10:04
Yeah. Right.
13:59
Okay, good morning everybody. It's now 10:00, so it is time for me to open the hearing sessions into the examination of
14:06
the South Tinside uh local plan. Before I proceed with an opening statement, can
14:12
I just check that everybody can hear me and when necessary see me? Okay, that the speaker system's working. Good. Just
14:19
to introduce myself to uh everybody in the room and those who will be watching uh the recordings of these sessions. My
14:26
name is David Spencer. I'm an in uh an inspector appointed under section 20 of
14:31
the planning and compulsory purchase act to carry out the independent examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. Uh
14:39
as everyone will be aware, this is a document that sets out the strategy and policies for meeting and managing the
14:45
burough's development needs over the period to 2040. Uh can I ask at this early stage that
14:51
people please ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their silent settings, please? Uh as I indicated, the
14:58
council are making recordings of these sessions and they will be available to view I think I understand on the
15:04
council's uh website. Does anybody else wish to make their own separate
15:10
recordings of this morning's session?
15:17
No. Okay. Thank you. Uh before I set out uh shortly in a bit more detail how
15:23
these sessions will work, can I please in the first instance turn to the council or somebody from the council I
15:30
think just to uh explain what we need to do in the event if a fire test um goes
15:36
off. please. Yes. Um good good morning everyone. Um we're not
15:42
expecting any of fire alarms this morning. Um so if one does go off um can we please make our way to the nearest
15:47
fire exits which are just on the far side of the room. Um and then if we can make our way to the the far side of the
15:54
car park and await instruction from the the hotel staff at that point. Um just
15:59
toilets are available just um across the corridor outside of this room. And
16:04
please note as well that there are cables on the floor um throughout the room. So please be careful when you are
16:10
moving around just in case nobody trips over those um and dislodges the cables.
16:15
Um also as well just to note that the the hotel operates a parking eye system
16:21
in the car park. So if anybody has parked the car in the car park to make sure that they have entered their
16:27
registration number in the tablet devices at reception. Okay. Thank you.
16:35
So, thank you for that. Um, can I just check within the room? Is there anybody here present from the local press,
16:41
please? Thank you. And can I just ask you to briefly identify yourself for my notes?
17:02
Thank you for that. I mean there is a press table set slightly to the back if you wanted to sit somewhere to take
17:07
notes or whatever if he's fine there. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So most people
17:14
hopefully have either met or spoken to Annette Feny uh who's the program officer dealing with the administration
17:20
and organization of the examination. Annette's sitting uh to my uh left at
17:25
the back of the room. Uh I want to stress that Annette is completely independent that she works for the
17:31
examination and she's your first point of call if you need any assistance regarding
17:36
uh documents queries about the procedures for this examination. Annette
17:42
uh is based here whilst the examinations is sitting. Uh alternatively her contact
17:47
details are on the examination uh website uh if you need to get in touch with her. Now before I set out briefly
17:55
how the examination works. There are a couple of things I want to just pick up at the start of these examination
18:01
hearings uh to reflect the particular circumstances uh as to sort of being in
18:06
the room um today. And I'm going to pick that up in three uh very brief points.
18:13
Firstly, I am aware that there have been full council meetings of South Tinside
18:19
uh Burough Council both in September 2024 and February 25, which resulted in
18:26
a vote not to submit this local plan for its uh examination.
18:31
As such, I do understand that there will be strongly held views that local democracy was not followed or taken into
18:38
account. But I must stress this examination is an opportunity to look
18:44
carefully at the plan and to consider whether it is sound or whether there are
18:49
such fundamental issues with it that it needs to be uh withdrawn or its preparation should not uh sorry it's its
18:56
progress should not uh go forward and an alternative local plan uh be be
19:02
prepared. The second brief point I want to raise is the secretary of state has intervened. This examination is going
19:09
ahead. I have no powers remit to overturn that intervention decision to
19:16
look into the merits or basis of why that intervention took place. I've been
19:21
carried out I've been appointed to carry out an independent examination. That's what I will do. I'll consider the
19:27
evidence and I will prepare my report in due course. What I would do is to encourage those who are particip
19:34
participating at this examination to focus on the strengths of your arguments, the evidence that you have as
19:40
to whether the plan is legally compliant or sound or if it's not, why that should
19:46
be considered uh to be the case. And then thirdly, I'd like to advise everybody attending and speaking at
19:52
these hearings that we should all be afforded courtesy and the ability to be heard. There will be things that are
19:58
said at these hearings that people will profoundly disagree with. Um we've got
20:04
obviously people here today for various sessions who are speaking against the
20:09
plan in terms of the proposed uh green belt alterations. I will be hearing from
20:15
people later in the week who take a view that the council should be going even further and considering other green belt
20:21
releases. So, you were going to hear lots of competing and uh different views, but when people do speak at these
20:28
uh hearings, I hope that they'll be uh treated and afforded respect uh and that
20:35
uh people will have the right to be heard and to have uh have what they ability to say what they wish to say. I
20:42
think if no if there is anybody or any persons who can't afford that or won't
20:47
allow that to happen uh then I'm afraid they'll be asked to leave uh the examination hearings. It is important
20:54
that I can hear what people are saying uh and to take that evidence in. So if people are talking over one another,
21:00
it's not going to help me. You will people sitted around the table who have expressed the right to be heard will be
21:06
given that right to be heard. I will hear from you. Uh and similarly I'm going to hear from the council. uh and
21:12
from others uh in an orderly uh way. I appreciate that sounds a slightly heavy-handed way to sort of start um
21:19
proceedings, but I just wanted to set out those kind of brief ground rules and to sort of hopefully express to people I
21:25
do understand uh that those who are opposed to the plan are concerned about what the plan could mean for them. I
21:32
understand the background to why we are here in this room um today. Uh however,
21:38
this examination is taking place. I will be listening uh I will be asking questions and I will leave this uh venue
21:46
reflect to reflect on what I've read and heard in terms of just very briefly then in
21:51
terms of the examination and how these things work. I've published a set of guidance notes back at the beginning of
21:58
May which explain a bit more about the examination. I've identified a number of
22:03
matters and issues which I want to explore through these hearings. I'll split the hearings into two stages. The
22:10
first stage is going to look at matters of legal compliance, uh the amount of development needed and
22:15
whether exceptional circumstances exist to alter uh the green belt and then the
22:20
proposed sites uh within the green belt uh themselves. The matters and issues I've identified
22:27
have resulted from the many representations that were made on the plan back in January uh to March 2024
22:34
and the evidence produced by the council in support of its plans. Uh these hearing sessions which start
22:41
today will be based on those matters and issues. uh the hearing sessions will also bring in the various written
22:47
statements that people have prepared and submitted uh in June uh of this year
22:52
based on those uh based on those matters. I'm going to be leading the
22:57
discussions based on hearing agendas which I've recently uh released.
23:04
Now the plan was submitted for examination uh back on the 11th of March of this year. Um there have been various
23:12
uh statements of common ground and in response to some of my matters issues and questions the council has identified
23:19
potential modifications or changes um to the plan. It may well transpire as we
23:24
have these further discussions that there are other changes or modifications that need to be made. Uh can I ask the
23:31
council that it keeps a running schedule of kind of potential changes action
23:36
points uh as we go along? I'll also be keeping a record and I'll be liazing through the program officer uh on a
23:44
potential schedule of uh modifications.
23:49
A program for the hearing sessions has been produced and updated with those um participating.
23:56
Uh the stage one hearings will take place over the next two weeks. Uh this week we're looking at some of the more
24:02
strategic as aspects of the plan and then the second week uh we're going to be looking at the uh site proposals in
24:10
further detail including the strategic sites at Felgate.
