South Tyneside Local Plan
Submitted: Report of the Director of Place Strategy
Councillor Meling, Lead Member for Economic Growth and Transport, presented the report which sought Council approval to submit the Publication draft South Tyneside Local Plan (2024) (hereafter ‘Local Plan’) to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) in order that it is subject to an Examination in Public.
All Local Planning Authorities have a statutory requirement to prepare and maintain an up-to-date development plan for their area. The Publication draft version of the Local Plan is the culmination of a number of consultations which have taken place in the last 10 years, and which have collectively informed the Local Plan in its current form, including consultations undertaken for the ‘Issues and Options’ draft (2013); Growth Options (2015), the Strategic Land Review (2016) and a first Regulation 18 prepublication draft Local Plan consultation in August 2019. In summer 2022, a second consultation was held on a Regulation 18 Draft Plan. The consultation ran between 20th June 2022 to 14th August 2022 with 1887 individual responses were received.
It is considered that the Statutory Consultation stages undertaken in the preparation of this Local Plan consist of the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan consultation (2019 & 2022) and the Regulation 19 Publication draft Local Plan (2024). The documents and supporting evidence from the Regulation 18 (2022) consultation and the Regulation 19 consultation (2024) are considered to be the primary documents and consultation stages in support of this submission.
In October 2023 (updated March 2024), the Council publicised an updated Local Development Scheme (LDS) which set out the Local Plan timeline. On 3 January 2024, Cabinet approved the content of the Publication draft South Tyneside Local Plan: Regulation 19 (2024) for consultation (Appendix A). A statutory consultation took place over a 7-week period from 15 January 2024 until 3 March 2024. Regulation 19 Consultation is focussed on whether or not the Council has fulfilled its duties in terms of Duty to Co-operate, soundness and legal compliance.
The Publication draft South Tyneside Local Plan consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Consultees were notified via letter / email and the consultation was widely publicised via press and social media. The consultation also involved a number of in-person events attended by officers. In total 14 events took place: 9 Information Sessions and attendance at each of the 5 Community Area Forums (CAFs). These events included a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. In response to the consultation a total of 384 representations were received from members of the public, elected members, developers/landowners, neighbourhood forums and statutory consultees. All representations received by the Council in response to the Regulation 19 consultation would be summitted alongside the Local Plan.
In addition to the consultation on the Local Plan itself, consultation was also undertaken on a Fellgate Sustainable Growth Area Supplementary Planning Document Scoping Report where 241 representations were received.
One petition had been received objecting to the Fellgate Sustainable Growth Area. The petition includes 144 ‘duly made’ signatures.
A further petition, ‘Save the Greenbelt – South Fellgate Housing Development’ containing some 2,248 signatures was submitted in May 2024. As the petition was received outside of the Regulation 19 consultation period, it was considered to not be a duly made representation. The main issues raised at Regulation 19 are set out in further detail below and were included in the Statement of Consultation (Regulation 22 (c) Statement)at Appendix C of the report.
The published LDS further set out that, following the Regulation 19 consultation, it was intended that the Local Plan would be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination in summer 2024. This report seeks Council approval to submit the Local Plan to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) for Examination in Public having regard to the timescales set out in the LDS.
Only full Council can give approval for the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination under section 20 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. This is due to restrictions on local authority decision-making contained in the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000.
The report set out details of the key issues raised that were received to the Local Plan consultation as part of duly made representations.
The main considerations given the stage the plan is at, having been subject to the two required statutory consultation periods is essentially, whether or not the plan should be submitted for Examination in Public. Submission in accordance with the LDS would see the plan continue to progress towards adoption and where its weight in decision-making would continue to increase. Alternatively, should the plan not be endorsed for submission there are a number of potential consequences that stem from that, details of which were outlined in the report in relation to the following points.
Housing supply shortfall and delivery failure
Speculative development/proposed allocations
Intervention
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Consultation / Plan making reform
A significant number of Councillors spoke in favour and against the approval of the Local Plan.
