You now have 1 week to respond to the New Local Plan Scoping Consultation which closes at Midnight on 19th October 2026.
We need as many residents as possible to Complete this Consultation before the dead line.
If you have completed it and sent in your responses, we all thank you.
South Tyneside Council consultation question 2 asks. What are the biggest challenges facing South Tyneside over the next 20 years? e.g. now until 2046.
If you are struggling to answer this question, below are some suggestions or pointers.
Disclaimer: This information is for general educational or informational purposes only and does not constitute formal advice. We are not solicitors, barristers or registered legal professionals. Neither this nor any other information made on the web site, may be taken as official advice, it is clearly provided for your information.
Below is a practical summary guide for people preparing consultation submissions. It turns the attached statement into clear, usable points: choose the issues relevant to you, personalise them with local evidence, and avoid copying the text word-for-word. The document’s central argument is that Green Belt release should not proceed unless infrastructure, drainage, transport, safety and environmental safeguards are demonstrably secured before harm occurs.
How to use this guide
Make this personal to your views. Add your street, junction, school route, bus route, flooding experience, or photographs where relevant. The source document stresses that cumulative local effects matter, not just high-level technical assessments.
A strong submission to asks the Council to demonstrate that mitigation is funded, deliverable and operational before occupation—not merely “capable of being mitigated.”
Keep each point focused:
Use one main concern per paragraph or bullet, supported by a specific consequence and a clear request.
Green Belt and landscape
The Green Belt performs essential functions
Explain that the land is not simply “spare land”; it supports farming, wildlife, recreation, landscape separation, drainage and relief from the built-up area. Ask the Council to assess these functions before releasing any site.
Irreversible loss:
State that once Green Belt or greenfield land is developed, it cannot realistically be restored. Ask whether the exceptional circumstances for each individual site—and cumulatively—have genuinely been demonstrated.
Risk of incremental loss:
Point out that new development can create pressure for further road building, hard surfacing and infrastructure, progressively fragmenting the remaining open land. Ask for a cumulative assessment of this pattern.
Road access is not sustainability:
Say that being near a dual carriageway does not make housing sustainable if residents still need a car for work, schools, healthcare and shops. Ask for accessibility to be measured without reliance on private vehicles.
Flooding, drainage and pollution
Surface-water risk:
Explain that replacing permeable land with roofs, roads and driveways increases run-off, can overload drains, and may move flood risk onto neighbouring properties or downstream areas.
Existing drainage failures:
Describe local flooding, blocked drains, overflowing watercourses or sewage pollution. Ask for flood modelling to include climate-change rainfall, cumulative development and real drainage capacity.
Drainage before occupation:
Request that sustainable drainage, pollution controls and green infrastructure are constructed, funded, maintained and operational before any homes are occupied. The document argues these should be preconditions, not later reserved-matters promises.
Construction and road pollution:
Mention sediment, concrete washout, fuel spills, dust, tyre and brake particles, oils and detergents entering watercourses. Ask for enforceable construction and long-term pollution controls.
Traffic and road safety
Strategic network is already under strain:
Refer to evidence that the local road network cannot accommodate planned Local Plan traffic without intervention, with congestion forecast at White Mare Pool and cascading towards Lindisfarne and the A19.
Ask whether improvements are real:
Request evidence that every required road intervention is funded, consented and deliverable before development proceeds. The document states that a “Do Something” scenario does not prove development is harmless; it shows infrastructure is needed to make the traffic manageable.
Rat-running:
Explain that when main routes congest, traffic diverts onto minor roads and residential streets. Name the roads near you—such as Mill Lane, Durham Drive, Fellgate Avenue or Hedworth Lane if applicable—and describe existing speed, parking, visibility, pedestrian or school-route problems.
Road safety assessment:
Ask for a fully independent cumulative road-safety assessment covering the A184, A194, A19, White Mare Pool, Lindisfarne, local diversion routes, crossings, bus stops, school routes and collision history.
Emergency access:
Highlight that standing traffic, collisions, breakdowns or bad weather can delay emergency services and make minor congestion more serious. Ask for this to be assessed explicitly.
Public transport, walking and cycling
A bus stop is not a bus service: Say that a nearby bus stop has little value unless frequent, reliable, affordable services operate from the start of the development. Ask for public transport to be secured for the lifetime of the development, not only during initial marketing or occupation.
Safe routes must be usable:
Request direct, well-lit, overlooked and weather-resilient walking and cycling routes, with convenient crossings. Note that people will drive where routes are unsafe, indirect or unreliable.
Avoid car dependency:
Ask the Council to require monitoring after occupation and enforceable remedial action if car use exceeds the assumptions in the transport assessment.
Equal access:
Point out that unreliable transport disproportionately affects older people, disabled people, children, low-income households and people without cars, creating a two-tier transport system.
Health, wellbeing and inequality
Existing health inequalities: Note that South Tyneside already experiences lower life expectancy, higher long-term illness, obesity, disability and deprivation than national averages. Ask the Council to assess development against this existing baseline rather than assuming impacts will be neutral.
Loss of green space:
Explain that losing accessible open land can reduce physical activity, children’s outdoor play, mental wellbeing and residents’ connection with their local environment.
Air quality
State that road traffic is identified as the principal source of nitrogen dioxide in South Tyneside, so additional traffic could worsen exposure near homes, schools, bus stops and walking routes. Ask for cumulative air-quality assessment and enforceable mitigation.
Noise and stress
Describe how extra traffic, congestion and road danger can increase noise, vibration, stress and reluctance to walk or cycle.
Key requests to include
A strong submission can close with a short list of asks, such as:
Refuse, modify or delay development where essential infrastructure is not available before occupation.
Require Green Belt exceptional circumstances to be proved for each site and cumulatively.
Require full examination of brownfield, previously developed and realistically deliverable alternative sites first.
Require drainage, flood mitigation and pollution controls to be operational before first occupation.
Require transport, road-safety, public transport, walking and cycling measures to be funded and secured before occupation.
Require cumulative assessments of traffic, air quality, flood risk, health inequality, biodiversity and landscape harm.
Suggested closing wording
You could adapt this closing point:
“Development should not be permitted on the basis that harm might later be mitigated. The Council should first demonstrate, with funded and deliverable evidence, that drainage, transport, road safety, public transport, air-quality and environmental protections will be in place before the harm occurs.”
This wording captures the document’s core submission principle: prevent irreversible environmental and community harm rather than rely on uncertain mitigation afterwards.