measures that have been included in the development proposals

for each site to ensure that the future needs of the residents can be met, are also

identified.

6.2 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

Methodology

6.2.1 This socio-economic impact associated with the Proposed Development has been

assessed as follows:

Collation of available data on the existing population profile. Information has been

taken from the 2011 Census and the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015. This

provides the most up to date information available on the characteristics of the

population;

Calculation of the additional population generated by the proposals based on

average occupancy rates for the ‘Nuneaton Area’, derived from the 2011 Census;

Assessment of the extent to which the additional population generated by the

proposals would place additional demands on key facilities and services, including

schools, healthcare, affordable housing, employment and recreational provision.

6.2.2 The likely significant socio-economic impacts of the following scenarios are considered:

Callendar Farm Phase 2 in isolation; and

Callendar Farm Phase 2 in conjunction with potential developments as set out in

Chapter 2. This includes the emerging allocation HSG 1, in addition to other

recently permitted developments.

Extent of Study Area

6.2.3 An appropriate study area has been defined from a review of ward locations and is

referred to as the ‘Nuneaton Area’ throughout this chapter. It is felt that the socio-

economic impacts of the Proposed Development could impact across the wider

Nuneaton Area. This impact is unlikely to extend to Bedworth due to the location of

the site on the northern fringe of Nuneaton and therefore 11 wards which make up the

town of Nuneaton are considered to be the most relevant baseline for the assessment.

These wards are illustrated on Figure 6.1, and include the following: Weddington, St

Nicolas, Camp Hill, Galley Common, Kingswood, Arbury, Bar Pool, Wem Brook,



Callendar Farm Phase 2, Nuneaton BIR.3173_06_SocioEc_130117

Attleborough, Whitestone and Abbey. Further references to the ‘Nuneaton Area’ or

‘Study Area’ within this document, is a collective reference to these Wards.

Assessment of Significance

6.2.4 The assessment of potential impacts takes account of both the construction and

operational phases of the Proposed Development at Callendar Farm Phase 2.

Consideration will be given to the development in isolation, plus the cumulative impact

of the wider emerging allocation HSG1, of which the Proposed Development forms

part, and other potential future developments. These developments are set out in

Chapter 2. Where likely impacts are identified the significant of the effect has been

assessed using the criteria below. As far as possible, the assessment process aims to

be objective and seeks to quantify impacts. Inevitably some impacts can only be

evaluated on a qualitative basis. Significance will be judged for each scenario against

the following scale:

Major positive / negative effect – the Proposed Development(s) would result

in a significant improvement or deterioration in the quality of the socio-economic

environment;

Moderate positive / negative effect – the Proposed Development(s) would

result in a noticeable improvement or deterioration in the quality of the socio-

economic environment;

Minor positive / negative effect – the Proposed Development(s) would result

in a minor improvement or deterioration in the quality of the socio-economic

environment;

Negligible effect – the Proposed Development(s) would result in no noticeable

effect on the quality of the socio-economic environment;

6.2.5 To assess potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development(s), their scope

compared to the baseline and likely permanence will be considered, taking account of

relevant objectives of national and local planning policy. Any appropriate mitigation

will be considered and any residual effects identified.

Legislative and Policy Framework

National Planning Policy

6.2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) re-emphasizes the three strands of

sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The Framework

makes it clear that these three strands “give rise to the need for the planning system

to perform a number of roles:

● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive

economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right

places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying

and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of

infrastructure;

● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing

the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future

generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local

services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and

cultural well-being; and

● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural,

built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve

biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and




mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”

(Paragraph 7)

6.2.7 Paragraph 8 continues:

“These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they

are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher

social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings

and places can improve the lives of people and communities.

Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social

and environmental gains should be sought jointly and

simultaneously through the planning system. The planning

system should play an active role in guiding development to

sustainable solutions”.

6.2.8 The NPPF sets out core planning principles and these include proactively driving and

supporting sustainable economic development; and taking account of (and supporting)

local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, in addition to

delivering sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.

6.2.9 In terms of decision-taking the Framework requires local planning authorities to take

a positive approach to foster the delivery of sustainable development and work

proactively with applicants to secure development that improve the economic, social

and environmental conditions of an area.

The Development Plan

6.2.10 The Development Plan comprises the Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan (2006) whilst

the submission version of the emerging Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan (2015)

represents a material consideration as per the provisions of paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

6.2.11 The Callendar Farm Phase 2 forms part of a strategic housing allocation (HSG1) under

emerging Policy NB2 of the submission Borough Plan.

6.2.12 Emerging Policy NB8 requires development to provide a mix of housing types, sizes

and tenures, taking into account the need and demand identified in the most up-to-

date Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the characteristics of the area

surrounding the site.

6.2.13 The supporting text to emerging Policy NB8 identifies a number of socio-economic

issues within the Borough, including:

the number of older people is increasing significantly both in number and as a

proportion of the Borough’s total population;

data from the 2011 Census indicates that the Borough has the highest

proportion of households (35%) with one or more persons with a long term

health problem or disability in Coventry and Warwickshire;

black and minority ethnic groups within the population are more likely to be

overcrowded and living in rented accommodation; and

there are a limited number of students within the Borough.

6.2.14 Emerging Policy NB9 confirms that the Council will seek to negotiate 25% affordable

housing, with a tenure split of 26% intermediate housing and 74% social or affordable

rented housing. Of the affordable housing provided, 40-45% should be 1 bedroom;




30-35% should be 2 bedroom; 20-25% should be 3 bedroom; and 5-10% should be

4+ bedroom. The percentage of affordable housing provision is also reflected within

adopted Local Plan Policy H3, whilst housing mix is governed by Policy H4.

6.2.15 Local Plan Policy H6 confirms that the Council will seek appropriate planning obligations

to meet any increased demand for health, education, social / community, public

transport services and facilities, sport and play facilities, public open space, nature

conservation mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures that arises directly

from the development.

6.2.16 The Council have published a draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

(CIL) which is due to undergo consultation between January and February 2017 with

examination by an independent inspector scheduled to take place in Autumn 2017. CIL

is a planning charge which acts as a tool for local authorities to help deliver

infrastructure to support the development of their area. Obligations cannot be sought

for the same projects simultaneously via CIL payments and Section 106 Agreements,

with the CIL contributions being put towards specific projects identified on the Council’s

Regulation 123 List.

Scoping Criteria

6.2.17 The scope of the socio-economic assessment was set out in the formal scoping request

to NBBC in February 2016, as discussed in Chapter 2. No further comments on the

suggested scope were received from consultees.

6.2.18 The Scoping Report suggested the assessment would:

Review land use policy documents;

Define and assemble data on the population, economy, health and education

from relevant sources;

Assess the levels of housing requirement in the area, including affordable

housing needs;

Assess the effect of the economically active elements of the residential

population on the local labour market and the prospects for employment (both

construction and operation); and

Assess the effect of the development on primarily public services including

education, social services and health facilities during both the construction and

operational phases

Limitations to the Assessment

6.2.19 It is considered that the assessment provides a robust analysis of the baseline

conditions in the ‘Nuneaton Area’ and assesses the key impacts and likely effects

associated with the proposals. The 2011 Census provides much of the information on

the local population, which is the main source of available information.

6.2.20 Nevertheless, it acknowledged that this information is now over 5-years-old. However,

it remains the most up-to-date and comprehensive information available for the basis

of this assessment.

6.2.21 Deprivation is assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). This data is

more up-to-date than the 2011 Census and provides a good indication as to socio-

economic deprivation within the Study Area.




6.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Site Description and Context

6.3.1 The site is located immediately adjoining the north-eastern urban edge of Nuneaton

(St Nicolas Park residential estate) to the west of Hinckley, and extends to

approximately 45.43ha of agricultural land. The site is located approximately 2.5km

to the north east of Nuneaton town centre itself and 3km to the south of Hinckley town

centre. There are a number of local facilities within walking and cycling distance of the

site, particularly to the west, including several shops, primary schools, nursery, post

office and convenience stores. Nuneaton railway and bus stations also lie

approximately 3km to the south of the site.

Baseline Survey Information

6.3.2 This section uses the baseline data sources discussed above to derive the Study Area

socio economic profile and provides a baseline against which the impact of the

Proposed Development can be assessed.

Population Characteristics

6.3.3 Statistical information has been gathered from the 2011 census to establish the

characteristics of the local population.

6.3.4 The Callendar Farm Phase 2 site falls across the boundaries of two Wards within

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough; Weddington and St Nicolas. However, the location

and size of the site (as acknowledged by its status as a Strategic Urban Extension to

Nuneaton) means that the site has a strong relationship with the ‘Nuneaton Area’.

