This page provides a summarised list of the Main Concerns with the Local Plan and the possibility of building on the Green Belt. It provides different scenarios and levels of detail, that should fit into the timescale provided prior to the meeting. Once again it is essential that you check South Tyneside Councils web site and be prepared to amend your approach based on the latest information you have received.
It is suggested that you concentrate on one of the main issues relating to the relevant documents and the provided evidence. By collaborating with others all of the issues should get raised.
Advice: Keep notes in front of you with short bullet points (not long paragraphs). If challenged, stay calm and always refer back to “the soundness tests” — not personal opinions.
If you don’t know the answer to something, it’s okay to say:
“I do not have that information with me, but my concern remains that the evidence does not sufficiently justify the loss of Green Belt land.”
Option A
Provide a short Introduction (about 20–30 seconds)
“Good morning, Inspector. My name is [Your Name]. I made / did not make representations at the Regulation 19 stage concerning the proposed Local. I am here today to object to the soundness of the Local Plan regarding the proposed removal of Green Belt land and the allocation of 1200 homes, a school, shops and other buildings on the Land South of Fellgate.
I provide this Summary of my Main Concerns (about 1–2 minutes)
“I believe the plan is not sound because it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy, particularly regarding the protection of the Green Belt, sustainable development, and safeguarding the environment.
My main concerns relate to:
- The irreversible loss of Green Belt land and the impact on the natural ecosystem, wildlife, and biodiversity.
- Increased risk of localised flooding due to loss of natural drainage areas.
- Worsening air quality and significant traffic congestion from a substantial increase in vehicle movements, specifically onto Durham Drive leading to the major A roads .
- Negative impacts on public health and well-being due to increased pollution and reduced access to natural green spaces.
- A failure to fully consider all brownfield and unused land opportunities before Green Belt release, contrary to national policy.
Green Belt loss:
National policy makes clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe the Council has demonstrated such exceptional circumstances, particularly given the availability of brownfield, unused and derelict sites within the borough.
Flooding risk:
A development of this size would significantly increase surface water runoff, overwhelming existing drainage systems, increasing the risk of localised flooding.” There has been several floods in the past where Northumbria Water has updated and created flood mitigation systems, however even with this updates the area has experienced significant flood, We have photograph evidence of such recent flooding.
Air quality and congestion:
The increase in traffic from 1200 additional homes along with a new development of 127 homes at Monkton Gardens will worsen existing congestion, leading to higher emissions in an area already struggling with air quality issues. Our Local MP spoke in the commons highlighting that South Tyneside is one of the worse in the country for lung related issues.
Health and well-being:
The removal of natural green space will reduce opportunities for recreation, worsen mental health outcomes, and undermine objectives for healthy communities.
Conclusion: What you want (10–20 seconds)
In conclusion, I respectfully submit that the plan is not justified or sound as currently drafted. I request that the Green Belt release for the 1200 homes be reconsidered, with greater emphasis placed on prioritising other non Green Belt land and protecting the local environment, consistent with national policy objectives.
Option B
I submit that the Local Plan is not sound, specifically that it is:
Not justified:
The release of Green Belt land is not supported by a robust, credible evidence base demonstrating exceptional circumstances.
Insufficient consideration has been given to maximising development on brownfield and non-Green Belt sites.
Not consistent with national policy:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to be altered only in exceptional circumstances, and emphasises protection of biodiversity, air quality, and public health.
Not effective:
The scale of proposed development will result in severe local impacts which the Plan has not adequately addressed.
Detailed Issues-:
Destruction of the Green Belt and Environmental Harm:
The proposal will cause irreversible loss of protected land, significantly impacting wildlife habitats, local biodiversity, and the natural ecosystem.
Increased Risk of Flooding:
The removal of green spaces will reduce natural water absorption, exacerbating localised surface water flooding risks.
Air Quality and Traffic Congestion:
The influx of traffic generated by 1200 new homes will increase pollution levels and worsen congestion, to the detriment of public health.
Health and Well-Being Impacts:
The loss of accessible green spaces will have adverse consequences for the physical and mental health of local residents, undermining the Government’s objectives for healthy communities.
Lack of Consideration for Alternative Sites:
The Plan does not fully demonstrate that brownfield land and other less sensitive areas have been exhausted before releasing Green Belt land.