24:15
I'm mindful that there have been recent changes to the national planning policy framework uh and the methodology for
24:21
calculating housing need but this plan is being examined under what are known
24:26
as transitional arrangements which means that we're looking at consistency against the September 2023 version of
24:34
the national planning policy framework. Now these hearing sessions are being
24:39
held in public. Um and obviously people can observe being in the room or can observe uh
24:46
online. Uh but I must stress that only people sit seated around the table will be able
24:53
to speak and have the right to be heard. Uh and I'll be uh bringing people into
24:58
the discussion uh as we uh go along. Generally the morning sessions will
25:04
start at 9:30. There are a couple of sessions that start at 10:00. So, please look at the program for the kind of the
25:11
variance as to when the days uh begin. The afternoon sessions will start at 2:00. Uh and I'm hoping that the
25:18
afternoon sessions should be finished around about 5:00. But if there are on occasions uh or if there is on occasion
25:26
we need to sit slightly longer to finish a particular discussion point, I will seek to accommodate that. We'll also be
25:33
having uh midm morning and mid-after afternoon breaks around about 10 15 minutes for comfort and I'll indicate
25:40
when those uh will be. Now as I've indicated the hearing
25:47
sessions are hopefully going to be informal uh and respectful discussions focusing on the matters in hand. Now the
25:54
council does have legal representation in Mr. Shadow Rivian. Um, but I want to stress to everybody sitting around the
26:00
table, there'll be no C, you won't be cross-examined. There'll be no direct questioning, uh, Mr. Shadivian's role is
26:07
to assist the council and to assist me, particularly if there are particular points of law that need to be, uh,
26:13
clarified. I will be asking the questions uh, and looking for people to respond uh, to the points that I I raise
26:21
um, to them. I will give everybody an adequate opportunity to speak if they wish to do
26:27
so. Uh if you wish to come in on a particular point as we're having a
26:32
discussion, the convention at these hearings is to upend your name plate
26:38
like so. Uh and then I that will signal to me oh I can see that Mr. Hunter wants
26:43
to come in on a particular point. So I can then sort of bring you in at hopefully uh a convenient part of the
26:50
discussion to kind of make your your point or alternatively I may have a particular question I say Mr. Hunter can
26:57
I ask you about X and it will be your your opportunity to give me your uh your
27:03
thoughts or your your evidence on a on a particular point. I am aware that some participants will not be used to
27:10
participating at local plan uh examinations. Um so I am here obviously to ensure that
27:17
you are able to speak that you can make your points um to me. Um and I would
27:23
like to advise everybody in the room if you've if you're not got a seat at the table but you have made written
27:29
representations say back in that period in early 2024
27:34
that's all before me. Those written statements carry equal weight to whatever to whatever I hear in this room
27:40
over the next couple of weeks. What I would encourage that all contributions
27:45
are reasonably to the point uh and short and in particular identify how the plan
27:52
could be changed to address a particular uh point. So finally I would just like
27:58
to advise everybody I have uh as you can probably tell by my accent I'm not local. There is a there is a purposeful
28:04
reason for that. I have no connections to South Tinside. I'm wholly independent. But I would like to uh
28:10
stress to people I have visited the area. I've been to look at the sites uh that we are discussing over the next
28:16
couple of weeks. I've been around the main urban uh areas of sort of Jarro
28:21
Heburn uh South Shields uh and along the coast and through uh the communities
28:27
including uh Balden where we are um today. So I've seen the area. If there's anything I hear over the next couple of
28:33
weeks and I think right I do need to go back and have a look at that I will do so and it's probably likely to be on on
28:39
an unaccompanied basis but we'll see if I do need to be accompanied uh at any
28:45
point. You were pleased to hear that concludes my opening uh remarks. Can I
28:51
just ask does anybody have any brief questions about how the mechanics of these hearings work?
29:00
No. All clear as mud. Good. Okay.
29:08
It's it's uh it's mainly for the people sitting around the table or anybody who's likely to be joining for any of
29:15
the sort of the future hearing sessions. People outside
29:23
you're not directing those questions to them. I'm not at this stage. I will at the beginning of every session. So I don't
29:29
know who you are or uh your name but at the beginning of every session I will uh
29:35
go through you'll be pleased to hear a shorter introductory kind of uh set of remarks
29:42
uh and again just clarify that people understand or if they want anything understood about how these sessions
29:47
work. We'll go through that at the start of each session.
29:52
Okay there no particular questions in terms of the mechanics of these hearing sessions. kind of just
29:59
sorry.
30:10
Okay. I mean the way these hearings work it's those who've expressed their right to be heard are sitting around the
30:17
table. Um and we are trying to manage the numbers for that. So it's typically
30:24
a seat per per kind of organization or particular body. If you do need to try
30:30
and get something to a particular person, whether you've got the mechanism to do that either electronically for a
30:37
mobile message or provided it's not too distracting. If you want to sit nearer
30:44
to somebody you're affiliated with or you know to kind of relay a piece of paper or a message to them, um that's
30:50
possible. Obviously, as I said, try and ensure mobile phones are switched off, but I know some people do use things like WhatsApp groups or uh messaging to
30:58
kind of get things messages to people on on silent mode. But if there's something that's arisen through the discussion,
31:05
you think, oh, I'm linked to Mr. Lavel and I know I've just quickly go and get
31:11
a message to him, you can do so, providers, I'm not seeing lots of people getting up and wandering around. that's
31:16
going to be too too distracting to me to to follow what's uh what's going on.
31:25
One is [Music]
32:07
Thank you. Uh I'm happy to answer those question. Are you happy to identify yourself, sir?
32:12
Okay.
32:24
Okay. We'll look into that second point. I mean, I've the program has been around
32:31
for some while, Mr. Duffy, and there was a deadline of the 3rd of June
32:37
or 10th of June to express whether you wish that right to be heard. It's
32:42
probably something you need to pick up with the program officer, Mr. Duffy, outside of this particular discussion if
32:48
there are particular sessions you wish to uh participate at. So just going back to the two points you raised for the
32:55
benefit of people in the room as introduced myself. My name is uh David Spencer. I'm an independent planning
33:00
inspector. Uh I work for the planning inspe uh the planning uh inspectorate
33:07
uh which is uh an armslength uh organization body uh reporting to uh the
33:14
secretary of state. In this case it's secretary of state for um uh housing and
33:19
communities. Uh I've been an inspector for a number of years and prior to that uh a uh a
33:27
local plans uh uh officer across various uh local
33:33
authorities. Uh my main work within the planning inspector at Mr. Duffy is the
33:39
examination of uh local plans. You can probably go online and Google me and see that I've been at various plan
33:45
examinations. Uh locally uh I examined North Tinside which was about nine years
33:51
ago, Heartley Poolool which was about uh when was that 2018. So uh I hope I
33:58
can bring a wealth of experience. Uh I think this is now my 17th plan examination. So hopefully I know roughly
34:07
uh what I'm doing. Uh but if I don't it will no doubt be be brought to my uh
34:12
attention. So hopefully Mr. stuffy. That's a just a bit of background as uh who I am. Uh and as I say, I have no uh
34:20
connection to or interests in South Tinside. I'm completely uh impartial. In
34:27
terms of the documentation material that's in front of the examination that should be on the examination website,
34:34
I'm trying to recollect. I've certainly seen a list of the documents that the council's produced. I don't know if that
34:40
was exclusively for my benefit or whether there's a wider list of just kind of an index of all the documents
34:47
um that [Music] uh we ju just for everyone's um benefit
34:54
my name is Paul Shudderevium Casey and I'm acting for the council. Um the um we
35:01
don't have a specific list but of course the website contains all the documentation which is relevant to this
35:07
examination and the production of the plan. Um and our response to MIQs that's the
35:14
inspector's questions identifies those documents upon which we rely to answer
35:20
those questions. But that's without prejudice to our right to refer to other documents as the examination proceeds
35:27
which are already before the examination and on the website.
35:33
Okay.
35:38
Okay. and is
35:48
examination. Okay, this exam all the material M stuffy is on the examination website.
35:56
Uh I'll particularly draw your attention there's uh it's the website is in my view helpfully set up. So there is a a
36:03
section particularly for posts submission posts submission documents and they're prefixed post sub. You'll
36:09
see them through there in in numerical order from one through to around about 20.
36:15
So that will show you the latest um document. So I would refer you to the to the website.
36:27
Okay. Thank you for that. Uh I'd like at this stage please um before we get into
36:34
the first matter for this examination uh for the council if I can turn to the
36:39
council to just briefly introduce themselves. I appreciate Mr. Shadowian you've just done that but you may like
36:45
to do it again and introduce who I'll be hearing from uh particularly today. Thank you.
36:50
Yes sir. Um Paul Shadowian uh Casey acting for the council and to my right
36:56
is Mrs. Lamb. uh if you'd like to introduce yourself too. Um good morning. My name is Deborah
37:02
Lamb. I'm the operations manager for the spatial planner team at South Tinside Council.