Table 6.1 below and overleaf provides 2011 Census information comparing the

‘Nuneaton Area’ (as defined earlier) with the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough as a

whole, as well as with England.

Table 6.1 Household Statistics

Total

Population Total Households

Average

Household Size

‘Nuneaton Area’ 81,877 34,246 2.39

Nuneaton and

Bedworth

Borough

125,252 52,711 2.38

England 53,012,456 2,294,909 2.40

Source: 2011 Census (ONS)

6.3.5 At 2011, the resident population for Nuneaton and Bedworth was 125,252, a rise of

6,120 in the ten years since the 2001 census. The population of the ‘Nuneaton Area’

was 81,877 (65% of the Borough total).

6.3.6 There were a total of 34,246 households in the ‘Nuneaton Area’ in 2011, equating to

an average household size of 2.39 persons, which is broadly in line with the Borough

and National averages. The age profile for the ‘Nuneaton Area’ in 2011 is set out in

Table 6.2 below, contrasted with the Borough, West Midlands and England.




Table 6.2 Age Profile

Age ‘Nuneaton Area’

%

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough

% West Midlands

% England %

Under 10 9,952 12.15 14,944 11.93 681,861 12.17 6,291,081 11.87

10-19 10,387 12.69 15,303 12.22 710,070 12.68 6,421,194 12.11

20-29 10,410 12.71 15424 12.31 744,195 13.28 7,246,202 13.67

30-39 10,562 12.90 16,071 12.83 703,398 12.56 7,058,337 13.31

40-49 12,355 15.09 18,795 15.01 810,277 14.46 7,765,749 14.65

50-59 10,422 12.73 15,765 12.59 670,806 11.97 6,397,087 12.07

60-69 9,232 11.28 14,735 11.76 615,069 10.98 5,680,431 10.72

70-79 5,394 6.59 8,979 7.17 407,004 7.27 3,713,474 7.00

80-89 2,711 3.21 4,454 3.56 217,891 3.89 2,035,084 3.84

90-99 411 0.54 762 0.61 40,275 0.72 393,241 0.74

Over 100 11 0.01 20 0.02 1,001 0.02 10,576 0.02

Total 81,877 100 125,252 100 5,601,847 100 53,012,456 100

Source: 2011 Census (ONS)

6.3.7 Approximately 25% of the population of the Study Area is under 20, whilst

approximately 20% is over 60. The population profile is broadly comparable with

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough, with a slight increase in the percentage of persons

aged 0-59 and slight reduction in percentage of persons aged 60-100+. The Study

Area therefore has a slightly younger population than the Borough as a whole.

6.3.8 This is broadly reflective of the 2001 Census, where 27% of the population were aged

under 20, whilst 18% of the population were aged over 60.

6.3.9 These figures demonstrate that the study area and Borough as a whole has an ageing

population. This reflects the socio-economic issues within the Borough as identified

within emerging Policy NR8 referred to at paragraph 6.2.13 of this Chapter.

6.3.10 As a result, the key challenge for the Study Area will be to provide an adequate level

of services for older age groups, as well as a good quality of mix of housing and

infrastructure to cater for all age groups.

Study Area Index of Multiple Deprivation

IMD Definition

6.3.11 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is produced by the Department for

Communities and Local Government, with the latest issue published on 30th September

2015. The IMD is focused at the Super Output Area Level (SOA), which are small




administrative areas specifically created to improve the reporting of small area

statistics. SOAs are defined as containing between 1,000-3,000 people and between

400-1,200 homes.

6.3.12 The IMD combines a number of social, economic and environmental indicators, chosen

to cover a range issues, into a single deprivation score for each SOA in England. This

then allows for each SOA to be ranked relative to one another according to their level

of deprivation. In total there are 32,844 SOA’s in England, each of which is given a

ranking between 1 and 32,844, where 1 is the most deprived SOA and 32,844 is the

least deprived.

6.3.13 The indicators used in the IMD include the following: income deprivation, employment

deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education, skills and training

deprivation, barriers to housing and services, crime, living environment and

deprivation, income deprivation affecting children and income deprivation affecting

older people. The relevant socio-economic indicators from the IMD will be assessed in

the following relevant sections of this chapter.

Study Area IMD Rankings

6.3.14 As identified earlier in this Chapter, the Study Area is formed of 11 Wards within

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough. These 11 Wards each contain a number of SOAs.

The combined IMD ranking for each of the SOAs which form the Study Area are shown

on Graph 6.1.

Graph 6.1 The Study Area Combined IMD Rankings

Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, IMD, September 2015

6.3.15 Graph 6.1 demonstrates that, according to the IMD, the study area varies greatly in

terms of deprivation, with significant variation shown between Wards as well as within

certain Wards.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

005A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E

Abbey Arbury Attleborough Bar Pool Camp Hill Galley Common Kingswood St Nicholas Weddington Wem Brook Whitestone

Overall IMD Rank




6.3.16 For example, SOA 006A in Bar Pool and SOA 007A in Kingswood both fall within the

top 10% most deprived SOAs in the country, whilst SOA 006E in Bar Pool and SOA

007B in Kingswood fall within the top 30% least deprived SOAs in the country.

6.3.17 The Graph also demonstrates that SOAs within Whitestone are the least deprived

within the Study Area, and fall within the top 20% least deprived SOAs in the country.

Conversely, the Graph demonstrates the SOAs within Abbey, Camp Hill and Wem Brook

are the most deprived in the Study Area, and fall within the top 40% most deprived

SOAs in the country.

6.3.18 Further details of deprivation across the specific indictors within the Study Area will be

highlighted and discussed in more detail, where relevant, throughout this Chapter.

Study Area Household Information

6.3.19 As demonstrated in Table 6.1 in this Chapter, the ‘Nuneaton Area’ has an average

household size of 2.39 persons per household, which is comparable to both the

Borough and National averages.

6.3.20 Table 6.3 overleaf demonstrates the household composition characteristics for the

‘Nuneaton Area’ and wider area comparisons. This shows that some 28.95% of

households in the ‘Nuneaton Area’ had dependent children, which is slightly higher

than the Borough average (28%) and significantly greater than the national average

(21.2%). 28.36% of the ‘Nuneaton Area’ is comprised of one-person households,

which is slightly lower the Borough average, and 1.86% below the national average.

Table 6.3 Household Composition

‘Nuneaton

Area’ %

Nuneaton

and

Bedworth

% West

Midlands % England %

All Households 34,246 100 52,711 100 2,294,909 100 22,063,368 100

One Person Household 9,711 28.36 15,090 28.63 678,248 29.55 6,666,493 30.22

Married Couple

Household; With

Dependent Children

5,499 16.06 8,122 15.41 353,064 15.38 2,216,005 10.04

Married Couple

Household; No

Dependent Children

6,749 19.71 7,091 13.45 275,271 11.99 2,691,927 12.20

Same-Sex Civil

Partnership Couple

Household; With

Dependent Children

6 0.02 8 0.02 203 0.01 2885 0.01

Same-Sex Civil

Partnership Couple

Household; No Dependent Children

22 0.06 38 0.07 1,842 0.08 27,283 0.12

Cohabiting Couple Household; With

Dependent Children

1,747 5.10 2,648 5.02 98,453 4.29 890,780 4.04

Cohabiting Couple

Household; No

Dependent Children

1,804 5.27 2,581 4.90 109,972 4.79 1,173,172 5.32




Lone Parent Household; With Dependent

Children

2,660 7.77 3,973 7.54 172,682 7.52 1,573,255 7.13

Lone Parent Household;

No Dependent Children 1,126 3.29 1,735 3.29 86,064 3.75 766,569 3.47

Multi-Person

Household; All Full-

Time Students

6 0.02 8 0.02 11,397 0.50 124,285 0.56

Multi-Person

Household; Other 996 2.91 1,570 2.98 81,833 3.57 995,677 4.51

Source: 2011 Census, ONS

6.3.21 Table 6.3 also demonstrates that the ‘Nuneaton Area’ has a higher percentage of lone

parent households than both the Borough and National averages. Similarly, the Table

also demonstrates that the ‘Nuneaton Area’ has a higher percentage of married

households, both with and without dependent children, than both the Borough and

National averages.

6.3.22 The mix and tenure of properties available in the area reflects the extent of housing

choice available to that community. Table 6.4 below summaries the tenure of the

dwellings in the ‘Nuneaton Area’ as well as the Borough and country.

