FaceBook Post from STEP – Click here to goto their posts
Why have 12 of our Labour Councillors pushed for a second vote on the Publication Draft of the South Tyneside Local Plan after it was deemed unsustainable by Full Council in September 2024?
In essence this means this Plan is not considered to be “sound: that is:
– positively prepared
– justified
– effective
– consistent with national policy.
Policy SP8: Fellgate Sustainable Growth Area: Sustainable Urban Growth Area 1 1,200 houses: Land south of Fellgate is allocated as a sustainable urban extension and will be removed from the Green Belt – 1,200 houses (approx). This is neither sustainable nor positively prepared as the case Exceptional or Very Special Circumstances to remove this land from the Green Belt has not been justified.
The provisions of the South Tyneside Green Belt Study of 2023 and the Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances paper of 2024 when compared with the criteria listed in the “Calverton Judgment” mentioned in both these documents, it is very clear that there is sufficient Brownfield land within the Borough to meet the objectively assessed need, particularly as there is evidence from the 2021 Census information that the population has declined consistently over the years.
The Study assesses the harm to the Green Belt that may be caused by deleting each site, both individually and cumulatively. It also refers to compensation in the remaining parts of the Green Belt in respect of any site deleted. To delete more working farms from South Tyneside’s Green Belt cannot be justified, four working farms were removed to accommodate the IAMP site which is close to this site. The area which was semi-rural will be reduced to an urban sprawl. This site must remain to retain some of the character of the area, as well over populating the area.
The Exceptional Circumstances paper does not itself address issues relating to harm to the Green Belt does conclude that, because of the lack of suitable sites not in the Green Belt, ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ have been made out for the deletion of these sites In view of this, it is difficult to challenge the findings of the Study as far as it goes. However, there is one of the issues that it does not cover which can in turn affect whether ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ have been made out.
The essence of the ‘Calverton judgment’ is based on the judgment of the court of Appeal judgment in St Albans City Council v Hunston Properties Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1610. At paragraph 32, Sir David Keene stated:
“Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework, especially paragraph 47. On the figures before her, she was obliged (in the absence of a local plan figure) to find that there was a shortfall in housing land supply. However, decision-makers in her position, faced with their difficult task, have to determine whether very special circumstances have been shown which outweigh the contribution of the site in question to the purposes of the Green Belt. The ultimate decision may well turn on a number of factors, as I have indicated, including the scale of the shortfall but also the context in which that shortfall is to be seen, a context which may include the extent of important planning constraints in the district as a whole. There may be nothing special, and certainly nothing “very special” about a shortfall in a district which has very little undeveloped land outside the Green Belt. But ultimately that is a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.”
Although this case dealt with ‘Very Special’ as opposed to ‘Exceptional Circumstances,’ this was not considered to be an issue in Calverton (paragraph 39). So the mere fact that there is a shortfall of land does not of itself amount to ‘Very Special’ (or ‘Exceptional’) Circumstances and the scale of the shortfall, its context and the importance of the planning constraints are relevant issues according to this judgment.
Green Belt around South Tyneside is relatively narrow and serves the important role of separating the built parts of South Tyneside from Sunderland to the south and, to some extent, Gateshead to the west. But this appears to be just the sort of scenario that existed in the Hunston case so this issue, namely whether in such a case, the shortfall in itself does represent a ‘Very Special’, or ‘Exceptional Circumstance’, is an important consideration that must be addressed. Bearing in mind that there has already been a significant deletion from the Green Belt for the IAMP site, this perhaps increases the need for this to be taken into account when considering this site.
Sunderland, Durham and Gateshead have all used the IIAMP and the new Business Park at Follingsby to increase their housing allocation to cater for growth on the IAMP site so the extra 1,200 houses proposed at Fellgate on Green Belt land are totally unnecessary, especially as IAMP has attracted very little new business and has not delivered the 5,000 new jobs promised by the end of 2023, this site promised a total of 7,000 new jobs, which has not been realised as businesses which supply the automotive industry are relocating to the site rather than new businesses, so cannot be classed as new jobs, so new homes are not needed to accommodate ‘new’ workers wanting to live in the area, as these workers already live in the area. Most of the jobs offered are on the Follingsby Business Park are unskilled and low paid, such as the Amazon warehouse, which will not attract new people to live in the area.
This also amounts to quadruple counting, Sunderland Council for example has 33% above the objectively assessed housing need in their Local Plan so this extra housing proposed is not needed as it is speculative, reflecting the Economic Recovery Plan, which aims to attract new people to live in the borough, this must not be at the expense of Green Belt land which is arable and needed for food production. Boldon has lost too much of its Green Belt land in the last few years, 63 hectares to IAMP, most of which is standing empty. This cannot be considered to be positively prepared in proposing the loss of more Green Belt land particularly when this area is prone to flooding.