37:09
Okay. Thank you. So uh thank you for those who've uh beared with us for those kind
37:16
of introductory remarks. We're now going to move on in terms of the agenda for this morning. I'm now going to deal with the first matter of today. uh this is a
37:24
standard uh matter for uh local plan examinations and where we always start
37:30
from and it's around procedural and legal uh requirements. I've got various
37:35
people seated to my left who wish to be heard on this particular point. I've
37:40
asked the council to introduce themselves. might be helpful for those who will be watching the recordings and
37:47
an opportunity to test microphones if I ask people uh to my left to introduce
37:53
themselves. I understand it's not councelor Ford. No, I'm not councelor Ford. I'm councelor David Herbert from the South
38:00
Tside Green Party. Surely unfortunately councelor Ford is is ill and laid up in
38:05
bed. who have come instead
38:10
green and sorry Dave Green and I represent the Save the
38:16
Felgates uh working group the Save the Felgate Greenville working group and we act on behalf on behalf of many
38:22
residents but we compiled the majority of it in the statements that we're going to present today.
38:30
My name's Brian Hunter. I'm part of also part of the the working group see the
38:35
green bell.
38:42
Good morning. My name is Steve Lavell. I'm the vice chair of Woodburn Neighborhood Forum. I represent the
38:47
1,127 Whitburn residents who voted in favor of a Woodburn plan. and I'm here to uh
38:54
represent the the Woodburn plan and especially notably the sewage policy in the Woodburn plan that 94% of Woodburn
39:01
residents awarded in favor of. Thank you. Thank you for that. So if
39:07
people have have seen my um agenda for this morning's um session, I'm taking
39:13
things slightly out of sequence. And the first issue I wanted to deal with was around uh the consultation that was
39:19
undertaken on the plan. Having read various representations, I understand this is of concern uh particularly to
39:27
the save the felgrate working uh party group and to others who are who are
39:32
linked to uh that group. In terms of uh how the council went about um uh
39:39
consultation, I think just for the the benefit of this examination um
39:45
hearing um my remit or role is really to focus on
39:51
what happened. It's unfortunately we're going to hear a lot of technical jargon over the next uh few weeks. I'm afraid
39:58
planning is just uh just a minefield for uh for for for jargon. But it's the the
40:07
area that I'm particularly focused on is what happened in January to March 2024
40:13
when the plan was the proposed submission plan was published. I appreciate there were consultation
40:18
events before then and in particular the ability of people to make representations on the plan at that
40:26
stage. uh whether those representations uh were received in time and then taken
40:34
into account because ultimately by law I am required to have regard to those representations that were duly made back
40:41
in January uh to March um 2024. It is a publication of the plan at that
40:48
stage. So it's not generally a wider sort of consultation is this is sort of technical um distinction. If I can turn
40:57
to the council in the first instance please and it's my matters and issues question 1.1. I think the council you
41:04
direct me to um uh the various regulations which I've just briefly
41:10
outlined your statement of community involvement in terms of how the council was going to uh consult and engage with
41:17
people and then what's known as the regulation 22 statement. This is on the
41:22
website. this document sub8 in terms of how you looked at the kind of various um
41:29
responses that were received. I think my question to the council is is
41:34
it reasonable for the council to say that when preparing the plan it met the legal requirements enabling uh duly made
41:42
representations to be made. Is it Mrs. Lamb?
41:47
Yes. Um I think the council is confident that the consultation was t undertaken in uh compliance with the regulations
41:55
and with in accordance with the statement of community involvement um that the council produces which sets out
42:01
how consultations are to take place um for the local plan. Um I think the key
42:07
points to to look at in terms of the the statement of community involvement and how the council undertook and acted out
42:13
those points are um the key paragraphs are paragraph 2.8 which sets out that
42:19
the consultation P would be no longer than six weeks of the regulation 22 statement which includes copies of the
42:26
letters and emails which was sent out um to all the relevant stakeholders.
42:32
Paragraph 2.39 um states that the council will endeavor to promote the consultation and get
42:38
people involved through social media, press and through newsletters. Again, um
42:43
appendix G of the regulation 22 statement documents the activity that
42:49
was taking place in terms of social media and press release to raise awareness of the local plan consultation
42:55
during that time. there was an extensive program in terms of um social media
43:02
releases and also other methods to to raise awareness. Um the next point um is again relating
43:10
to paragraph 2.39 which considers the use of face-to-face meetings. Um again
43:16
during regulation 19 there was 14 in-person events which took place um across the the sevenwe consultation
43:22
period. Um those events um included a presentation which was followed by a
43:28
question and answer session which were taking place throughout the burough at different venues and at different times
43:33
to make sure we were a available as possible. Um paragraph 2.4 um sets out how
43:41
documents will be made available. Um so all documents uh were made available on the council's website um throughout the
43:48
consultation period. Um so that's the local plan document itself and the supporting evidence base. Um hard copies
43:55
of the documents were also made available for inspection at the South Shields town hall and Jarro Town Hall as
44:01
well um for for inspection um should anybody wish to see those hard documents as well. Um I think the council is um
44:10
considered that we have undertaken the consultation in accordance with the the the procedures set out and statement of
44:17
community involvement. Um, representations were accepted in in all
44:22
formats as long as they were a duly made representation in terms of there was a a name and address on there. Uh,
44:28
representations were received either through the consultation database, through letter, offer email um, and they
44:35
were accepted and processed as part of the consultation period.
44:41
Are you you able to recall or um maybe point me to at a later stage how many
44:46
duly made representations the council received or accepted during that 7-week
44:53
period? Mrs. Lamb.
45:07
Yes, it's in the the reg 22 statement. I'm just searching for it now.
45:17
So, um, at regulation 19, we received 384 individual representations, um, which
45:24
produced a total of 1,889 comments.
45:34
Thank you. We'll now turn to others. So I'm obviously aware from reading uh the
45:40
various statements and the comments that were made um back on the plan um particularly from Mr. Green and the save
45:48
the fellgate working group but also from um Mr. Hunter and Karen Hunter uh who
45:55
submitted uh statements I think issues regarding particularly online material
46:02
uh and the access um to the website during this critical period uh back in
46:07
early 2024. Uh and that more generally the process to comment was difficult. um that there
46:15
was uh unclear whether alternatives to using the online system
46:20
were likely to be accepted or how you could make comments other than using um the online um portal. And I appreciate
46:27
you provided screenshots of saying that you know the site could could not be or the web the website could not be um
46:34
could not be uh could not be reached. Um in light of those comments, if I turn to
46:42
Mr. green first and others may wish to come in on this. Um, are you saying that there's there were fundamental issues
46:49
throughout the sevenw week period or were there there's major issues? Yeah. And you know, from what I've just heard, I'll
46:55
not give a judy expression for it. But as you say, you know, to me, a lot of it's continuing the way it was then.
47:01
It's lip service, paying attention to the documents that they say that on, you know, manipulating the facts to fit
47:07
their own local plan. uh on some of the the items that Deborah has just picked up on. I'll pick on these first uh there
47:15
was never any hard copies available because I actually went down to the town hall and yeah I did ask for a thousand copies but bear in mind this was on the
47:23
on the morning of a meeting uh where we're going to have residents. Now with our very first get together there was
47:29
150 plus people there. Now there's 43 recommend there was 43 different
47:34
statements you could have made in relation to the local plan. So if 20 people had asked for one for each of
47:40
those statements, uh that would have come to the thousand. But I I went this
47:46
I'm going to make a complete statement soon. Uh but basically I went down to the town hall at the time stated uh I
47:54
the receptionist put us on to Deborah herself and I asked for copies. There
47:59
wasn't any available. I asked if there was any available that I could pick up in Gerald Town Hall. There wasn't any available. Uh I asked for ear copy. Now
48:07
this is you know I believe I got an email which says Deborah I cannot recall it. I wasn't given one uh and they were
48:14
never available. The only time they were available was during the public consultations there was one or two of them and that was it you know and and I
48:22
have got that in email. I have got I have got evidence of that. So why are saying there was hard copies available?
