It is essential that you read both of these letters. This will give you some idea of what is going on
24th November 2025 FAO David Spencer MRTPI
Dear Sir,
SOUTH TYNESIDE LOCAL PLAN EXAMINTION RESPONSES TO MIQ 7.46 AND 7.47
Neil Morton, Director,
We write further to the publication of responses to MIQs 7.46 and 7.47 which have now been uploaded to the examination page. Whilst the substantive matters raised by these two MIQs can quite rightly be debated at the relevant hearing session, our client Laverick Hall Farm Ltd and Durham Cathedral feels it necessary to raise a number of procedural concerns with the response provided by ‘Dave Green: Save the Fellgate Green Belt’ (‘SFGB’).
These are set out below.
Firstly, the response and appendices plainly seek to extend evidence on highways, flood risk and drainage matters, including by introducing new unsolicited evidence to the examination1 (some of which is self-dated September and October 2025) on topics which have already been examined and heard at Stage 1 under Matter 5. We appreciate that there are some residual highways matters for Fellgate within the scope of MIQ 7.31, however there is concern that SFGB is attempting to have lots of bites at the same cherry with often repetitive submissions under different MIQs. This has now extended to new evidence prepared since Stage 1. This also raises issues for participation at Stage 2 for our client in knowing which experts should be present when specialist matters are attempted to be revisited.
Secondly, your guidance notes for participants was clear that appendices should be focused and avoid unnecessary or unrelated material. SFGB have submitted twelve appendices on two questions. A number contain generic information with no direct evidential link to the Fellgate site specifically as opposed to any site anywhere (Appendices 5, 6 and 7) and others repeat the evidence base (Appendices 2, 3 and 4). Furthermore, appendices have been used as placeholders for additional primary text by the author which significantly extends the overall word count given to participants (Appendices 1, 3, 8, 10 and 112).
Thirdly, there is a question mark on whether AI has been used in formulating the response. For example, Appendices 2 and 3 clearly show Copilot as visible. It is therefore not clear to us if any of the submissions and evidence presented is generated or has involved the use of AI.
Fourthly, related to the above, there is clear evidence that material has been doctored using either AI or other graphical IT software in order to generate images designed to be provocative and emotive. For example, Appendix 12, page 6, clearly uses AI or Photoshop (or such like) to create false and misleading image(s) such
1 Appendices 1, 9, 10 and 11
2 These appendices alone total over 470 words
3 It is unclear if all of these images have been taken on the site itself or if they are generic and have been selected. It is not clear to us what is real and what is not within the response.
Appendix 12 also includes images of wildlife and West Fellgate Farm which are again topics already examined and heard at Matter 5.
Whilst we fully respect the right of all parties to be heard and present their views, including local objectors who are perhaps less familiar with the rules governing examinations, those rules are in place to ensure fairness to all parties and to ensure no party is prejudiced.
We would be grateful if the Inspector could review this matter. In our view the SFGB submissions should be removed online and sent back to the author for editing, ensuring that if returned it fully meets the requirements applicable to all participants.
It goes without saying that we do not wish to see any further delay to the examination timetable given this has already been delayed once.
I have copied in South Tyneside Council for their information and transparency.
Yours sincerely Neil Morton MRTPI
Director
c.c A Inch – South Tyneside Council
Response from the Inspector
(note I have taken the liberty to underline key statements from the inspector that are relevant to the response made by SFGB group, for clarity these underlines are not in the original letter)
EXAMINATION OF THE SOUTH TYNESIDE LOCAL PLAN 2023-2040
Inspector: David Spencer MRTPI
Programme officer: Annette Feeney
Dear Mr Morton
South Tyneside Local Plan Examination
1 December 2025
Thank you for your correspondence via the Programme Officer dated 24 November 2025 raised on behalf of your clients Laverick Hall Farm and Durham Cathedral.
I recognise your concern relates to the amount and nature of the material submitted on behalf of ‘Save The Fellgate Green Belt’ (SFGB) in response to my additional Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQs) for the Stage 2 examination hearings relating to air quality and public health (MIQs 7.46 & 7.47).
The short response is that I have accepted that material into the examination and will come to my own professional judgement on its materiality to remaining matters of plan soundness. The various appendices submitted by SFGB are not going to be removed from the examination.
I appreciate a significant amount of material has been submitted by SFGB, but in fairness, it is clear from various representations made on the Plan that matters of public health and air quality are important to local residents across Fellgate.
SFGB are not professionally represented or, as far as I am aware, drawing on professional support.
As such they are utilising what information they consider relevant. I am applying a degree of latitude accordingly.
On reflection, the Stage 1 hearings did not give matters of air quality and public health at Fellgate sufficient attention and whilst I am examining general policies in the Plan on air quality and public health under Matter 9 I do not consider it appropriate that Fellgate specific points are discussed under a general session.
Accordingly, I am not hearing from SFGB at Matter 9.
As we are reconvening to discuss the outputs of the ongoing work between the Council and National Highways on the potential to sequence improvements to Whitemare Pool, it made sense, in my view, to discuss public health and air quality matters as part of the session on Thursday 15 January.
It seems to me, from reading various representations on the Plan (from early 2024), that air quality (arising from traffic) has been a consistent concern for the local community with this proposal within the Plan.
As you will be aware, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 1051 states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth, focusing significant development to locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel
The September 2023 version against which this Plan is being examined and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
The NPPF reminds us that this can help reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. I also draw attention to paragraph 186 of the same NPPF on the potential to improve air quality or mitigating impacts, and for this to be considered at the plan-making stage.
I note your concern that your clients feel they may be potentially disadvantaged at the forthcoming hearings in terms of wider team attendance given the breadth of material submitted by SFGB.
If it assists, you will see from my agenda for the session on Thursday 15 January that my focus is on firstly matters relating to Whitemare Pool, then air quality, and then whether the requirement in the submitted Plan for a Health Impact Assessment would be a sound approach for Fellgate.
Finally, the session will revisit matters of delivery including whether the proposed Supplementary Planning Document remains an appropriate mechanism to coordinate sustainable growth.
I also wish to be clear that first and foremost the Plan was prepared by the Council and notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s Intervention, I am primarily looking at the Council’s evidence in support of the Plan including on highways, air quality and wider sustainability assessment. As such I will be looking mainly to the Council to explain to me at the Stage 2 hearings why on highways and air quality considerations the Fellgate proposal can be considered sound.
Turning to the issue of whether AI and/or image alteration software has been used I am, through the Programme Officer, going to seek clarification on the source of Appendices 2, 3 and 12 of the SFGB submissions.
As you will be aware, and as I indicated in my Guidance Notes, the Planning Inspectorate does not exclude material generated by AI but where it has been used this must be identified and declarations of accuracy and lawfulness provided.
Please accept this letter as my review of the matters raised in your letter. I wish to confirm that the examination will proceed as set out in the revised programme and I am not envisaging any further delays.
Yours sincerely David Spencer
Examining Inspector.