This land is currently farmed so it is also in direct conflict with Policy 40 which is concerned with Agricultural land. This policy states:
“Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they avoid the best and most versatile agricultural land (grade 1, 2, 3a).”
Developing this area with over a thousand houses plus infrastructure is in conflict with the following Policies: Policy SP21 Natural Environment; Policy 2 Air Quality and SP25 Infrastructure, so is not positively prepared or justified.
Many people are still unaware which Labour Councillors signed the requisition that sought to call an extraordinary meeting of Borough Council under Council Procedure Rule 3.1.5 and in support of the notice of Motion under Council Procedure Rule 13.2. It includes most of the Cabinet:
Cllr Strike: Labour – Boldon Colliery cllr.alison.strike@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr P. Dean: Labour – Monkton cllr.paul.dean@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Welsh: Labour – Whitburn and Marsden cllr.joyce.welsh@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Dawes: Labour – Whiteleas cllr.ken.dawes@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr J. Taylor: Labour – Simonside and Rekendyke cllr.judith.taylor@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Carter: Labour – Whitburn and Marsden cllr.jane.carter1@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Berkley: Labour- Horsely Hill Cllr.Ruth.Berkley@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Porthouse: Labour – Hebburn North cllr.richard.porthouse@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr McHugh: Labour – Hebburn North cllr.liz.mchugh@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Gibson: Labour – Whiteleas cllr.ernest.gibson@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Meling: Labour – Monkton Cllr.Margaret.Meling@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cllr Foreman: Labour- Cleadon Park cllr.jim.foreman@southtyneside.gov.uk
Are these Councillors acting in the interests of the people who elected and trusted them to be their voice in the Town Hall?
We cannot answer that question as to date we have had no statement from the 12 outlining their reasons for their actions.
STEP wrote to all 12 a few weeks ago, to date we have only had one response.
Is this democracy in Local Government or one Party treating the community with absolute contempt?
Why have 12 Labour Councillors requested a second vote for an unchanged Publication Draft of the South Tyneside Local Plan?
Is this acting in the interests of the community?
One of the issues that many residents raised concerns about, at every stage of this Local Plan, was lack of capacity in the existing sewage system, in particular the Whitburn to Hendon Sewage Treatment Works.
We believe that Whitburn sewage system is not complying with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) and offered evidence to support this belief, which has been ignored. UWWTD is an European Union (EU) directive aimed at protecting the environment and public health from urban and industrial wastewater discharges. Our understanding is that the UWWTD Regulations have not changed, they are the same as when we were part of the EU.
This directive states:
“Failure to comply with the UWWTD means that a country or local authority is not meeting the legal requirements set out in the EU directive, which mandates the collection and proper treatment of urban wastewater before it is discharged into the environment potentially leading to environmental pollution and risks to public health if not addressed, this can include not having adequate collection systems, failing to provide sufficient levels or not monitoring discharge quality properly”
The mention of ‘local authority’ begs the question does this apply to South Tyneside Council?
At the Regulation 19 Consultation STEP made a representation to the Council regarding Policy 10: Disposal of Foul Water and Policy 11: Protecting Water Quality in the Local Plan.
Our representation stated that these policies were not consistent with national policy as Plan does not refer to the current significant level of sewage pollution in South Tyneside.
Population levels have increased considerably in
the UK since Victorian times yet we are still using combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that were constructed in the 19th century. This means clean rainwater and waste water from toilets, bathrooms and kitchens are conveyed in the same pipe to a sewage treatment works. Water companies have permission to discharge CSOs into rivers and coastal waters during heavy rain and snow melt conditions, which should only be a few time a year.
If the Publication Draft of the South Tyneside Local Plan is adopted in its current form more housing development will be permitted, especially on green spaces in Whitburn, Cleadon and East Boldon, which are part of the Whitburn sewage system, more pressure will be exerted on an already failing sewage system.
However, in the consultation on the Draft Local Plan, South Tyneside Council have confirmed that no extra sewage will be added to the existing infrastructure on the recommendations of Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) who have assured them the existing system will cope.
We note that two of the Whitburn Councillors are among the 12 Labour Councillors requesting a second vote on the Plan. In 2024 an unacceptable 944,673 tonnes of untreated sewage was discharged into the North Sea at Whitburn. In 2023 it was over a million tonnes…
Are the 12 Councillors who requested a second vote on the Local Plan acting in the interests of the community?
The housing need in South Tyneside is Band A/social housing in or near the Town Centre.
Yet, the Council propose to build mainly executive homes on the Green Belt.
Policy 18 in the publication draft of the South Tyneside Local Plan which concerns ‘Affordable Housing’ is not justified as
this policy states:
Development of new housing of 10 units or more, or on a site of 0.5ha or more, shall deliver a minimum:
i. 10% affordable homes in South Shields and Jarrow
ii. 15% affordable homes in Hebburn
iii. 20% affordable homes in West Boldon and Boldon Colliery
iv. 25% affordable homes in East Boldon and Whitburn Village
v. 30% affordable homes in Cleadon
Affordable housing is defined as 80% of market value or 20% below the market price.