48:28
There never was. So so is this the case Mr. Green you wanted hard copies to kind of have a
48:34
public meeting? Yeah. What what happened was we're having a public meeting on that night. Uh and a lot of people were
48:40
coming forward and saying they cannot get onto the website. They were having problems with it. Uh because South Tate
48:46
Council in our wisdom put two two uh
48:51
two uh there was the local plan one and there was the S the Felgate sustainable uh uh
48:58
green you know. Sorry, I'm getting mixed up with the uh but yeah uh but bas
49:03
basically they were running two consultations at the same time. It was the one on the local plan and it was the
49:09
one on the fellgate sustainable green uh fellgate sustainable just forgive me
49:14
growth area. Yeah, one of our issues was they were both on the have your have your seal link. Uh, and what was
49:20
happening was the residents were coming to and they were saying, you know, were kind of worked out because it was so
49:25
complicated and and many of them uh because we got told on both of the
49:30
consultations that they would be seen by the inspector. I filled the wrong one in. So, the reason I wanted paper copies
49:36
was to sort of go through it with them and, you know, just sit and chat with them. Uh, but the, you know, I have got
49:44
it. There was never any hard any paper hard copies available and also uh
49:50
you know would you rather I went on to my statement now or do you want Deborra to come in on that one?
49:56
It probably helpful if you kind of pick that issue up now and then I'll come back to Mr. Green. I won't I won't let
50:01
that go and there may be others who want to come in on on this particular point as well but I'll give the council an
50:06
opportunity to respond to this issue about access to hard copies of the the
50:11
plan. Yes. So the documents that Mr. Green's referring to are actually response forms
50:17
and not copies of the local plan document itself. So hard copies of the local plan document and essay were made
50:24
available at South Shields Town Hall and Gerald Town Hall as in accordance with the statement of community involvement.
50:30
The documents that Mr. screen requested were paper copies of response forms which we made available on the council
50:36
website to assist um residents and stakeholders in making comments to the
50:42
local plan. So that was a structured word document um which was there as an
50:48
alternative to using the um citizen space um platform for for making
50:53
representations. So just so I'm clear, were there so were
50:58
there paper copies of kind of response forms or was it a case that No, you had to go and look at the online
51:06
form. Yeah, we didn't make paper copies of the response forms available. Um we Mr.
51:12
Green is right that we did have some versions available at the consultation event at the Felgate and we did have copies with us at um other events which
51:20
took place but the priority was to um to really encourage people to make responses online through the the
51:27
consultation platform. Um but like I say we received um many different um
51:33
responses in many different um formats and if they were duly made we we accepted them.
51:39
So, have people emailed directly or wrote to the council,
51:44
they've made their way through? Yes. Um, so in the uh regulation 22
51:49
statement um we've got a breakdown where it says um 78% of um representations
51:55
were submitted via email. Um 19% um were through the digital platform and um just
52:02
under 2% were from hard copy um responses. Can I just pick up a second point that
52:08
Mr. Green raised uh with the council is about this kind of um the in combination
52:15
sort of con or simultaneous con consultation on both the local plan and
52:20
a draft of the Felgate uh sustainable growth area supplementary planning
52:26
document whether that's potentially created some confusion that people may
52:31
have responded to the supplementary planning document thinking they were
52:37
responding to the local plan and whether that's created any issues for the council.
52:42
Uh yes, this point was made to us um early in the consultation period. Um so
52:47
what we did and what is set out in the regulator 22 statement as well is comments that were made to the the
52:54
scorpion report consultation um which were clearly a um comment to the SP8 um
53:01
allocation in the local plan were also included in the with the comments to the
53:06
local plan. So all those comments that were made to the scope report that were relevant were also transferred across
53:12
into the local plan responses as well. So all responses relevant to to SP8 have
53:18
been put forward um in front of you through that process.
53:26
Thank you Mr. Green. I think you wanted to a further statement please. Yeah. Uh I I'll go on the same minute
53:32
this this basically go to the the IT representations that were me because a lot of people on the Felgate estate
53:37
estate you know we're all are now becoming a you know in a state of of
53:43
younger people but a lot of them are people who've lived on the estate for a number of years uh you know you know a
53:49
lot of them you know aren't well they've passed away and younger families are coming on the estate so they could have
53:56
accessed the online uh you know paper copies but a lot the residents were saying they couldn't do it and as
54:02
Deborah says there was a lot of other means available but the fact that there was two consultations running at the
54:08
same time uh there wasn't any paper copies available I I'll come on to the fact that it's to a lot of people would
54:15
have give up you know because they saw it in the format that was online they couldn't understand it as Brian will be
54:21
saying soon you'll explain about the problems that they had in the hubs h there was no way they could go go into
54:27
the hubs you know so I I I'll go into more at that point, you know, when I'm reading the statements. Uh, but but
54:33
basically, I mean, from I I'll start from the very time I first met Deborah
54:38
and Andrew and the planning committee in Headworth Fields. We were told that we did know that this was going to happen
54:44
because we've been informed at reg 18 stage, which I know we can only take it from reggg 19, but were informed on that
54:50
day that we already knew about it. many residents didn't and were questioned that uh we also highlighted the fact
54:58
that and we will come on to this uh that you know when when everything was put on
55:05
the table we also highlighted the flooding issues to to them and a lot of them actually seemed surprised that had
55:11
had flooding issues but we'll come into that later on in the process because there's reports that's you know conflict
55:18
with one another there's a mass load of reports but I will go on to this We basically what we think is well well
55:25
what we know is the whole rec 18 and 19 process was very poorly communicated uh
55:31
and residents didn't know about until you know late December 2023 when it went into the red 19 stage. Uh again what
55:37
we're saying is that you know there was two consultations running at the same time uh which which totally confused
55:44
people. uh while we were at while we were at the meeting uh we did ask the
55:50
question to to the people present and there was I think there was 50 60 people uh you know has any is anybody confused
55:58
and is anybody reluctant to complete complete the the uh forms and 90% of the
56:04
people put their hands up and says you know that they were confused now trying to prove this uh would be difficult but
56:12
the response we got back from the council was that because there was no council representatives present. We
56:18
couldn't prove it. We actually had two Southside counselors present and I believe unless unless I can be put
56:24
right, they've never been asked about it. You know, they've never been asked about it. Uh
56:31
you know what uh so so yeah, many of them had completed the inter incorrect
56:37
ones. Now the link to the draft local plan uh you know because it was never
56:42
available and Brian will talk about this uh we think it's it it does break the equality act which you mentioned in Q12
56:48
I think you know in in the public consultation because it was actually a person sitting in in Murray's club and
56:55
she had a son who was disabled and she she says is is it not available in
57:00
picture format now bear in mind this was a meeting held on February the 27th the
57:05
consultation period finished on the 3rd of March. Uh and it was never, you know,
57:13
it was never available in accessible formats. Uh again, we've already discussed the
57:19
paper copies. There was none. So, you couldn't get the paper copies. Uh and
57:24
there was also missing reports. Uh because what what had happened was and and I have got
57:30
evidence to this as well. for FYIs. Uh basically we we had access reports
57:35
during the consultation period in in the early stages but were then informed that
57:42
they disappeared. They basically disappeared uh and we couldn't work out we had copies but we couldn't work out
57:47
why it was taken off the websites. Now I took this to was initially uh
57:53
disregarded you know you know they were saying you know we couldn't prove it but it was as actually a screenshot where a
58:00
counselor gave us to Mr. Inch uh and it it disproved the fact that they they
58:06
were telling me that they never existed during the consultation period. It turns out, you know, after after a few FOIs
58:12
and taking the complaints procedures stage two, uh that it was all it was
58:19
fiction. The you know, I I'll read that, you know, you've got the evidence there. I believe it's appendix,
58:25
uh appendix 12, you'll have the missing reports. Uh initially, what we're told
58:32
was they were asked about and there were strategic reports. There were the final the fellgate and headworth final annex
58:38
uh January 2018, the final SLR SLR summary 2018, Southside strategic
58:45
housing land available at the Schlaw April 2019 and this the strategic land
58:50
review uh Felgate 2015. Now I I'll read this word for word because uh we do not
58:57
hold the information uh to the exact dates that the links to the documents on the council website were removed or
59:02
which officer requested that removal. We confirm that links to the documents were removed prior to the commencement of
59:08
reggg 18 in June 2022. Now having disproved that we we knew it
59:14
was we knew it would been online. So what we did was we took it further. Uh were explained about the screenshot and
59:23
it turns out that they did know when they were removed. Uh it turns out that the fee the felgate and head final annex
59:30
uh which they said was removed pre June 2022 was removed on the 7th of March
59:35
2024. That was just after the end of the consultation period which meant that we
59:40
couldn't use comparisons when we're going to bring our case to full council. Uh what the what the council put on was
59:47
a user a local plan user friendly one which we call it. The others uh there
59:52
was the finalist on the seventh were removed actually during the concert. They're not owning up any of it. Basically, the the when it says that
59:59
they didn't know who would remove them, uh it was Deborah. Deborah gave the
1:00:04
order to have them removed whenever it was, but we we we stipulate that we we knew they were there during the
1:00:10
consultation period and they disappeared. Now there's also a habitat regulation one which disappeared for a
1:00:16
day or two uh you know which which were queried at the time as well but it was denied both you know when when reporters
1:00:24
went to the shields gazette it was denied by the council I think was councelor Meling uh and it was totally
1:00:30
it was totally fabricated we believe what what they're told but in relation to the number of complaints
1:00:36
uh we were initially told that there wasn't any you know because we knew there was we had people on Facebook they
1:00:42
were going you for a job expression doing their nuts. They were telling what we have complained. We got the very first FOI we
1:00:49
got was read it word for word. There've been zero complaints in relation to accessibility. That was the very first
1:00:55
one we got. They were in total denial. Uh and then when we took it further uh
1:01:01
it turns out that we managed to get it up to 11. Uh you know there was 11 complaints made. Uh there was no records
1:01:08
held on the people who ran up via the telephone, you know. So they've got no records there, which was convenient. Uh
1:01:15
and then it says the number of complaints made directly to staff in the STC hubs was nil. Now Brian will come in
1:01:22
there, you know, because uh there was more. I mean, I appreciate if when Brian's finished if I could come in a
1:01:28
little bit later on. That Okay. Right. Okay. Thanks. Brian, give it. So can I just ask Mr. Green? I will hear
1:01:35
next from Miss Hunton and I think probably come back to the council uh in terms of some of the points that have been raised. I was referred to earlier
1:01:40
that there have been 14 in-person events held during the January to March period
1:01:46
uh 2024 uh to this local plan. Were any of those inerson events held within the
1:01:54
fell gate? I believe there was. I mean deop was right there was two. Yeah, it was two.