Table 6.4 Housing by Tenure

‘Nuneaton Area’

% Nuneaton and

Bedworth

% West Midlands

% England %

All Households 34,246 100 52,711 100 2,294,909 100 22,063,368 100

Owned; Total 23,946 69.92 37,617 71.36 1,489,094 64.89 13,975,024 63.34

Owned; Owned Outright

10,967 32.02 17,545 33.29 740,899 32.28 6,745,584 30.57

Owned; Owned with A Mortgage Or Loan

12,979 37.90 20,072 38.08 748,195 32.60 7.229,440 32.77

Shared Ownership (Part Owned and Part

Rented) 172 0.50 270 0.51 15,230 0.66 173,760 0.79

Social Rented; Total 5,075 14.82 7,633 14.48 435,170 18.96 3,903,550 17.69

Social Rented; Rented from Council

3,822 11.16 5,785 10.97 249,835 10.89 2,079,778 9.43

Social Rented; Other 1,253 3.66 1,848 3.51 185,335 8.08 1,823,772 8.27

Private Rented; Total 4,727 13.80 6,683 12.68 321,670 14.02 3,715,924 16.84

Private Rented: Private Landlord or

Letting Agency 4,302 12.56 6,041 11.46 293,988 12.81 3,401,675 15.42




Private Rented; Employer of a

Household Member 30 0.09 52 0.10 3,952 0.17 55,211 0.25

Private Rented; Relative or Friends of a Household Member

346 1.01 522 0.99 18,648 0.81 19,428 0.90

Private Rented; Other 49 0.14 68 0.13 5,082 0.22 59,610 0.27

Living Rent Free 326 0.95 508 0.96 33,745 1.47 295,110 1.34


6.3.23 Table 6.4 demonstrates that the Study Area has a lower proportion of home ownership

than the Borough average (69.92 % compared to 71.36%), but higher than the

national average (69.92% compared to 63.34%). The Study Area also has a slightly

higher percentage of homes rented from the Council than the Borough (11.16%

compared to 10.97%), and an even greater percentage when compared to the national

average (11.16% compared to 9.45%). Finally, the Study Area has a higher

percentage of private rented housing than the Borough (13.80% and 12.68%

respectively). However, nationally, there is a greater percentage of private rented

homes than the Study Area and the Borough (16.84%).

Index of Multiple Deprivation – Barriers to Housing

6.3.24 The IMD assesses barriers to housing and key social services. The indicators fall into

two sub-domains; “geographical barriers” and “wider barriers” which also includes

issues relating to access to housing, such as affordability.

6.3.25 Graph 6.2 below shows where each SOA falls within the IMD ranking regarding barriers

to housing.

Graph 6.2 Barriers to Housing

Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, IMD September 2015

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

005A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E


Barriers to Housing Rank




6.3.26 The Graph above shows that the majority of the SOAs within the Study Area do not

suffer from deprivation in terms of barriers to housing. However, one exception is SOA

008C in Arbury Ward, which is in the top 10% most deprived SOAs in the country with

regard to barriers to housing, with a rank of 2,825 out of a total 32,844 SOAs

nationally.

6.3.27 Other notable findings include that 3 out of 5 SOAs in St Nicolas Ward fall within the

top 40% most deprived SOAs nationally regarding barriers to housing. It should be

noted that the application site falls across the St Nicolas and Weddington wards.

6.3.28 Despite this, the majority of SOAs within the Study Area are within the 50% least

deprived SOAs in the country in terms of barriers to housing deprivation.

Affordable Housing

6.3.29 Information on affordable housing need within Nuneaton and Bedworth is provided

within the ‘Updated Assessment of Housing Need: Coventry-Warwickshire HMA’,

produced in September 2015 by GL Hearn. This study covers the period to 2031, and

is the most up-to-date information on affordable housing requirements in the Borough

that is available at the time of writing.

6.3.30 The study concludes that there is a gross affordable housing need of 566 dwellings per

annum for Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough, with current supply at 481 dwellings per

annum. There is therefore a net affordable housing need of 85 dwellings per annum.

6.3.31 The table below has been adapted from the report, and demonstrates the affordable

housing requirement when broken down into intermediate housing and

social/affordable rented housing.

Table 6.5 Affordable Housing Need Per Annum Breakdown

Intermediate Social/affordable rent

Total

need Supply Net need

Total

need Supply Net need

Nuneaton

and

Bedworth

Borough

47 6 41 (48%) 520 475 45 (52%)

Source: Adapted from GL Hearn – Updated Assessment of Housing Need: Coventry-

Warwickshire HMA, September 2015

6.3.32 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council have also produced an Affordable Housing;

Range and Mix background paper, as part of their evidence base for the submission

version of the Borough Plan.

6.3.33 The Paper evaluates the findings of the GL Hearn Assessment of Housing Need, and

confirms the affordable housing thresholds to be applied to developments as follows:

Sites of 11-14 dwellings – 20% affordable housing

Sites of 15 dwellings or more – 25% affordable housing

6.3.34 The Paper also assesses the affordable housing need in terms of type of provision. It

concludes that whilst it was identified in the 2015 Assessment that the split of need

for affordable housing by type was 52% social/affordable rent and 48% intermediate

housing, there is a clear overlap between the need for social rented and affordable

rented housing and that a key difference between these tenures relates to

development viability. The Council will therefore seek 26% intermediate housing and

74% affordable rented from developments for the immediate future.




Employment and Economy

6.3.35 Information from the 2011 Census is set out in Table 6.6 overleaf, which demonstrates

that some 73.62% of residents within the Study Area were economically active, which

is reflective of both the Borough and National averages (73.52% and 73.34%

respectively).

6.3.36 A slightly higher percentage of people within the Study Area were in full or part-time

employment than the Borough average, with a greater percentage in full or part-time

employment than the national average (56.92% compared to 56.49% and 52.34%).

However, there was also a slightly greater percentage of people who were unemployed

within the Study Area than the Borough and National averages (4.82% compared to

4.74% and 4.38%). This is explained by a reduced number of self-employed persons

and students in the Study Area compared to the Borough and National averages

(6.78% compared to 6.83% and 9.76%). Overall, a greater percentage of people

within the ‘Nuneaton Area’ are economically active, than in the Borough, Region, or

Country.

Table 6.6 Economic Activity

‘Nuneaton

Area’ %

Nuneaton

and

Bedworth

% West

Midlands % England %

All Usual Residents

Aged 16 - 74 60,278 73.62 92,090 73.52 4,067,119 72.60 38,881,374 73.34

Econom

ically A

ctive

Employee;

Part-Time 9,034 14.99 13,588 14.76 569,727 14.01 5,333,268 13.72

Employee;

Full-Time 25,276 41.93 38,428 41.73 1,521,871 37.42 15,016,564 38.62

Self-

Employed with

Employees;

Part-Time

153 0.25 218 0.24 14,622 0.36 148,074 0.38

Self-

Employed

with

Employees;

Full-Time

782 1.30 1,156 1.26 68,099 1.67 715,271 1.84

Self-

Employed

without

Employees; Part-Time

995 1.65 1,490 1.62 87,549 2.15 990,573 2.55

Self-Employed

without

Employees;

Full-Time

2,160 3.58 3,412 3.71 175,658 4.32 1,939,714 4.99

Unemployed 2,903 4.82 4,363 4.74 207,415 5.10 1,702,847 4.38

Full-Time

Student 1,772 2.94 2,518 2.73 133,918 3.29 1,336,823 3.44

Total

Economically

Active

43,075 71.46 65,173 70.77 2,778,859 68.32 27,183,134 69.91




Econom

ically I

nactive

Retired 8,840 14.67 14,372 15.61 586,305 14.42 5,320,691 13.68

Student

(Including Full-Time

Students)

2,213 3.67 3,280 3.56 241,856 5.95 2,255,831 5.80

Looking After

Home or

Family

2,456 4.07 3,616 3.93 185,328 4.56 1,695,134 4.36

Long-Term

Sick or

Disabled

2,604 4.32 4,048 4.40 178,489 4.39 1,574,134 4.05

Other 1,090 1.81 1,591 1.73 96,282 2.37 852,450 2.19

Total

Economically

Inactive

17,203 28.54 26,907 29.22 1,288,260 31.68 11,698,240 30.09


6.3.37 Of those people in employment within the Study Area, the most represented industries

were ‘Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motor Cycles’ (19.9%),

‘Manufacturing’ (13.77%) and ‘Human Health and Social Work Activities’ (13.12%).