Requested Change I respectfully request that:
The proposed Green Belt release for 1200 homes is deleted or substantially modified. Greater emphasis is placed on the redevelopment of brownfield land. Additional evidence and reassessment of environmental and infrastructure impacts are undertaken to ensure full compliance with national policy.
Conclusion
The Plan, as it stands, fails the tests of soundness. I urge the Inspector to recommend modifications to protect the Green Belt, prioritise brownfield development, and safeguard the environment, infrastructure, and health of the local community.
Option C – short and sweet:
I object to the soundness of the Local Plan, particularly the proposed removal of Green Belt land to build 1200 homes.
I believe the Plan is not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy.
Firstly, the Green Belt provides vital protection for biodiversity, wildlife, and the natural ecosystem. Its loss would cause irreversible environmental harm.
Secondly, removing this land would significantly increase the risk of flooding, as natural drainage would be lost.
Thirdly, the development would worsen already serious traffic congestion and further deteriorate local air quality, with negative consequences for public health.
The loss of green spaces will also reduce opportunities for outdoor recreation and negatively impact the physical and mental well-being of residents.
Finally, I do not believe exceptional circumstances have been properly demonstrated, nor has full use been made of available brownfield land before resorting to Green Belt release.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Green Belt release is reconsidered and that more sustainable alternatives are pursued, in line with national policy.
Other guidance suggestions:
If you’re interrupted or challenged: respond :
If I may, Inspector, I’ll just briefly complete my point.
“I understand. To summarise my concern, it is that…”
“I appreciate the question. My main issue is with the lack of justification for Green Belt release.”
If you don’t know the answer straight away: “I’m not able to provide that detail now, but my overall concern about the environmental impacts remains.”
“I cannot speak to that specific point, but the principle of protecting Green Belt land is central to my objection.”
If you want to emphasise your main point again: “In simple terms, I believe the Plan does not meet the test of soundness in this respect.”
“To be clear, my objection relates to the unjustified loss of Green Belt land and its consequences.”
If things start getting detailed or technical (and you want to stay focused):
“I would respectfully suggest that the fundamental issue is whether exceptional circumstances truly exist.”
“While the technical details are important, my primary concern is about compliance with national Green Belt policy.”
A polite closing if you’re finished speaking:
“Thank you, Inspector. Those are my submissions for now.”
Check List
✅ Hearing Day Checklist:
Have Your short speech, Your full Hearing Statement (the longer one-page version)
Bring a few extra copies (sometimes the Inspector or Programme Officer asks for one).
Copies of the specific policy / statement / reference No, evidence / reports (optional but helpful)
A copy of:
The part of the Local Plan you are objecting to (e.g., the site allocation, Green Belt changes).
Your original Regulation 19 representation (your earlier objection letter, if you still have it).
The Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQs) if they sent them out — just in case you need to refer to them.
- Supporting Evidence (if you want)
Any brief documents that back you up (e.g., traffic reports, flooding concerns, biodiversity surveys) — but only if directly relevant and only if very short (1-2 pages max).
Note: If you didn’t submit this earlier, you may only be allowed to refer to it verbally.
- Basic Supplies
Pen and notebook
Bottle of water
A highlighter (to quickly mark points you want to respond to)
A folder or small bag to keep everything neat
- Mindset Checklist
Arrive early (at least 20–30 minutes early).
Be calm, polite, and professional — you’re there to help the Inspector find the right outcome.
Listen carefully to others — sometimes you’ll get a chance to simply say “I agree with the points made” to strengthen your case without repeating everything.
✅ Top tip:
If you feel nervous, just focus on speaking slowly and clearly. Even if you say less, the Inspector will appreciate calm, focused contributions much more than a long, rushed speech.
Response 6
🏛️ What to Expect on the Day:
- Arrival and Signing In
Get there early (20–30 minutes).
There will be a Programme Officer at the entrance table.
→ Sign in, and they’ll show you where to sit.
You’ll probably be sitting around a big rectangle of tables — not like a courtroom, more like a formal meeting room.
- The Inspector’s Introduction
The Planning Inspector will come in and explain how the session will run.
They will remind everyone:
The purpose is to test soundness, not re-run consultation objections.