1:01:59
Yeah. And it was Yeah, because we we actually attended one. We attended them. Sorry, that's still on. It should be
1:02:05
Yeah, we attended we actually attended one and we couldn't believe what we were hearing about the lack of knowledge of
1:02:11
the Felgate estate, you know, which will come up later on in the consultation, the flooding, the traffic. We couldn't
1:02:16
believe that there was vagueness, you know, it's okay. Well, we'll come on to
1:02:23
uh I mean Felgate will be discussed at various various hearing sessions and in
1:02:29
in a lot more detail next week as well. But um if I can turn then to Mr. Hunter
1:02:34
and I appreciate uh there's further points here I think really around the online accessibility
1:02:41
in the hubs. The only thing is my experience of trying to have my say on the the draft
1:02:47
water pan um I find Southside Council failed to provide computer access in its
1:02:53
hubs for the residents of Southside. uh during the consultation period I
1:02:59
tried many many times to have my say on the draft local plan
1:03:04
on the 29th of February 24th staff at Heaven Library attempted to rectify the
1:03:10
problem um to shut down the system for some time but it didn't have any effect
1:03:16
again on the 3rd of March 24 staff at South Shields library couldn't rectify
1:03:21
the problem because the IT department wasn't open till the Monday but that was after the the closing date. Um,
1:03:29
apparently there was a missing code preventing access to the website. I don't really know what that means, but
1:03:35
uh, if it was missing, I can't understand why it wasn't rectified on the 29th. And
1:03:42
why wasn't the site tested before the consultation period? Um, I wasn't aware
1:03:47
of any hard copies at that time. So, I just continued.
1:03:53
Regarding the plan, I found the plan was extremely difficult to navigate and a complex piece piece of work.
1:04:01
Southside Council said it had to be so to make it robust and fit for purpose, which is fair enough. But with that in
1:04:06
mind, how can you expect the general public who've never been confronted with this kind of legislation to fully
1:04:12
understand it and give an informed opinion? apparently help uh to help South Tain's
1:04:18
council provider accessible versions of key documents, interactive map mapping
1:04:24
facilities and documents accessing via the spatial planning department.
1:04:29
Now to me that only confused the matter more for me personally.
1:04:35
On the 11th though I did manage to get a reply to the draft local plan if it wasn't for the encouragement and
1:04:40
guidance of the family and friends I would have given up. I found this a difficult so difficult and exhausting
1:04:46
process. I was ready to give up on that and
1:04:51
that's all I've got to say on the matter. That's that's thank you for that Mr. I
1:04:56
mean I think it certainly is part of um so I'm mindful I got the statement from Karen Hunter uh in addition to the
1:05:04
representations. So there's screenshots there of you know saying you know the website um
1:05:11
the site can't be reached. Is it your um submission to me that that that was a
1:05:18
persistent issue during the whole six weeks or was it a temporary thing or
1:05:25
what? Oh yes. Initially I would go on to the site um on my own and I just put that
1:05:32
down to my lack of computer knowledge. As the weeks went by as I spoke to
1:05:38
colleagues and friends they said no it should be working because I think some of the people had used the computers at
1:05:45
home but I was using the computers at at the hubs at the libraries and that's where the problem was.
1:05:53
Thank you. and turn to the council and I will come m and I'll come back to you Mr. Green once I've heard from um the
1:06:00
council on a couple of the points that have been raised there. I think from the council's perspective what I'm um keen
1:06:08
to understand is this issue around whether documents were available. I
1:06:13
appreciate documents are updated new versions updated versions
1:06:18
are regularly produced during plan making. So whether there's um uh sort of
1:06:25
a legitimate issue there or whether there is something more fundamental I need to be concerned about about missing
1:06:31
documentation. And then this uh a second issue around
1:06:37
online accessibility and whether there were uh genuine issues during the seven week
1:06:45
period or whether from the council's perspective no the online system was always available during that seven seven
1:06:52
weeks and there were no no issues that prevented people from making representations within that within that
1:06:59
period. Okay. Yes. So starting with um the documents that Mr. Green has referred to
1:07:05
um those documents uh were the strategic land review documents which were first published um in 2018.
1:07:13
Now the those documents were removed initially from the council website in
1:07:19
June 2022 ahead of the the regulation 18 consultation that was taking place as
1:07:26
those documents no longer formed part of the evidence base for that document. So the removal of old evidence-based
1:07:32
documents ahead of a new consultation taking place is not uncommon practice.
1:07:37
It's to make sure that all the the relevant documents are available and avoids confusion in terms of what
1:07:43
documents um residents and stakeholders should be looking at in terms of looking at that document.
1:07:49
So the decision to remove those documents like I said was took place in 2022. However, it came to light during
1:07:55
the consultation period in 2024 that if you you googled um the the Southside
1:08:03
strategic land review the the pages were still live and searchable. So, and this is how that came to our attention during
1:08:10
that time. So the documents were left on the the council website be live and
1:08:15
searchable until after the consultation period ended and then the decision was made to remove them from the web page
1:08:22
totally at that point um like I said because they did not form part of the evidence base for the regulation 19 um
1:08:29
local plan. Now those documents have all been submitted um as part of the the
1:08:34
submission of the local plan as a previous stages um the section of of the
1:08:41
local plan process. So they are available now on the on the council's website and there for for everybody to
1:08:47
access.
1:08:52
Thank you. And the second point around um the kind of continuity of sort of
1:08:59
online access. Yes. So, um as far as councils aware, the um access to the local plan web
1:09:06
pages which held all the documents, the local plan and evidence pages were always available throughout the
1:09:12
consultation period. Now, we are aware of the issues that uh Mr. Hunter has raised and that specifically relates
1:09:19
relates to the um citizen space consultation platform. Um there was an
1:09:24
issue accessing that through only through the library computers at the
1:09:29
community hubs. Now as far as we're aware from our IT
1:09:35
department, they have told us that there was a configuration issue with it. Um and it had something to do with the the
1:09:42
library computers classing the website platform as a being
1:09:48
external and therefore it was restricting access. I say we we this didn't come to our attention until after
1:09:55
the consultation had ended. Um now I know there was um the issue on the 29th
1:10:01
of February, but at the same time as that complaint was sort of raised to us,
1:10:06
there was network issues at the council as well at the same time. So we were
1:10:12
told by our web team at that time that any issues were probably likely to be
1:10:17
down to those wider network issues. So it wasn't made aware to us until after the consultation period. But I have to
1:10:24
say that citizen space has been used by the council on a number of occasions for
1:10:29
public consultation. We use it for regulation 18 and also been used by other council departments for public
1:10:35
consultation and this issue has never been raised um to to any member of the council. So this was say a surprise to
1:10:44
us when this came through. Is there any evidence from the council
1:10:49
of any representations having been made through the citizen space
1:10:55
kind of mechanism or is uh yes so as I I mentioned earlier in
1:11:01
the regulation 22 statement um just under 20% of representations came
1:11:07
through the digital platform
1:11:15
So just when you say digital platform so I think what I'm what I want to understand is whether anybody going to
1:11:23
uh a hub facility within the within the south tinside area could have made
1:11:29
representations via that they didn't have access to a computer at home they could go to a hub
1:11:36
or a library or somewhere and make representations or whether the it
1:11:41
for whatever reason because of configuration issues or whatever it was prevented that from happening.