6.3.38 This is reflective of the main employment destinations within the Study Area, including

Attleborough Industrial Estate, Hemdale Business Park and Bermuda Industrial Estate.

6.3.39 In addition, there are other large-scale employment opportunities within 3km of the

site in the neighbouring Borough of Hinkley and Bosworth, including the Mira

automotive site and the Harrowbrook Industrial Estate. These sites give access to a

large number of jobs with a wide range of skill level.

6.3.40 The Study Area contains a reduced percentage of people who are economically

inactive, when compared to both the Borough and National averages. This is largely

attributable to the reduced proportion of students and retirees within the Study Area

when compared to the Borough and National average.

6.3.41 Again, this is reflective of the socio-economic issues within the Borough as identified

within emerging Policy NR8 referred to at paragraph 6.2.13 of this Chapter, with

particular reference to a low level of students within the Area.

Index of Multiple Deprivation – Income and Employment Deprivation

6.3.42 The IMD also includes indices in respect of income and employment deprivation. This

index measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of

the working age population from employment. Data sources include unemployment

claim count, incapability benefit claimants and participation in the New Deal scheme.

The income domain deprivation measures the proportion of the population

experiencing income deprivation within an area.

6.3.43 With regards to employment, the IMD figures show that there is great variation with

regard to the levels of employment deprivation across the ‘Nuneaton Area’. 19 SOAs

within the Study Area are within the top 30% most deprived SOAs in the country,

whilst 14 SOAs are within the top 30% least deprived SOAs in the country. Of particular

note is SOA 006A in Bar Pool, which falls within the top 4% most deprived SOAs

nationally, whilst SOA 001B in Weddington falls within the top 6% least deprived SOAs

nationally. This is shown on Graph 6.3 overleaf.




Graph 6.3 Employment Rank


6.3.44 Like the Employment IMD ranks, the Income IMD ranks also show great variation

within the Study Area. 16 SOAs within the Area fall within the top 30% most deprived

SOAs nationally, whilst 13 SOAs within the Area fall within the top 30% least deprived

SOAs nationally.

6.3.45 Parallels can also be drawn with specific SOAs with regards to income and employment.

Again, SOA 006A in Bar Pool demonstrate the greatest levels of deprivation, falling

within the top 2% most deprived SOAs nationally. Similarly, the least deprived SOA is

001B, which falls within the top 2% least deprived SOAs nationally.

6.3.46 This is shown on Graph 6.4 overleaf.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

3500000

5A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E


Employment Rank




Graph 6.4 Income Rank


Education

6.3.47 Warwickshire County Council is the relevant local education authority for the Study

Area, which operates a two-tier system throughout the County. Table 6.7 below shows

the educational attainment within the Study Area and wider area comparisons.

6.3.48 The Table demonstrates that the highest level of qualification (level 4) obtained within

the Study Area is slightly greater than that of the Borough Average. However, there

are reduced percentage of people who have attained level 3 and 4 qualifications when

compared to the Regional and National Averages. Similarly, there is a slightly reduced

percentage of people within the study area who have no qualifications when compared

to the Borough average, but this percentage is greater than the national average.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

005A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E


Income Rank




Table 6.7 Educational Attainment (Highest Level of Qualification Obtained)

‘Nuneaton Area’

%


% West Midlands

% England %

All Usual Residents Age 16 and Above

65,822 79.78 101,244 80.83 4,507,405 80.46 42,989,620 81.09

No Qualifications

17,679 26.86 28,384 28.04 1,196,794 26.55 9,656,810 22.46

Level 1 Qualifications

10,310 15.66 15,829 15.63 616,225 13.67 5,714,441 13.29


11,604 16.81 16,561 16.36 695,544 15.43 6,544,614 15.22

Apprenticeship 2,970 4.51 4,825 4.77 150,353 3.34 1,532,934 3.57


7,800 11.85 11,760 11.62 553,600 12.28 5,309,631 29.52

Level 4 Qualifications and Above

12,766 19.39 18,801 18.57 1,050,404 23.30 11,769,361 27.38

Other Qualifications

3,233 4.91 5,084 5.02 244,485 5.42 2,461,829 5.73


Index of Multiple Deprivation – Education Deprivation

6.3.49 The IMD indices for Education, Skills and Training capture the extent of deprivation in

terms of education in the Study Area. The indicators fall in to two principal sub-

domains: one relating to education deprivation for children/young people and another

relating to lack of skills and qualifications amongst the adult working population. The

IMD rankings for the Study Area are shown on Graph 6.5 overleaf.




Graph 6.5 Education, Skills and Training Rank

Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, IMD September 2015.

6.3.50 The Graph above shows that, in general, SOAs within the ‘Nuneaton Area’ do not rank

highly in the education, skills and training IMD. This means that across the Area there

are high levels of education, skills and training deprivation. Wem Brook and Camp Hill

rank particularly poorly, with all of the SOAs within these wards falling amongst the

top 30% most deprived nationally. However, the most deprived SOA is again 006A in

Bar Pool, which falls within the top 1% of most deprived SOAs nationally.

6.3.51 Conversely, SOAs within St Nicolas and Whitestone fare best, with all of the SOAs

within these wards falling within the top 20% least deprived nationally, in terms of

education, skills and training. The least deprived SOA is 003B in St Nicolas ward, which

falls within the top 9% least deprived SOAs nationally.

Existing School Capacity

6.3.52 The Callendar Farm Phase 2 development site falls entirely within the catchment of

Milby Primary School. However, due to the strategic nature of the site, the surrounding

primary school catchments have also been assessed. It should also be noted that the

proposed masterplan for the site includes land for the construction of a new primary

school.

6.3.53 The site also falls within the catchment for Higham Lane Secondary School, and is

adjacent to the catchment for Etone Secondary School, which has also been assessed.

6.3.54 Table 6.8 below highlights the capacity of these schools as of October 2013, with

projections going forward to 2018/2019 admissions year, as outlined within

Warwickshire County Council’s Schools Sufficiency Strategy, 2015.

6.3.55 The table demonstrates that Milby Primary School is projected to have 4 spaces in

2018/2019, whilst Higham Lane School is projected to have 47 spaces.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

005A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E


Education, Skills and Training Rank




Table: 6.8 Existing School Capacity

School Name

Net Capacity

NOR (Oct 13)

Shortfall /Surplus

Pupil Forecast Data Forecast Shortfall /Surplus 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Milby Primary School

420 429 +9 426 426 425 422 416 -4

Weddington Primary School

420 400 -20 422 422 421 420 420 +-0

St Nicholas C of E Primary School

420 419 -1 422 422 421 420 420 +-0

Whitestone Infant School

270 269 -1 263 263 270 270 270 +-0

Higham Lane Secondary School

1190 1204 +14 1207 1184 1150 1144 1143 -47

Etone College

1000 861 -139 806 825 823 830 837 -163

Source: Warwickshire County Council; Schools Sufficiency Strategy, 2015

Health and Wellbeing

6.3.56 The proposals for residential development at Callendar Farm Phase 2 will have the

potential to impact in terms of additional pressure on existing health services available

locally, including doctors, dentists and pharmacies. The health of the existing

population will also have an effect on the demand for health services in the local area.

6.3.57 Information from the 2011 Census as shown in Table 6.9 overleaf displays that 6.02%

of people reported being either in bad or very bad health, slightly higher than the

national average of 5.5%, but lower than the Borough of 6.21%.

6.3.58 Conversely, 79.99% of people within the Study Area report being either in good or

very good health, compared to the Borough average of 79.31% and 81.39% nationally.

The Study Area therefore displays slightly better health than the Borough average, but

is in worse health than the National average.




Table 6.9 General Health

‘Nuneaton Area’

%


% West Midlands

% England %

All Usual Residents

67,678 100 125,252 100 5,601,847 100 53,012,456 100

Very Good Health

30,023 44.36 55,086 43.98 2,525,862 45.09 25,005,712 47.17

Good Health

24,112 35.63 44,255 35.33 1,946,936 34.76 18,141,457 34.22

Fair Health

9,472 14.00 18,113 14.46 786,583 14.04 6,954,092 13.12

Bad Health 3,159 4.67 6,019 4.81 263,217 4.70 2,250,446 4.25

Very Bad Health

912 1.35 1,759 1.40 79,249 1.41 660,749 1.25


Index of Multiple Deprivation – Health Deprivation

6.3.59 The IMD also assesses health deprivation and disability, identifying areas with

relatively high rates of persons who die prematurely, whose life is impaired by poor

health or who are disable across the population. Graph 6.6 below provides information

on the IMD SOA levels for the Study Area.