Affordable Rent or is at least 20% below local market rents, with provision made for it to remain at an affordable price for future households.
Rent and property prices in the villages of Cleadon, East Boldon and Whitburn are well above average, whereas property prices and rent in Hebburn, Jarrow and Shields are either average or below, only 10% in Jarrow and Shields and 15% in Hebburn will be “affordable”. This means that most of the houses proposed in this plan will not be affordable.
This is not justified as it is not an appropriate strategy to pace most of the affordable housing on sites where house prices are well above average.
Is the publication draft of the South Tyneside Local Plan positively prepared in terms of housing numbers and population projections?
Is there a reason why 12 Labour Councillors are pushing for a second vote on the Local plan?
Data from the 2021 Census shows:
Population:
• The population of South Tyneside in 2021 was 147,800 a decrease of 327 from 148,127
• The estimate in the Local Plan for 2021 is 151,936 an overestimate of 4,136.
• The number of dwellings in the borough at 2021 is 68,300 so the average people per house is 2.16
• The overestimate of population is then equivalent to 1,915
Houses:
• The council is releasing Green Belt to build 1,862 houses.
• 1,501 of those houses are in Whitburn, East Boldon and Cleadon
• The population of South Tyneside has not increased in 60 years as the following census date demonstrates:
1961 – 187,123
1971 – 181,584
1981 – 60,369
1991 – 155,881
2001 – 152,770
2011 – 148,127
2021 – 147,800
Yet the projected figure for 2039 = 158,526 a figure not seen since the 1980’s. This makes little sense.
• Current number of houses in South Tyneside 2021 Census = 68,300
• Local Plan wants to build an extra 5,182 houses 2021-2039
• That is more than has been built in the last 30 years (3,837)
• The average built per decade over the last 60 years = 1,435 houses.
This can be seen in the following Census data:
2021 – 68,300
2011 – 67,167
2001 – 66,097
1991 – 64,463
1981 – 59,867
1971 – 61,529
1961 – 59,690
This shows that the Publication draft of the Local Plan is based on inaccurate population projections.
Census data show a consistently falling population in South Tyneside, from 157,200 in 1991, to 152,785 in 2001, to 148,127 in 2011, to 147,800 in 2021.
Yet the Local Plan assumes a population of 151,936 for 2021, an overestimate of 4,136, and that it would continue to increase over the next 20 years.
This Policy in the publication draft of the Local Plan does not reflect the housing need in this borough but does reflect the Council’s Economic Recovery Plan (2021) in which one of the opportunities arising from the post-Covid changes to the economy was identified as, “Potential to attract more residents to the Borough” (page 11).
Is the real reason why the housing need has been over-estimated in the draft Local Plan and is not based on reliable evidence or the objectively assessed needs of the community.
Are we losing our green spaces so that more people can live in the area?
Who will want to live in an urban sprawl which will be gridlocked at rush hour?
Have the 12 Councillors asking for a second vote thought through their request?
Newly filed accounts for the group show pre-tax profits of £6.1m for the period end of March 2023- end of March 2024. An unacceptable 944,673 tonnes of untreated sewage was discharged into the North Sea at Whitburn 2024. Over a million tonnes was discharged in 2023.
In fact this is an ongoing problem:
Over 3.5 MILLION tonnes of untreated sewage discharged into a protected ecosystem (Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA); Northumbria Coast Ramsar Site; and Durham Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in just 6 years:
2016: 624,600 tonnes of untreated sewage were discharged into the sea at Whitburn
2017: 569,221 tonnes
2018: 376,593 tonnes
2019: 760,993 tonnes
2020: 460,339 tonnes
2021: 821,088 tonnes
Furthermore, these figures show that a recent upgrades to the system have not moved the problem. Between end of March 2023- March 2024 there were 90 pumping operations over 32 days. 302,189 tonnes were returned to the system from the interceptor tunnel at Whitburn.
Rainfall for the year was not excessive at 706 mm
There were 6 named storms in the UK between end of March 2023 to end od March 2024, with only two that may have affected the North East wrt rainfall
Needless to say this is further proof that the 2017 remedial work – The Whitburn Spill Reduction Scheme was a failure.
Is this value for money?
Now NWL want to charge more for its services over and above the recommended increase
This article states:
“Northumbrian Water has formally appealed to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to reconsider the bill increase plans, saying the suggested bill increases would not allow it to invest in environmental improvements and investment in the region’s water systems…
The company wants to be able to spend another £160m on maintaining its network, which it says would add another 2-3% onto bills on top of the amount allowed by Ofwat. .It said it was “mindful of any impact on customers in this challenging economic environment”
Why is NWL allowed to pollute our rivers and coastal waters while paying huge dividends to share holders, then ask the regulator to charge us more money to improve the system?