1:11:48
Yes. So the making access through the digital platform at library on library
1:11:54
computers there would have been an issue in making representations that in that way
1:12:22
Thank you. And from the council's perspective, when I go back to look at the statement of community involvement
1:12:28
and there'll be a a statement of representations procedure, were people encouraged to use
1:12:36
those uh those hubs and that as a way of making repres? Not necessarily the hubs. people were
1:12:42
encouraged to use the digital platform but through the like I said the council website and through the presentations um
1:12:49
and events that we took place we we said that representations could be made in any any form we like I say we've taken
1:12:55
emails letters um any any means of representation it wasn't just the
1:13:01
digital platforms that um repations did not have to purely be made through there
1:13:06
it was just another option to help people make representations but like I
1:13:12
say it was not the only way to do that.
1:13:18
Thank you. Before I will bring in Mr. Green again. So for Mr. Hunter, from your experience and then the frustration
1:13:24
of not being able to use or having issues with the the hub and the the it
1:13:30
did you obviously you've made representations on the plan so you found a way
1:13:35
through. Um did you raise these issues with the council during the six week sevene period? used it with the staff at
1:13:43
Heaven and at South Shields at the word and the Heaven Hub. Um the staff at the
1:13:49
hub could access the website on their computers but not on the public
1:13:55
computers.
1:14:28
M Mr. Green, I think you wanted to come back in on this. Yeah, there's a few things there. Uh I'm
1:14:34
just chatting to Brian there. Says he he did he did, you know, highlight again on the 29th. That was after was after he
1:14:39
came back holidays. Um the third was cuz after we came back. Yeah. because there was a number of
1:14:45
times he actually raised it with the staff uh with it within the hubs and that the response was well it's working
1:14:50
fine on ours. Now I'm not into it. We've got an IT specialy but I'm not into it. So it must have been the in is it the
1:14:56
internet where it was working on on the staff computers but on the on the public computers it never worked throughout the
1:15:02
entirety of the consultation period. Now going on to the the equality act. I mean uh you know me wife and I we've taught
1:15:08
and we've supported it's uh people with uh ASD uh learning disabilities, mental health problems and you know if they
1:15:16
want to go into a hub a lot of them you know have solace from going into the hubs and going on the computers. Now if
1:15:23
they went into the computers during the consultation period to make a representation
1:15:28
uh and they couldn't get on the majority of them in my opinion wouldn't go to the
1:15:34
staff approach them and say have you got a paperback copy or can you fix this for us they w out now as a result of that
1:15:40
what what I put to the council was you know when they finally admitted to which was the I believe it it was early early
1:15:47
May when they finally admitted that there had been a problem uh I put to them you know So up until March the 4th,
1:15:53
an unknown amount of residents wanting to provide responses to the draft local plan uh who did not have personal access
1:16:00
to it within the home were unable to do so in all Southside hubs. Now you know
1:16:05
Deborah says there was I can't remember how many representations were made but to me the amount of people who weren't
1:16:12
able to make a representations is a result of that IT error and it was a convenient one that it just so happened
1:16:18
to be during the local plan in my opinion. uh you know weren't able to
1:16:23
make any representations at So there could have been a lot more representations made, you know, hypothetically uh by people who were
1:16:32
were wanting to get onto the hubs but couldn't as a result of this IT era, you know, and like I say, it was it was deni
1:16:39
denied up until I mean it was denied to the reporters of the Shields Gazette. Uh and they only owned up to it when it
1:16:46
went to stage stage two or three, I can't remember. I put a lot in uh of the complaints process. That's the only time
1:16:51
they owned up to it. And in relation to the uh the reports uh I didn't Google them. We we didn't
1:16:59
Google them. We didn't put those reports into Google. We put it into the South Tide website and we were directed again.
1:17:05
We have a screenshot as evidence that's you know one of the the senior planners
1:17:11
that stated that it was still available. The link was still available at that time on the South Tight College website.
1:17:17
We did not Google it. And luckily as I say the only way we got them was by asking Deborah and uh you know Mr. Inch
1:17:24
to give a give a links but a lot of them were already had because we accessed
1:17:29
them during the consultation period. I mean, why would we why would we access them before the consultation period when
1:17:35
we knew nothing about it anyway? We did it after January the 15th, 2024 and they
1:17:41
disappeared, you know, and again, I I'll go on to it. What it did what it stopped were comparing the old reports which
1:17:47
highlight which will go on in SP SP8 the traffic problems, the flooding problems
1:17:53
uh to the user friendly ones where all of a sudden we go from being flooded to you you've got no flooding and no
1:17:59
surface water. Now again, we'll go into that on SP8, but those reports that were removed, we could have, you know, you
1:18:05
correlated them and we could have had a had a a better argument. I mean, luckily, we did have the copies, but the
1:18:12
council removed them. Yeah,
1:18:18
thank you. I I will follow up on the issue of of documents because it's also been raised by other people. But before
1:18:25
I just move away from the issue of the ability to make duly made
1:18:31
representations, as I say, I'll look back carefully over the statement uh uh
1:18:37
of representations procedure and come to a view around how significant this issue around hub uh
1:18:45
accessibility has been within the wider uh ability of people to make
1:18:50
representations. Bearing in mind how many uh comments are before me, is there anything final that the council wants to
1:18:58
say around the consultation process that isn't already within your matter
1:19:05
one statement? Don't think there's anything else we can add objectively. Uh when it comes to
1:19:12
user experience, we have the evidence before the examination. Um um but the the key issue is whether
1:19:20
or not in fact flat hub experience has actually affected people's
1:19:25
has actually prejudiced any anyone in particular of which there is no particular evidence before this
1:19:31
examination. In other words, people have been able to make representations by a number of means.
1:19:38
I one of the points that's been raised is I think by Mr. Hunter and others. I
1:19:43
mean, it's a general point. I get this a number of plan examinations and issue referred to a moment ago around planning
1:19:50
is jargonistic. It is very difficult if you're not dealing with it on a
1:19:56
day-to-day basis to kind of I'm afraid like a lot of um
1:20:02
uh professions, we unfortunately slip into our own language shortorthhand. It
1:20:08
makes sense to us as planners, but I can understand. And from the outside, people
1:20:13
who don't deal with this on a day-to-day basis, you're probably thinking, "What on earth is going on? What's what's uh
1:20:18
what does this all mean?" As part sort of emphasized at the start, obviously this is a uh a publication of
1:20:25
a plan. It's not at this stage a widespread consultation.
1:20:31
Was it from the council's perspective? Were there any kind of measures or
1:20:36
efforts you took as part of the drop in sessions or other opportunities to kind
1:20:42
of help people navigate what understandably is a a very tech can be a
1:20:49
very technical uh process with numerous documents and other other things going on.
1:20:56
Yes, of course. Um so during the the the the consultation events themselves obviously we made efforts to we to
1:21:02
explain the process explain what the plan was what the plan was intended to do how the consultation process works
1:21:10
specifically around regulation 19 where there's specific points that need to be addressed in terms of representations
1:21:16
which are made. Um we set out how to to make um representations and obviously
1:21:23
the council officers were there to to answer questions um for after those presentation sessions um on at at those
1:21:31
events but also you know we were there to to respond to emails and queries throughout the whole consultation
1:21:37
process. Um I think also if you know appendix H of the regulation 22
1:21:42
statement um there is a regulation 19 represent representation guidance um
1:21:48
note that we produced which sets out again some more detail about how to um
1:21:54
submit a a representation to the regulation 19 local plan. It provides
1:21:59
links to the digital platform but also quite clearly states that we would accept other forms of representations as
1:22:06
well. again as long as they were duly made so had personal details etc. Um we also produced FAQs as well um
1:22:16
which are on the website. Um so there were efforts made by the council try and make this um as straightforward as
1:22:23
possible. Appreciate the local plan is a technical document and the evidence base
1:22:28
behind that also is technical as well. So but I think we did make efforts to
1:22:34
try and make that as user friendly as possible.