Graph 6.6 IMD Health and Disability

Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, IMD 2015

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

005A

005B

005C

005D

005E

008A

008B

008C

008D

010A

010B

010C

010D

010E

006A

006B

006C

006D

006E

002C

002D

002E

002F

004A

004B

004C

004D

004E

007A

007B

007C

007D

007E

003A

003B

003C

003D

003E

001A

001B

001C

001D

001E

009A

009B

009C

009D

009E

011A

011B

011C

011D

011E


Health and Disability Rank




6.3.60 The Graph above shows that, in terms of the IMD for Health and Disability, there is a

wide variation across the Study Area. Again, SOA 006A in Bar Pool is ranked in the

10% most deprived SOAs in the Country. However, there are no SOAs in the top 10%

least deprived SOAs in the Country. The least deprived SOA is 003B in St Nicolas Ward,

which falls within the top 30% least deprived SOAs nationally.

Existing Health Provision

6.3.61 The Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Partnership has the responsibility of

delivering health services in the ‘Nuneaton Area’. The nearest GP to the application

site is The Grange Medical Centre, located on Leicester Road, approximately 1.5km

away from the Application Site. As of July 2016, the practice had 10,387 registered

patients and 5 practicing doctors. There are therefore some 2,077 patients per GP,

which compares to the national average of 1,800 patients per GP (Department of

Health figures). Whilst the GP surgery could not comment upon capacity, their website

indicates that they are currently accepting new patients. All other GP surgeries are

over 3km from the Proposed Development site.

6.3.62 It should also be noted that there is a new medical centre proposed as part of the

consented scheme (App 032336) at Lower Farm, Weddington, some 2km from the

application site.

6.3.63 The nearest pharmacy to the application site is located on Coniston Road, some 400

metres away, whilst the nearest hospital is Manor Court Hospital, located

approximately 2.8km from the application site. There are two dental practices located

approximately 2km away from the site, on the A444.

Recreation Facilities

6.3.64 There is an existing recreation ground some 400 metres to the south of the site off

Buttermere Avenue, which includes a football pitch and equipped play area.

6.3.65 The nearest equipped sports club to the site is Ambleside Sports Club approximately

700 metres to the south-west, which includes a cricket pitch, football pitches, flood-lit

tennis courts and a basketball court.

6.3.66 The Council’s emerging policy concerning the provision of open space is set out in

Policy NB18 – Sport and Exercise, which requires developers to take into account the

Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP), Playing Pitch Strategy and Sports

Requirements Study, Open Space Strategy, Green Infrastructure Plan and Allotments

Strategy in determining what is required. The Open Space Strategy aims to help deliver

the creation and implementation of publicly accessible Green Network. The Strategy

outlines the six-acre standard or 2.4 hectares per 1000 population in relation to new

development.

6.3.67 As discussed later in this chapter, the indicative masterplan for the application site

includes playing fields with formal and informal recreational space. There is also an

equipped play area proposed as part of the local centre, in addition to general open

spaces situated throughout the application site.

Local Facilities

6.3.68 There are a number of local facilities and services within the vicinity of the application

site. In terms of shopping, there is an Aldi supermarket some 500 metres to the north

of the Application Site, as well as a Co-operative food store approximately 1km to the

south. There are also a several public houses, takeaways, churches and other retail

stores within a 2km radius of the site.




6.3.69 As discussed later in this chapter, the indicative masterplan for the application site

includes a new local centre, to provide additional facilities to serve the new residents.

Baseline Conditions Summary

6.3.70 A summary of the baseline conditions identified is provided overleaf.

Table 6.10: Baseline Conditions Summary

Topics Significant Findings

Population The ‘Nuneaton Area’ is broadly comparable to the Borough, Regional

and National averages in terms of population. The Study Area has a

slightly decreased proportion of the residents over the age of 60

years than the Borough average. However, this proportion has

increased since the 2001 census. Similarly, the number of residents

below the age of 20 has reduced since the 2001 Census. This

demonstrates that the Study Area has an ageing population.

Housing Home ownership in the Study Area is lower than the Borough

average but higher than the National Average.

The Study Area has a slightly higher percentage of homes rented

from the Council than the Borough, and an even greater percentage

when compared to the National average.

The Study Area has a higher percentage of private rented housing

than the Borough, but lower than the National average, which is

significantly greater than the Area and Borough averages.

Economy &

Employment

The proportion of economically active people in the Study Area is

comparable with the Borough and National average.

The most represented industry within the study area is wholesale

and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles;

manufacturing; and Human health and social care. This is reflective

of the types of businesses and employment opportunities available

within the study area.

The IMD results show that there is great variation in terms of

employment and income deprivation across the Study Area

Education

/Skills

The Study Area is relatively unqualified when compared with the

wider area averages, particularly the regional and national

averages. However, the Study Area on average is more qualified

than the Borough.

The IMD results show that the area suffers from education, skills

and training deprivation with some SOAs within the study area being

some of the most deprived SOAs in the Country.

Health and

Wellbeing

The percentage of people within the Study Area who, in 2011

Census, reported being in either bad or very bad health was lower

than the Borough average, but higher than the National average,

The IMD results show that there is a wide variation with regards

health and disability deprivation in the Study Area.

Recreational

and Local

Facilities

There is an existing recreation ground some 400 metres to the south

of the site off Buttermere Avenue, which includes a football pitch

and equipped play area.

The nearest equipped sports club is Ambleside Sports Club

approximately 700 metres to the south-west, which includes a

cricket pitch, football pitches, flood-lit tennis courts and a basketball

court.

There is an Aldi supermarket some 500 metres to the north of the

Site, as well as a Co-operative food store approximately 1km to the

south. There are also a several public houses, takeaways, churches

and other retail stores within a 2km radius of the site.




6.4 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL

EFFECTS

6.4.1 As stated in the Introduction to this Chapter the assessment of impacts and likely

significant effects will consider both the construction and operational phases of the

Callendar Farm proposals and assess the following scenarios:

Impact of Callendar Farm Phase 2 in isolation (set out in this section);

Impact of Callendar Farm Phase 2 in conjunction with potential developments

as set out in Chapter 2. This includes the emerging allocation HSG 1, in

addition to other recently permitted developments. (set out in the Cumulative

Assessment section 6.5)

6.4.2 The below assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development,

which includes the provision of a number of facilities and services which are key

elements of the development. It is therefore appropriate to assume for the purpose of

assessment that mitigation measures are ‘integral to the development’.

Construction (Callendar Farm Phase 2 in Isolation)

6.4.3 The proposal at Callendar Farm Phase 2 involves the development of up to 850 homes

and associated infrastructure. During construction works the following impacts and

effects can be identified.

Housing

6.4.4 It is not considered that the construction phase will create additional housing need in

the area. It is likely that much of the labour will be sourced locally and therefore would

already reside in the area. It is possible that there could be a rise in demand for

temporary accommodation, either rented or hotels, although this effect is not expected

to be permanent or to have a significant impact on the availability of permanent

housing in the area. It is therefore considered that the impact on housing in the

construction stage is negligible.

Economy and Employment

6.4.5 The construction of new homes will lead to the creation of jobs locally and help support

local businesses connected to the construction sector. It is anticipated that the

Proposed Development could support around 843 person years of direct employment

within the construction sector1 which translates into 169 FTE roles on-site per annum

over the estimated five-year build programme.

6.4.6 A further 310 FTE jobs could be supported each year via direct and indirect effects

throughout the supply chain, with around 233 of these FTE’s being within the local

area2.

6.4.7 Further information regarding the economic and employment benefits of the

construction phase are included within the Economic Benefits Statement included

within the submitted Planning Statement.

1 Based on figures derived from 2016 edition of Business Population Estimates, Office for National

Statistics. 2 Indirect and induced effects calculated using official guidance – Homes & Communities Agency,

2014. Additionality Guide, Fourth Edition.




6.4.8 Due to the scale of the Proposed Development it is expected there will be a moderate

short-term positive significant impact based on the job creation that will occur as

a result of the construction phase.

Education and Skills

6.4.9 It is not anticipated that construction workers who will be temporarily employed as a

result of the development will bring dependent children with them. As discussed above,

it is anticipated that most of those employed as part of the construction phase will be

local and therefore their children will already be accounted for in terms of education

provision. It is therefore considered that the impact on education from this source is

negligible.


6.4.10 It is anticipated that the majority of those employed in the construction phase will be

local and therefore will already be registered for relevant health care. Therefore, it is

not considered that those employed on site will increase the demand for health care

services in the area and the impact from this source is negligible.