It is not adversarial — it’s about helping the Inspector.
They may go through the schedule of issues for the day.
- Main Discussion (Matters, Issues, and Questions)
The Inspector usually asks questions based on the agenda (not everyone speaks at once).
Council officers, developers, and residents take turns.
If you are listed to speak, the Inspector will invite you to give your comments when it’s the right topic.
- Your Turn to Speak
When it’s your turn:
Stand or stay seated (depends on the Inspector — they usually say).
Introduce yourself again briefly: (“[Your Name], local resident, Regulation 19 respondent.”)
Give your short 2-minute speech.
If the Inspector asks a follow-up question, stay calm and answer briefly if you can.
- Other Contributions
You might hear developers or council officers defending the plan.
You can raise your hand (politely) if you have a relevant comment, but usually the Inspector will manage when people speak.
- Ending the Session
The Inspector will thank everyone.
They’ll explain what happens next — usually, that they will take away all the evidence, continue their examination, and issue a report later.
🌟 Quick Reminders:
Always address the Inspector, not other people.
Stay calm and respectful — even if someone says something you strongly disagree with.
Your job is simply to help the Inspector understand why the plan is not sound.
Breathe! Short, clear points are far better than trying to say everything at once.
typical questions that me be asked by the inspector:
🧠 Possible Questions + How to Handle Them
- “Can you clarify why you believe the Green Belt release is not justified?”
✅ Stay calm and repeat your key point:
“Yes, Inspector. I believe the Council has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for altering the Green Belt, nor have they fully exhausted brownfield opportunities as required by national policy.”
- “Are you aware of the Council’s evidence on housing need?”
✅ You don’t need to be an expert:
“I am aware that housing need exists, but I am concerned that the response — releasing Green Belt — is not the most appropriate or sustainable option available.”
- “What specific impacts are you most concerned about?”
✅ Focus on your strongest issues:
“Primarily, the environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity, increased flooding risks, and the negative effects on air quality and public health.”
- “Have you identified alternative sites or strategies?”
✅ You are not required to propose alternatives, but if asked, say:
“I believe the Plan should prioritise further brownfield development and higher density urban sites before considering Green Belt release.”
- “Do you believe any modification could make the Plan sound?”
✅ This is a good chance to push for change:
“Yes, Inspector. I believe that removing the Green Belt allocations or significantly reducing the scale of development in sensitive areas, while focusing on brownfield alternatives, could make the Plan more sound.”
- “Do you wish to add anything further?”
✅ Keep it polite and short:
“Thank you, Inspector. I have covered my main concerns and I am happy to assist further if required.”
🌟 Golden Rules If Asked a Question:
Stay calm — take a breath before you answer.
Answer briefly — short, clear answers are best.
If unsure, it’s okay to say:
“I’m not able to comment in detail on that, but my main concern remains [state your concern].”
cheat sheet:
📝 Hearing Day Cheat Sheet
Your Speech, Calm Phrases, Questions, and Checklist
Your 2-Minute Speech (to read aloud)
**”Good morning, Inspector. My name is [Your Name]. I am a local resident and I made representations at the Regulation 19 stage.
I object to the soundness of the Local Plan, particularly the proposed removal of Green Belt land to build 1200 homes.
I believe the Plan is not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy.
Firstly, the Green Belt provides vital protection for biodiversity, wildlife, and the natural ecosystem. Its loss would cause irreversible environmental harm.
Secondly, removing this land would significantly increase the risk of flooding, as natural drainage would be lost.
Thirdly, the development would worsen already serious traffic congestion and further deteriorate local air quality, with negative consequences for public health.
The loss of green spaces will also reduce opportunities for outdoor recreation and negatively impact the physical and mental well-being of residents.
Finally, I do not believe exceptional circumstances have been properly demonstrated, nor has full use been made of available brownfield land before resorting to Green Belt release.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Green Belt release is reconsidered and that more sustainable alternatives are pursued, in line with national policy.”**
Calm Phrases to Use During the Hearing
If interrupted/challenged:
“If I may, Inspector, I’ll just briefly complete my point.”
“I understand. To summarise my concern, it is that…”
“I appreciate the question. My main issue is with the lack of justification for Green Belt release.”