The following Councillors spoke in favour of the Local Plan:
Dixon, Foreman, Gibson, McCabe, McHugh, Meling and Smith.
Comments made in favour of the Local Plan:
The Plan provides a strategy which seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs.
A Plan will give the Council the ability to manage effectively future speculative planning applications, if the Council does not have one in place then it would make it harder to protect the sites that are valued.
The Plan will allow for the delivery of appropriate infrastructure including transport, education, health and affordable homes.
The policies contained in the Local Plan seek to ensure that South Tyneside can continue to support economic growth by protecting employment areas, supporting the regeneration of the town centres and protecting green spaces and the most valuable natural and historic environments.
The Plan also seeks to ensure that any development proposed in the Borough will be sustainable, well designed and addresses the infrastructure needs.
The Plan will increase the housing supply in the Borough allowing young people to purchase their own homes and put down roots in our communities.
It will help future employment and opportunities. It will provide employment opportunities which are needed in South Tyneside for future generations.
Future generations will miss out on opportunities if the Plan is not agreed.
When negotiate with people to build, there is a section 106 where the Council receives money to help in the areas where the houses are built. (e.g. money for schools).
The Plan will be revised and reviewed continually.
If Council does not make its own decisions the government inspectors can come in and make the decisions for the Council, the Council would lose some control over plan making and decision making in the Borough. It would be highly likely that there will be more houses included in a Plan produced by the government. The Emerging National Planning Framework Policy is due to be released with a focus on growth. Failure to submit a Plan will see an increase from 306 homes being built in a year to approximately 700, resulting in around 6,000 homes being built in the Borough over 15 years.
It was noted that sites had been identified in the Plan for employment sites.
The Plan aims for 10% to 30% of affordable housing.
Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency had not raised any objections to the plan.
The following Councillors spoke against the Local Plan:
Brenen, Brown, Coombes, Curtis, Davies, Ford, Francis, Guy, Gynn, Hamilton, Harrison, Herbert, Kennedy, Kilgour, McKeown, Owens-Palmer, K Roberts, T Roberts, Robertson, Stonehouse, R Taylor, Thompson and Yare.
Comments made against the Local Plan:
Members were against development on Greenbelt, it was stated that it was essential to protect the local environment.
The Plan fails to protect the Greenbelt.
The grading of Fellgate greenbelt was high in the Plan in 2016 it is now classed as Medium or Low.
In order to develop on Greenbelt the NPPF states that there is a need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, fully evidenced and justified. The Plan and SP8 did not convince the member that this was the case.
At Fellgate the land is Greenbelt, there is farm fields, wildlife and flooding.
There is a petition from residents opposing any development on Fellgate Greenbelt.
There is no social housing planned on Fellgate estate proposed development.
Over half of the suggested development on Greenbelt is sited on Fellgate Greenbelt.
Gateshead Council have objected with regards to the level of understanding which remains in draft form
Who will pay for the infrastructure will it be offset by the offer of affordable homes, who will they be affordable to?
No guarantee of any affordable homes or social housing – open to developers as policy states if viable.
Only 10% of the 5,253 homes to be classed as affordable.
Affordable homes are not that affordable, they are out of reach.
Members were against building on open Greenspaces and the loss of playing fields.
The Plan does not contain any up to date playing pitch strategy.
The Plan does not contain any section 106 highways requirements to support major housing developments.
The Plan will decimate mature trees and bio-diversity. The areas designated for development will be allowed if new trees are planted elsewhere, there is no incentive for developers to incorporate existing mature trees. The wording stated trees should be kept on certain sites, it was felt this needed to change to’ must be kept where possible.’ Trees should be preserved.
Climate emergency should be at the heart of every decision.
A Member asked if the Lead Member could explain why the Local Plan would allow ecological destruction.