Recreation

6.4.11 During the construction phase the proposals will not have a significant impact on the

local population in terms of a population increase/decrease and will therefore not place

any additional demands on recreational facilities.

6.4.12 As part of the construction, the PROW N30 which runs along and within the western

boundary of the site may require temporary closure as it is upgraded.

6.4.13 Overall however, the impact on recreation is considered to be negligible.

Local Facilities

6.4.14 During the construction phase it is likely that construction workers will make use of

available local services and increase the demand for day to day shopping, primarily in

relation to convenience goods provision. This could result in a temporary increase in

local expenditure of benefit to the local economy. Compared with the overall retail

activity locally any impact is likely to be marginal. It is estimated that the impact will

therefore result in a minor short term positive impact.

Operation (Callendar Farm Phase 2 in Isolation)

6.4.15 Following the construction of the development, during the operation of the

development, the following potential impacts and effects have been identified.

Population

6.4.16 Based on information from the 2011 Census, the average household size for the

‘Nuneaton Area’ was 2.39 persons. The Proposed Development is expected to deliver

up to 850 additional homes, which is likely to result in a population increase of 2,032

people. Based on 2011 Census data for the ‘Nuneaton Area’ this would represent a

2.48% increase in the resident population. This increase in population would take

place over a number of years as the development is intended to come forward on a

phased basis.

6.4.17 There are associated impacts related to this population growth on existing services

and facilities which are addressed below.




Housing (including affordable housing)

6.4.18 The Proposed Development is for up to 850 dwellings which will assist in meeting the

Borough’s housing requirements and contribute to the delivery of a draft strategic

housing allocation site. The emerging Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan Submission

Version October 2015 currently sets out a housing requirement of 10,040 dwellings

between 2011-2031 (Policy NB2). However, it is acknowledged that at this time, it is

not clear what level of additional housing Nuneaton will take to accommodate the

needs of Coventry, and it is likely this target may need to increase. The provision of

the Proposed Development, including 850 dwellings, is therefore a major positive

impact.

6.4.19 The increased population associated with the Proposed Development will generate an

increased demand for affordable housing. The baseline findings also highlighted that 3

out of 5 SOAs in the St Nicolas ward fell within the top 40% most deprived SOAs

nationally regarding barriers to housing. (The application site falls within the St Nicolas

and Weddington wards). This suggest that there are local issues with affordable and/or

availability of housing.

6.4.20 Nuneaton and Bedworth Council seek the provision of some 25% affordable housing

on suitable sites within the Borough. Based on this percentage the affordable housing

provision could amount to some 213 affordable homes. The Proposed Development

will make a significant contribution to improving the supply of affordable housing

locally, with homes located in an area which the Updated Assessment of Housing Need

highlighted as being in demand. The exact scale and nature of the provision in terms

of house types and tenure will be the subject of further discussion with officers from

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council.

6.4.21 The Proposed Development therefore offers the opportunity to improve local issues

and will have a direct impact on housing availability and affordability. This is assessed

as having a major positive effect.


6.4.22 The 2011 Census indicates that there were some 43,075 economically active people

within the ‘Nuneaton Area’, equating to 71.46% of the population aged 16-74. The

numbers of economically active residents generated by the development will depend

on household characteristics of future occupants. An estimate of economically active

residents can be made using Census information. The Proposed Development will

generate a population of some 2,032 people. Assuming 71.46% of residents will be

economically active this would generate some 1,452 economically active persons.

6.4.23 It is therefore estimated that the development will result in up to 1,452 economically

active people, some of which may potentially be seeking work. However, it is likely

that not all the economically active residents will require new jobs, as many future

residents could relocate from elsewhere in the ‘Nuneaton Area’, and therefore will

already be in employment. The balance of homes and jobs is therefore considered to

be reasonable.

6.4.24 The Proposed Development does not include any large employment development but

elements of the scheme such as the mixed local centre and primary school will

themselves generate permanent jobs. Furthermore, the site is located close to existing

and emerging employment opportunities within the surrounding area, including the

Mira automotive site and the Harrowbrook Industrial Estate. These sites give access

to a large number of jobs with a wide range of skill level.




6.4.25 In addition to direct employment impacts, the Proposed Development may also have

some indirect employment impacts. These will be related to the increased demands

for local services and facilities arising from the increased population, with the delivery

of housing supporting planned sustainable economic growth in the wider area.

6.4.26 For both direct and indirect employment, the impact of the Proposed Development is

expected to result in a moderately positive effect.

6.4.27 Regarding the economy, the construction of 850 new homes in this location could

generate around £1.4million per annum in additional Council tax3, couple with around

£4.4million in terms of the New Homes Bonus for the Council.

Education (Facilities) and Skills

6.4.28 The proposals will generate a total of 355 pupils ranging from early years up to sixth

form age, of which 178 pupils will be of primary school age and 152 pupils of secondary

school age (including sixth form). These figures are derived from Warwickshire County

Council, using the following formula; ((N ÷ 100) x 2.92) x Y, where:

N = Number of proposed dwellings

2.92 = Crude birth rate

Y = Number of year groups

6.4.29 Without any mitigation, the requirement for additional school places will increase

pressure on the existing education facilities available within the ‘Nuneaton Area’.

However, as part of the development, land to accommodate new primary school is

provided.

6.4.30 Regarding secondary education, Table 6.8 within this chapter indicates that there

exists residual capacity within nearby schools in order to accommodate some of the

children anticipated from the development. For the remainder, education contributions

towards a new secondary school will be secured via Section 106 Agreement to be

negotiated with WCC. Furthermore, it is understood that a new secondary school is

proposed as part of the remaining HSG1 allocation.

6.4.31 Since these measures would relieve the pressure on existing schools within the

‘Nuneaton Area’ and potentially provide additional school places, the residual effects

of the overall education provision are considered to be of a major positive

significance.


6.4.32 The baseline assessment of The Grange Centre suggests that the ratio of doctors to

patients does not compare favourably with the national average. The Proposed

Development will generate around 2,032 potential GP patients. Based on the national

rate of 1,800 patients per GP, this will create a demand for a further 1.13 GPs. It is

unlikely that there is sufficient capacity at the existing Grange Centre to accommodate

all of the potential patients generated as a result of the development. It is likely

however that some of the new residents will be moving from within the locality and

will already be registered at this, or another local GP surgery.

6.4.33 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) identifies the key infrastructure requirements

associated with the Borough Plan. It is noted that the IDP is currently a draft document

which does not at this stage specify infrastructure requirements for the individual

Strategic Housing sites. Nonetheless pre-application discussions have taken place with

3 Based on Council Tax for 2016/17 in Nuneaton & Bedworth of £1,656.29 for a dwelling in Band

D.




the Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council and appropriate mitigation will

be provided where necessary and negotiated through the application process.

6.4.34 It should also be noted that there is a new medical centre proposed as part of the

consented scheme (App 032336) at Lower Farm, Weddington, some 2km from the

application site.

6.4.35 As a result, the residual effects are considered to be negligible.

6.4.36 The Proposed Development has also taken an overall design approach to encourage

an active lifestyle through provision of open spaces, green routes and paths and

recreational facilities, as discussed below.


6.4.37 The baseline findings have identified an existing recreational ground c. 400m to the

south of the site, however, the Proposed Development will generate additional

demands for public open space provision locally/neighbourly.

6.4.38 The Proposed Development includes large amounts of formal and informal open space,

including playing fields, equipped areas of play and general natural open space and

Green Infrastructure links. As stated at para. 6.4.16 of this Chapter, the development

is anticipated to accommodate 2,032 people. Combined with the requirement set out

within the Open Spaces Strategy to provide 2.4 hectares of recreational space per

1000 population, the development should provide 4.9 hectares of space.

6.4.39 The area of open space proposed amounts to 15.5ha (including attenuation areas and

swales), which significantly exceeds the requirement set out above.

6.4.40 As indicated on the Indicative Masterplan, this public open space will mainly be located

in the north eastern area of the Proposed Development, providing a strategic green

infrastructure function for the local need resulting from the delivery of the 850 new

homes, in addition to benefiting the wider area.

6.4.41 Given the scale of this provision, it is considered to be of major positive significance.

Local Facilities

6.4.42 The Proposed Development is relatively well located in relation to existing local

facilities at Horston Grange and could potentially create more demand for these units,

thereby improving their economic viability. In addition, further day-to-day demand is

also likely to be created for the shops and services further afield, as well as Nuneaton

Town Centre for comparison shopping. The increase in population as a result of the

Proposed Development will add to spending capacity in the town and could help to

support and strengthen existing services and facilities.