If you don’t know the answer:
“I’m not able to provide that detail now, but my overall concern about the environmental impacts remains.”
“I cannot speak to that specific point, but the principle of protecting Green Belt land is central to my objection.”
If you want to emphasise your main point again:
“In simple terms, I believe the Plan does not meet the test of soundness in this respect.”
“To be clear, my objection relates to the unjustified loss of Green Belt land and its consequences.”
A polite closing if you’re finished speaking:
“Thank you, Inspector. Those are my submissions for now.”
Example Questions You Might Be Asked
“Can you clarify why you believe the Green Belt release is not justified?”
“The Council has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for altering the Green Belt, nor have they fully exhausted brownfield opportunities as required by national policy.”
“Are you aware of the Council’s evidence on housing need?”
“I am aware that housing need exists, but I believe the release of Green Belt land is not the most appropriate or sustainable option.”
“What specific impacts are you most concerned about?”
“Primarily, the environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity, increased flooding risks, and the negative effects on air quality and public health.”
“Have you identified alternative sites or strategies?”
“I believe the Plan should prioritise further brownfield development and higher density urban sites before considering Green Belt release.”
“Do you believe any modification could make the Plan sound?”
“Yes, I believe that removing the Green Belt allocations or significantly reducing the scale of development in sensitive areas, while focusing on brownfield alternatives, could make the Plan more sound.”
“Do you wish to add anything further?”
“Thank you, Inspector. I have covered my main concerns and I am happy to assist further if required.”
Hearing Day Checklist
Your Notes:
Short 2-minute speech
Full Hearing Statement (one-page version)
Extra copies for the Inspector and others
Local Plan Documents:
The part of the Plan you are objecting to
Your original Regulation 19 representation
Inspector’s Matters, Issues, and Questions (MIQs)
Supporting Evidence:
If relevant, bring brief documents (e.g., traffic, flooding, biodiversity evidence — max 1-2 pages)
Basic Supplies:
Pen, notebook
Bottle of water
Highlighter, folder for organisation
Mindset Checklist:
Arrive early (20-30 minutes)
Be calm, polite, and professional
Listen carefully to others and stay focused on your points
Breathe — it’s a meeting, not a debate!
First, to be clear:
Regulation 22 usually refers to the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, specifically when a local plan is being examined.
It means that the council has submitted the plan and supporting documents to the Planning Inspectorate, and now the plan is going through public examination.
The meeting you’re talking about is likely a Hearing Session at a Local Plan Examination.
At the hearing, you don’t just “object” or “support” — you are helping the inspector assess whether the plan is “sound”. “Soundness” means it must be:
Positively prepared
Justified
Effective
Consistent with national policy
How to prepare:
- Understand the scope.
Check the Inspector’s Matters, Issues, and Questions (MIQs). These tell you what the inspector wants to focus on.
Only speak to those questions or policies/issues you have previously commented on (in your Regulation 19 representations).
- Write a short “Hearing Statement.”
These are often requested ahead of the hearing.
They should be short (no new evidence unless allowed) and structured to answer the specific issue/question raised.
Follow this rough structure:
Introduction (who you are, what you are focusing on)
Summary of main points
Detailed points (link to policy soundness or legal compliance)
Conclusion (what change you think is necessary, if any)
- Plan what to say verbally.
Be brief — inspectors prefer clear, direct contributions.
Focus on explaining:
Why you think the plan/policy/issue is (or isn’t) sound
What changes you think are needed
Practice a 2-minute version of your key points.
- Be ready for questions.
The inspector may ask you to clarify or expand briefly.
Always stay calm, focus on the facts and planning arguments.
- Logistics.
Arrive early.
Bring your documents — especially your original representations and the council’s submission documents.
Stay polite and formal — it’s not a public protest or courtroom drama; it’s more like a technical meeting.
Example of what you might say:
“Thank you, Inspector. I’m [Your Name], and I made a Regulation 19 representation on Policy XYZ.
In response to Matter 3, I believe the policy as drafted is not fully justified because the evidence base — particularly the [specific study] — does not sufficiently support the proposed allocations.
I suggest that further assessment is needed, particularly regarding infrastructure impacts.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Policy XYZ be modified to require additional site-specific assessments before development can proceed.”