In relation to HMOs – states permission to be granted where number of HMO dwellings does not exceed 10% of the total number of properties. It was felt this should be to not exceed 5% of the total number of properties due to the issues in certain areas of the Borough. There are already particular issues in regard to HMOs in the Beacon and Bents ward.
There was a request to explain the scrutiny process Cabinet undertook before endorsing the Plan. Given the substantial engagement from the public at the Regulation 19 stage the lack of adaptation was concerning.
A Member questioned why Lead Members had not addressed the concerns raised in the legally required sustainability appraisal document that an independent consultancy must undertake as part of the process. These concerns include that the need for brown field sites is based on the very highest growth option, which is not based on evidence, the need to build on greenbelt land is due to this choice which questions how robust and deliverable the plan is. It was asked that a reassessment of all brown field sites in the Borough be taken to enable more housing to be placed there in future. It was requested that a Plan be produced that meets the needs of the Borough and does not sacrifice Greenbelt and Greenspaces to allow developers to make greater profits.
Flooding issues in Borough, building on victorian sewage works. Two sewage outlets in the Borough neither of them can cope currently.
Building on Fellgate will most likely cause flooding in other parts of Jarrow.
The amount of Greenbelt under threat had been reduced slightly following consultations on the plan but not enough.
When there was flexibility to negotiate the housing numbers under previous governments this Council did not do so. The figures are inflated and do not reflect the actual population trends. The Member asked why the Cabinet did not challenge the inflated figures when they had the chance.
It was stated that the duty to cooperate requires local planning authorities to work together on strategic matters that cross boundaries from one Council to another. It was questioned whether there had been sufficient cooperation with neighbouring Councils, Sunderland and Gateshead.
Need to make sure the Plan is grounded in reality, this Borough needs the right homes, in the right place at the right price with supporting infrastructure.
The Plan should address real need and support the vulnerable.
Need to take into consideration the residents needs and views.
Nothing in the Plan to mitigate flooding which could be caused by additional homes.
The building of extra homes will increase the numbers of cars in Jarrow and Fellgate, there are already problems in this area and on the A194.
Brinkburn CA is under threat as part of the Local Plan, it serves 40-50 groups a week providing activities, fitness and social events. There are six football pitches on the site regularly used by ten football teams. Sport England has made an official objection and has stipulated that the amenities must be replaced on a like for like basis.
The Local Plan contradicts the Councils Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
The Plan fails to provide the essential infrastructure needed for a healthy thriving community.
Economic challenges in the Plan, the Plan does not contain vital small business units.
If the Plan goes ahead it will significantly affect Cleadon and East Boldon.
The Plan would place a greater stretch on services, on schools, dentists, doctors and hospitals.
A Member asked if the Lead Member could explain how they will engage in the consultation process on a new national approach and how they had defended local decision-making powers or were they content for the government to decide on their behalf.
A named vote was requested and taken. The votes were cast as follows:
For: 23
(Berkley, Carter, Dawes, P Dean, S Dean, Dixon, Ellison, Foreman, Gibson, Keegan, Lamonte, K Maxwell, N Maxwell, McCabe, McHugh, Meling, Porthouse, Proudlock, Smith, Strike, J Taylor, Traynor, Welsh)
Against: 26
(Brenen, Brown, Coombes, Curtis, Davies, Foggon, Ford, Francis, Guy, Gynn, Hamilton, Harrison, Herbert, Kennedy, Kilgour, McKeown, Oliver, Owens-Palmer, K Roberts, T Roberts, Robertson, Stonehouse, R Taylor, Thompson, Wood, Yare)
Abstained: 1 (Councillor Clare)
Resolved:
That approval be refused for the formal submission of the Publication draft South Tyneside Local Plan (Appendix A) and its associated submission documentation to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
Reason for Decision: The majority of members present did not consider that the progression of the Local Plan by submitting it to the Secretary of State would be in the best interests of the residents of the Borough, in view of the nature, detail and substance of the proposals therein.