6.4.43 Whilst the development will support and strengthen these existing services, it will also

generate a need for accessible local facilities that encourage walking and cycling, which

is why a local centre is provided as part of the development, to cater for the day-today

needs of residents generated from the development.

6.4.44 Overall, the impact resulting from the Proposed Development upon local facilities is

therefore considered to be of minor positive significance.




Mitigation and Residual Effects Summary

6.4.45 The above assessment has considered the potential impacts of the Proposed

Development, which includes the provision of a number of facilities and services, for

example, affordable housing, primary school and local centre. Such services are key

elements of the development, and therefore it has been considered for the purpose of

assessment that mitigation measures are ‘integral to the development’. It is therefore

not applicable to undertake a separate post mitigation assessment, and all ‘residual

impacts’ have been concluded above.

6.4.46 How such integral mitigation measures would be secured are summarised in the table

below.

Table 6.11 Integral Mitigation Summary

Ref Measure to avoid, reduce or

manage any adverse effects

and/or to deliver beneficial

effects

How measure would be secured

By Design By S.106 By

Condition

1 Education Provision – land to

accommodate 2-form entry primary

school and relevant contributions

X X

2 Health Facilities – contributions; to

be discussed with NBBC

X

3 Recreation Facilities – significant

provision of formal and informal

open space

X X

(if required)

4 Local Facilities – provision of land for

local centre

X

6.5 CUMULATIVE AND IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

Impact of Callendar Farm Phase 2 with potential future developments

6.5.1 For the purposes of cumulative assessment, the impact of Callendar Farm Phase 2 with

potential future developments in the site’s vicinity has been considered. This primarily

focuses on the remaining sites within the emerging allocation HSG1, of which the

majority benefit from planning approval. The proposed HSG1 site is currently allocated

in the submission Local Plan for 3,530 dwellings. Further information on the various

sites which comprise this draft allocation, and their planning progress, are set out in

Chapter 2, and identified on Figure 2.1, Cumulative Sites Plan.

6.5.2 In addition to the emerging allocation, one further site has gained planning permission

at Churchfields, Weddington Road for 326 dwellings. Therefore, the Churchfields site

has been considered in combination with the emerging HSG1 allocation. Cumulatively,

this proposes to deliver the following:

Up to 3,856 dwellings;

2 primary schools;

1 local centre;

1 GP; and

Extensive green infrastructure and public open space.




6.5.3 Further facilities than those listed above are anticipated to come forward as part of

allocation HSG1, such as a new secondary school, but the precise composition is not

known at this stage.

6.5.4 Using the ‘Nuneaton Area’ average of 2.39 persons per household, cumulatively this

could potentially generate in the region of 9,216 residents. A population increase of

this magnitude would, if not properly managed, inevitably have impact on the existing

services and facilities in the vicinity and implications on the socio-economic profile of

the area.

Housing (including affordable housing)

6.5.5 The emerging Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan Submission Version October 2015

currently sets out a housing requirement of 10,040 dwellings between 2011-2031

(Policy NB2). However, it is acknowledged that at this time, it is not clear what level

of additional housing Nuneaton will take to accommodate the needs of Coventry, and

it is likely this target may need to increase. The ‘cumulative sites’ (i.e. HSG1 and

Churchfields, Weddington Road) is anticipated to deliver 3,856 houses, including the

Proposed Development. This will greatly assist in meeting the Borough’s housing

requirements and will all contribute to delivering the strategic allocation. This is

therefore a major positive impact.

6.5.6 The provision of 3,856 dwellings across the ‘cumulative sites’ will provide around 964

affordable homes. This will make a significant contribution to improving the supply of

affordable housing locally, as identified within the Updated Assessment of Housing

Need. The exact scale and nature of the provision in terms of house types and tenure

will be the subject of further discussion with officers from Nuneaton and Bedworth

Borough Council, but will indicatively reflect the 26% intermediate housing and 74%

affordable rented split identified within the Affordable Housing; Range and Mix

background paper. This is therefore a major positive impact.


6.5.7 The ‘cumulative sites’ do not include any large employment developments but

elements of the schemes such as the mixed local centre, primary schools and GP

surgery will themselves generate permanent jobs. Furthermore, the cumulative site is

located close to existing and emerging employment opportunities within the

surrounding area, including the Mira automotive site and the Harrowbrook Industrial

Estate. These sites give access to a large number of jobs with a wide range of skill

level.

6.5.8 In addition to direct employment impacts, the ‘cumulative sites’ may also have some

indirect employment impacts. These will be related to the increased demands for local

services and facilities arising from the increased population, with the delivery of

housing supporting planned sustainable economic growth in the wider area.

6.5.9 For both direct and indirect employment, the cumulative impact is expected to result

in a moderately positive effect.

Education and Skills

6.5.10 Utilising the same formula as was used to calculate the number of pupils generated by

the Proposed Development (as set out at para. 6.4.28 of this Chapter), the same

calculation is performed for the ‘cumulative sites’ as a whole. Using the assumption

of a maximum of 3,856 dwellings the following figures have been calculated:

Primary School Children – 804

Secondary School Children - 582




6.5.11 As identified above, 2 primary schools are being provided as part of the emerging

allocation HSG 1, which will support educational demands created by the wider

development. Where necessary, as the Borough Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan

confirms, developer contributions will be used to further expand existing school

capacity at both a primary and secondary level. The delivery of new education

provision is a major positive impact.


6.5.12 The increase in population that will result from the ‘cumulative sites’ will generate

more demand for health services in the local area. Based on the National average of

1,800 people per 1 GP, the development allocations around Nuneaton will cumulatively

generate the need for approximately 5 additional GP’s.

6.5.13 The ‘cumulative sites’ propose 1 GP surgery which will assist in this need, however as

the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan confirms, the physical capacity of expanding

existing GP surgeries will be considered when assessing the impact of development. It

is therefore likely that a number of surgeries will receive funding via S106 monies as

a direct result of the cumulative sites coming forward.

6.5.14 As a result, the residual effects are considered to be negligible.


6.5.15 Additional population will generate additional demand for open space, sport and

recreation facilities in the locality. Public open space across the ‘cumulative sites’,

cumulatively and individually will be provided in accordance with the standards set out

in the Open Spaces Strategy. This will provide for the local need resulting from the

delivery of 3,856 new homes. In addition, the public open space and recreational

facilities provided as part of the ‘cumulative sites’ will provide facilities that will benefit

the wider area.

6.5.16 Given the scale of this provision, it is considered to be of major positive significance.

Local Facilities

6.5.17 The ‘cumulative sites’ are relatively well located in relation to existing local facilities

and could potentially create more demand for these units, thereby improving their

economic viability.

6.5.18 Whilst the development will support and strengthen these existing services, an

emerging allocation of this size, combined with the resulting population increase, will

inevitably generate demand that necessitates the provision of new local facilities. The

‘cumulative sites’ includes a mixed local centre which will seek to cater for the day-

today needs of residents generated from the developments.

6.5.19 Overall, the impact resulting from the ‘cumulative sites’ upon local facilities is therefore

considered to be of minor positive significance.




6.6 SUMMARY

Introduction

6.6.1 This chapter has provided an assessment of the likely socio-economic effects of the

Proposed Development at Callendar Farm Phase 2 and has also provided a cumulative

assessment with other potential future developments, predominantly those within the

emerging allocation HSG 1 within the Submission Version of NBBC Local Plan 2015.

6.6.2 In order to fully assess the potential socio-economic impacts that could occur as a

result of the Proposed Development baseline conditions were established for the Study

Area, the Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth and England. The Study Area consisted

of the 11 wards of Nuneaton which cover the Proposed Development site and the

surrounding area.

6.6.3 This Chapter then assessed the ability of existing services, facilities and social

infrastructure to accommodate the additional population and identified mitigation as

appropriate.

6.6.4 The specific topics assessed in this Chapter are; population, housing, economy and

employment, education and skills, health and wellbeing, open space, sport and

recreation, community facilities and tourism.

Baseline Conditions

6.6.5 It has been demonstrated that, at the time of the 2011 Census, the baseline population

for the ‘Nuneaton Area’ (which includes the 11 wards of Nuneaton) was 81,877

persons, at an average of 2.39 persons per dwelling.

6.6.6 The study area has been demonstrated to vary widely in terms of overall deprivation,

but also across a number of deprivation indicators, including; employment, income,

health and education, skills and training.

6.6.7 The population of the ‘Nuneaton Area’ has been demonstrated to be ageing when

compared to the 2001 Census and the Borough average.