1:22:39
I do want to pick up the issue raised by Mr. Green um on documents. Is there
1:22:45
anything from the just the general approach to consultation Mr. Green or before I move on to documents in
1:22:50
particular and access to documents? No, just highlighting the fact that they did disappear during the you know ju
1:22:56
during or just after the the consultation periods but there's just you know
1:23:02
I'm astounded that you know the the QC there King's Council
1:23:08
has stated that how how can you he's made an assumption that it didn't affect the amount of representations you know
1:23:14
on the other spectrum you know how many could have have affected you know so so it's it's got to balance up and you know
1:23:21
as I say there'll be a lot of people went into them hubs and you know weren't able to access it now again going back
1:23:28
to what Deborah was saying uh how to submit it you know if you go back to the slides I don't think the slides ever
1:23:33
mentioned I don't know if I don't even know whether it's actually mentioned during the presentation paperback copies
1:23:39
uh you know I mean I know there was one or two available there but uh one of the
1:23:44
ways that you directed people to submit it the representations was it it's widely available in the hubs and the
1:23:52
point I'm trying to make is it wasn't it was never available so the council you know it's a complex lo local plan
1:23:58
there's two consultations running at the same time people aren't very IT literate so they would have went into the hubs
1:24:04
and maybe asked the staff what the problem was as Brian did and he thought it was him and they didn't stand a
1:24:10
chance, you know, and they made the assumption that it didn't affect the representations. I think I don't I don't
1:24:15
that's correct because you kind of determine how many it did or did not affect,
1:24:20
you know, and I know that works both ways, but yeah,
1:24:26
thank you. And I understand the point that's been made, so I'm going to go away and uh reflect on that um further
1:24:33
based on what I've heard this this morning. In terms of the issue around
1:24:39
documentation and documents being um available um Mr. Green is not alone. I
1:24:46
think others have also similarly made statements and representations around you the extent to which documents were
1:24:52
available. Uh I hope I'm pronouncing their name correctly. Is it Jean Eert?
1:24:59
uh has made various kind of submissions again around availability of documents during this uh January to March um
1:25:08
process uh and the issue of documents then subsequently becoming available after um uh the publication uh of the
1:25:18
plan back in that January January March uh period. I think uh her issue is
1:25:24
really around the open space uh evidence which we'll come on to in other other sessions. I think we will give the
1:25:31
council we've talked about the timing of documents and appreciating
1:25:37
evidence bases a moving feast and it is u being updated but in terms of just the
1:25:44
general point about when documents were available and a conclude can a
1:25:49
conclusion reasonably be reached that the time the plan was published
1:25:54
all relevant material that informed the prepation of
1:26:00
that version of the plan was also available and sat alongside that consultation if people did want to go in
1:26:06
and look at a specific technical area.
1:26:12
Yes. So um when the lot plan was published um for for consultation all
1:26:18
the technical documents that we had available at that time were also made available on the website um to alongside
1:26:24
that um I think the document that is referred to in the hearing statements is
1:26:29
the plane pitch strategy um which um had not been finalized by the time the
1:26:34
regulation 19 um consultation had began. Um so the plit strategy um we began
1:26:42
updating that um in 2022. Um so obviously the first stages of
1:26:48
undertaking a planet strategy are the assessments. So they were taken they took place first um during 2022 and
1:26:55
spring 2023. Um there were delays in terms of um
1:27:01
receiving comments from stakeholders um which meant that the subsequent
1:27:07
strategy document which sat alongside that was not available and was not signed off in time for the regulation 19
1:27:14
consultation taking place. However, the the there were advanced
1:27:19
drafts of the document available to the council which helped us inform the local
1:27:25
plan preparation as far as we could at that point. Um the plan strategy was um
1:27:32
finally signed off later in 2024. Again that was after the consultation period
1:27:37
had ended and therefore the document was made available publicly as part of the submission documents when the plan was
1:27:44
submitted um in March. Thank you. So for those who've got a
1:27:50
particular interest in the playing pitch provision and open space uh provision within the burough
1:27:58
um they may have made representations but it'll have been it will be through this examination process that they'll be
1:28:04
able to um comment further or make further statements on on that uh that
1:28:11
material. Okay.
1:28:25
So even if the council had submitted on the original timeline of September last year, it would have been a case that the
1:28:31
plane pitch strategy would still have followed and would still have fed into the examination um process.
1:28:38
Okay.
1:28:46
going to shortly take um a midm morning break. Are there any final points people wish to raise on the consultation that
1:28:53
was undertaken? Mr. Could I just raise the fact that you know Deborah's mentioned the data consultation uh the
1:29:00
database the the local plan consultation database were questions you know how
1:29:06
many notifications were actually made between January I believe it was January
1:29:11
27th when the council indicated that they were going to extend the the consultation period for you know another
1:29:18
week uh between then and I think it was about a year later uh how many
1:29:24
representations how you know how much information was actually put onto this database by the council and there wasn't
1:29:31
any you know so I mean the local plan had been rejected in September and Deborah put put us right on this the
1:29:38
only one that was ever made prior to the the local plan going to examination in public to my knowledge I mean there
1:29:44
might have been some beforehand uh was one and that was on January the 27th 2024 now there was nothing on that
1:29:51
database as far as you know I'm aware between then and right up to when this
1:29:56
this local plan went to public examination, you know, and Deborah might be able to put us right on that. It
1:30:01
might have been just prior to that, but to my knowledge and they they'll be able to come up with the data. Uh there
1:30:07
wasn't any put on, you know, so there was no it was useless was useless.
1:30:13
Okay. I think as set out this the start of this this meet this this this session today. um and understand the background
1:30:20
to this um and the timing that's uh resulted in why we're sitting in this
1:30:26
room today. So, I'll give the council an opportunity to respond, but I'm not I'm
1:30:31
not surprised that there's kind of been a lag between people being notified early in 2024 about the proposed plan
1:30:38
and then subsequently the period of time that's elapsed before being notified about this examination
1:30:45
uh process starting. Um just so I gonna be clear from the council's perspective
1:30:51
in terms of when you went out to the regulation 19 plan the proposed submission plan in January 20 24
1:31:00
I think you said at the start Mrs. Mrs. them that you know the council notified everybody that was kind of on its
1:31:05
database. Um this might be a bit of an unfair question. I mean just general scale of that database where kind of
1:31:13
people how do you kind of picked up people to be on that database to then notify them about about the plan?
1:31:20
Yes. So um people are on the consultation database if they've made uh previous representations to the plan. So
1:31:26
regulation 18 or if they've requested to be added to the consultation database to be kept informed of the local plan
1:31:32
process. Um so when uh the regulation 19 consultation took place um we actually
1:31:38
sent out I do have this.
1:31:45
It is in the the reg 22 statement. Um there was a total of 1,34
1:31:51
letters were sent out and 2,788 emails were sent out um across that
1:31:57
database.
1:32:04
Thank you. And presumably there's also a role for individual counselors in their area to leers with communities on the
1:32:12
local plan and other matters in terms of getting the word out that there's a consultation
1:32:19
or Yes. So uh as well as the um the the specific local plan consultation events,
1:32:25
there was also presentations taken to community area forums which take place across the burough as well which um
1:32:32
members do attend. Um so the presentation that was given at the the specific local planet vends but also
1:32:39
given at those um those meetings as well.
1:32:45
Thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to take a midm morning break now uh for around about 15 minutes. So um by the
1:32:53
power of Microsoft it's telling me it's 20 11. So if people can be please back
1:32:59
in this room uh if you're staying for the rest of this morning's session at 25
1:33:04
to 12 and then we'll resume the discussion and I'll be moving on to duty to cooperate. Thank you.
1:50:26
It's gone 25 to 12. So I'd like to resume please if people can come back to the table.