6.6.8 In terms of tenure, the ‘Nuneaton Area’ displayed a lower percentage of home

ownership than the Borough average, but a higher percentage of private rented homes

than the Borough average.

6.6.9 Whilst there are a greater percentage of people who were economically active within

the Study Area than the Borough and national average, the Study Area also had a

greater percentage of people with no qualifications than the national average.

6.6.10 The Area demonstrated better levels of health than the Borough, but worse than

national averages.

6.6.11 Existing health provision for the Area is provided by the Grange Medical Centre which,

at July 2016, has 2,077 patients per GP, slightly higher than the national average of

1,800 patients per GP.

6.6.12 The nearest recreation facilities to the site are some 400 metres to the south, in the

form of an equipped play area. The nearest sports club is Ambleside Sports club

approximately 700 metres to the south-west, which includes a cricket pitch, football

pitches, flood-lit tennis courts and a basketball court.




6.6.13 In terms of local facilities, there is an Aldi supermarket approximately 500 metres to

the norths, as well as a Co-operative food store approximately 1km to the south. There

are also several public houses, takeaways churches and other convenience stores

within a 2 km radius of the site.

Likely Significant Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

6.6.14 The proposal at Callendar Farm Phase 2 involves the development of up to 850 homes

and associated infrastructure. During construction works, it is anticipated that new

jobs will be created as a direct result of the works, in addition to indirect employment

associated with the supply of materials from local suppliers. These employment

benefits of the Proposed Development are considered to be a major positive impact.

6.6.15 It is likely that construction workers will also make use of available local services and

increase the demand for day to day shopping, primarily in relation to convenience

goods provision, resulting in a temporary increase in local expenditure of benefit to

the local economy. This is considered to be a minor positive impact of the

development. Given the temporary and likely local work force, it is not considered

there would be impacts in relation to housing, education, health and wellbeing or

recreational facilities.

6.6.16 The Proposed Development at operation is likely to result in a population increase of

c. 2,032 people, based on the average household size identified in the 2011 Census,

which would represent a 2.48% increase in the resident population.

6.6.17 The Proposed Development is for up to 850 dwellings which will assist in meeting the

Borough’s housing requirements of 10,040 dwellings between 2011-2031which is

currently set out within the emerging Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan Submission

Version October 2015 (Policy NB2). Furthermore, the Proposed Development is likely

to provide c. 213 affordable homes which will make a significant contribution to

improving the supply of affordable housing locally, with homes located in an area which

the Updated Assessment of Housing Need highlighted as being in demand. It is

therefore considered the Proposed Development provides a major positive impact

in relation to housing.

6.6.18 The Proposed Development will provide a relatively modest number of permanent jobs

within the local centre and primary school, however the site is located close to existing

and emerging employment opportunities within the surrounding area, including the

Mira automotive site and the Harrowbrook Industrial Estate. These sites give access

to a large number of jobs with a wide range of skill level. The Proposed Development

may also have some indirect employment impacts in relation to the increased demands

for local services and facilities arising from the increased population. The development

is therefore expected to have a moderately positive impact on employment.

6.6.19 Based on Warwickshire County Council’s formula, the Proposed Development will

generate additional school age children in the region of 355 pupils ranging from early

years up to sixth form age. Approximately 178 pupils will be of primary school age and

152 pupils of secondary school age (including sixth form) which will increase the

demand for school places within the local area. However, as part of the development,

land to accommodate a new primary school is provided, with education contributions

towards a new secondary school likely to be secured via Section 106 Agreement. The

residual effects of the overall education provision are therefore considered to be of a

major positive significance.

6.6.20 From the baseline surveys undertaken, it is unlikely that there is sufficient capacity at

the nearest GP practice, the Grange Centre, to accommodate all of the potential

patients generated as a result of the development. As the Council’s Infrastructure




Delivery Plan confirms, the physical capacity of expanding existing GP surgeries will

be considered when assessing the impact of development. It is therefore likely that

the Proposed Development will provide contributions via S106 monies. As a result, the

residual effects are considered to be negligible.

6.6.21 The Proposed Development will generate additional demands for public open space

provision locally/neighbourly. Integral to the scheme are large amounts of formal and

informal open space, including playing fields, equipped areas of play and general

natural open space and Green Infrastructure links which significantly exceed the

requirement. Given the scale of this provision, it is considered to be of major positive

significance

6.6.22 The Proposed Development is relatively well located in relation to existing local

facilities and could potentially create more demand for these units. Whilst the

development will support and strengthen these existing services, it will also generate

a need for accessible local facilities that encourage walking and cycling, which is why

a local centre is provided as part of the development, to cater for the day-today needs

of residents generated from the development.

6.6.23 Overall, the impact resulting from the Proposed Development upon local facilities is

therefore considered to be of minor positive significance.

6.6.24 The assessment has considered the potential impacts of the Proposed Development,

which includes the provision of a number of facilities and services. Such services are

key elements of the development, and therefore it has been considered for the purpose

of assessment that mitigation measures are ‘integral to the development’. It is

therefore not applicable to undertake a separate post mitigation assessment, and all

‘residual impacts’ have been concluded above.

Conclusion

6.6.25 In summary, this Chapter has demonstrated that there are numerous positive

significant effects of the Proposed Development in socio-economic terms, due to the

integral mitigation provided as part of the development. No adverse significant impacts

in terms of socio-economic factors resulting from the Proposed Development have

been identified. The Proposed Development is therefore assessed as being entirely

acceptable in socio-economic terms, and will make an important contribution to

meeting the housing requirement of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough.




Table 6.4 Summary of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects.

Topic Area Description of Effect Nature of

Effect

Geographical

Importance

Mitigation /

Enhancement

Measures

(often integral)

Significance

of Residual

Effects

Construction

Housing Not considered that the

construction phase will create

additional housing need

- - - Negligible

Employment – Direct Creation of construction jobs Temporary Regional None Major positive

Employment - Indirect Increased demand within supply

chain

Temporary Regional None Major positive

Education Unlikely dependent children would

be brought into the area requiring

school places

- - None Negligible

Health and Wellbeing Likely those employed already in

registered healthcare

- - None Negligible

Recreational Facilities No requirement for recreational

facilities for workers. Potentially

temporary closure of PROW N30

Temporary

Local None Negligible

Local Facilities Increased convenience

expenditure from construction

workers

Temporary

Local None Minor positive

Operation

Housing (incl affordable) Provision of 850 dwellings to

achieve housing requirement

Introduction of up to c. 213

affordable dwellings

Permanent

Borough None Major positive




Employment – Direct Small number of jobs in relation

to local centre & primary school.

Introduction of economically

active residents

Permanent

Borough None Moderate

positive

Employment – Indirect Increased demand on local

services creates opportunity for

service expansion

Permanent

Local None Moderate

positive

Education Introduction of primary and

secondary school age children

Permanent Borough Provision of

land for two-

form entry

primary school

Major positive

Health and Wellbeing Increased demand for GP services Permanent

Borough Contribution via

S106 for facility

expansion

Negligible

Recreation Facilities Increased demand for open space

and recreation facilities

Permanent

Borough Provision of on-

site open

recreation

space

Major positive

Local Facilities Increased demand for

convenience shopping and other

local facilities

Permanent

Local Local centre

included on-site

Minor positive

Cumulative and In-Combination

Housing (incl affordable

housing)

Provision of c. 3856 dwellings to

achieve housing requirement

Introduction of 964 affordable

dwellings

Permanent

Borough None Major positive

Employment – Direct Small number of jobs created in

local centre, primary schools and

GP surgery. Introduction of

economically active residents

Permanent Borough None Moderate

positive




Employment – Indirect Increased demand on local

services creates opportunity for

service expansion

Permanent Borough None Moderate

positive

Education Introduction of primary and

secondary school age children

Permanent Borough Provision of two

new primary

schools across

housing

allocation plus

contribution to

existing schools

via S106. One

new secondary

school

anticipated to

come forward

as part of

proposals on

land at Top

Farm.

Major positive

Health and Wellbeing Increased demand for GP services Permanent Borough Provision of GP

surgery and

contribution to

existing GPs via

S106

Negligible

Recreation Facilities Increased demand for open space

and recreation facilities

Permanent Borough Provision of on-

site open space

and recreation

facilities across

all cumulative

sites

Major positive

Local Facilities Increased demand for

convenience shopping and other

local facilities

Permanent Borough Provision of

local centres

Minor positive

6 socio-economic issues - nuneaton and...

Documents