1:50:37
Thank you. And as indicated before we took that midm morning ajournment. I want to now move on in terms of the
1:50:42
agenda uh to the issue of the duty to cooperate which is item three on my
1:50:47
agenda. Um, in terms of just briefly setting the
1:50:52
context for this, this is a uh separate but nonetheless important legal requirement for plan preparation
1:51:00
in terms of whether there's been sort of ongoing constructive and effective dialogue with uh various bodies who are
1:51:08
identified under the duty to cooperate particularly in relation to neighboring authorities. uh and we'll probably have
1:51:15
some brief overlap in terms of this discussion. This what we'll then be picking up under matter four on green
1:51:22
belt in terms of the uh degree to which the council looked to others uh in terms
1:51:28
of meeting housing need uh and employment need before looking at um the green belt. But under the wider uh
1:51:35
umbrella of the legal um duty uh to cooperate as people will have seen the
1:51:41
council has submitted a duty to cooperate statements. There are various statements of common ground with uh
1:51:48
various uh duty to cooperate bodies. But um
1:51:54
my first sort of question u to the council uh picking up my uh MIQs is
1:52:01
whether South Tinside should have taken a more proactive uh approach
1:52:06
particularly on the matter of housing needs uh and engaged more extensively
1:52:11
with neighboring authorities in terms of their capacity or uh ability to exist. I
1:52:18
think none of the neighboring authorities now are saying to South Tinside, you've not met the duty. Um,
1:52:24
but I wonder if the council would like to kind of pick up the point that maybe it could have tried harder or pushed
1:52:30
harder with its its neighbors uh in terms of trying to meet um those
1:52:36
particular uh needs in terms of I don't know the frequency of which you've kind of met with your your neighboring
1:52:42
authorities and the degree to which you've kind of discussed some of these uh potential crossboundary uh matters.
1:52:49
Please, I'm going to ask Mr. Clifford to introduce himself and to address that
1:52:54
question initially.
1:53:02
My name is Matt Clifford and I led on the duty to corporate statement.
1:53:08
So I think the first thing to point out is that as said set out in the duty to corporate statement once it became clear
1:53:15
that the council would not be able to meet its objectively assessed need for
1:53:20
housing without the alteration of green belt boundaries. The council wrote to neighboring
1:53:26
authorities in May 2018 asking whether they would be able to assist in meeting housing needs.
1:53:34
May 2022, the council wrote again to neighboring authorities asking whether they would be able to assist in meeting
1:53:40
housing andor economic development needs.
1:53:46
And appendices 1 to five of the duty corporate statement set out
1:53:52
the responses from Gates Heads, Sunderland, North Tinside Councils over the period 2018
1:54:00
to 2022. And the information is also set out
1:54:05
comprehensively in an addendum to the duty to cooperate statement.
1:54:11
All the responses from each council state they will not be able to assist in meeting Southside's development needs.
1:54:20
The council has also signed statements of common ground with Gates Head,
1:54:25
Sunderland, North Tinside and Newcastle councils
1:54:31
in each of which the council states that they will not be able to assist in
1:54:37
meeting South China's development needs. So we've, you know, written to the
1:54:43
authorities concerned. Um they've responded um by stating they they cannot assist.
1:54:52
There have also been informal discussions. Um
1:54:58
and there's various forums such as heads of planning and so forth whereby
1:55:05
um if an authority was in a position to assist they could in indicate that.
1:55:16
Thank you. And in terms of some of the representations, some there's a a perception or a view in particular that
1:55:24
Sunderland could have assisted. I think a kind of a view that there's I think in various
1:55:29
representations, you know, there's plenty of brownfield land or previously developed land in Sunderland. Why why
1:55:35
couldn't Sunderland have assisted um the process? I appreciate you're not
1:55:41
Sunderland Council, but as you say, Mr. if nonetheless they've entered into a statement of common ground to say that
1:55:47
they they can't assist. Is that correct? That is correct. Um we've written I
1:55:53
think at least twice to Sunderland. So we've at least two formal responses from Sunderland and there've also been
1:56:00
informal discussions framework and the new standard method their own housing
1:56:06
requirements is increased quite considerably. Um, so I don't think it's realistic that
1:56:12
Sland could contribute to meeting South Tid's need.
1:56:29
But as far as their Brownfield resource is concerned, I I I assume that they've taken that into consideration in terms
1:56:35
of their responses. Thank you. And and just to assist uh me
1:56:43
and sort of my sort of geography, I appreciate the duty to cooperate statement has a helpful kind of map in
1:56:48
it that kind of shows South China side in relation to neighboring authorities. But in terms of those authorities
1:56:56
um that immediately adjoin um South Tinside are they all in a similar
1:57:02
position to South Tinside where it's a case of it's either built existing urban
1:57:09
area built up area and green belt are they similarly constrained?
1:57:16
Uh certainly Sunderland and um Gates Head are similarly constrained.
1:57:23
Um I'm not familiar with the green belt situation in North Tinside and and
1:57:29
Newcastle.
1:57:49
Thank you. If I can turn to others. So, uh I appreciate the South Tinside Green
1:57:54
Party made go back to your original representations. Councelor Herbert. I
1:58:01
think your party has the view that more more could have been done in terms of liazing with uh neighboring authorities
1:58:09
mentioned Sunderland in particular in terms of meeting some of Southid's
1:58:15
development requirements. That's true. Um,
1:58:20
I appreciate it's difficult when other local authorities just give a blank refusal, but I think the re reasons for
1:58:27
that should be pro why should be asking more detail about their
1:58:32
situation. Uh, you're right about planning and being a very difficult subject to as a
1:58:39
lay person to get your head around. So I've looked at the uh sort of guidance you can get from the government uh and
1:58:45
the guidance to plan making is in there. Uh it says strategic policy making
1:58:51
authorities are required to cooperate with each other. So that seemed a very own honorous duty to cooperate
1:59:00
and the national policy form the national planning policy framework NPF I'll refer
1:59:08
to what that is later sets out that these authorities should produce maintain update one or more statements
1:59:14
of common ground and it gives various criteria that they expect to see in a
1:59:20
statement of common ground. One of those is the key strategic matters being addressed by the statement. For example,
1:59:27
meeting the housing needs of the area. You mentioned air quality, but I would sort of add on uh industry, wastewater,
1:59:35
transport, health provision, the green belt. There's been other areas that should be contained within such a
1:59:41
statement.
1:59:51
A lot of those areas were not addressed in the area of common ground statement.
2:00:03
And look further on the guidance says inspectors will expect to see that that strategic policym authorities have
2:00:09
addressed key strategic matters through effective joint working and not deferred them to subsequent plan updates.
2:00:17
where strategic policym authority claims it has reasonable reasonably done all
2:00:22
that it can to deal with matters but has been unable to secure the cooperation necessary. For example, if another
2:00:28
authority will not cooperate or agreements cannot be reached, they should not prevent the authority from
2:00:34
sub submitting a plan for examination. However, the authority will need to submit comprehensive robust evidence of
2:00:42
the efforts that is made to cooperate and any outcomes achieved. Now I think citing a couple of letters
2:00:50
and blank refusals is not robust and comprehensive information
2:00:55
uh to justify not pursuing it further.
2:01:02
Looking at the statements it's more of a consultation than a statement of common
2:01:07
strategy.
2:01:13
goes on to say where the comprehensive and robust evidences effort has made to cooperate.
2:01:18
So looking at Sen City Council in particular as you've mentioned uh they have in their 2020 uh local plan
2:01:27
identified that they can
2:01:32
now this is despite when you look at the ONS projections for housing requirement uh they can produce in excess of 10,000
2:01:40
houses above that requirement. You've also got a a city where the
2:01:45
population has fallen recently and it's projected to only to rise by only to
2:01:50
rise by one or 2% in the coming years. So looking at the the population growth
2:01:57
as well, they seem to have a lot of houses that go beyond what they really
2:02:03
need given those predictions.
2:02:14
So it would have been better for at the outset to have had a joint strategic housing market assessment
2:02:22
schar as I think they call it. Uh in the
2:02:27
in the guidance it advises that housing needs should be assessed on a housing
2:02:32
market area. So that implies that several authorities would be whether interlin such as Sunland and South
2:02:38
Shields in many areas. So in most cases that would will cover
2:02:44
more than one local planning of area. Even if your neighbors within the schma
2:02:49
are unable or unwilling to work jointly on developing the evidence base, your housing need should still be based on
2:02:55
that strategic geography. So it seems to imply that South China side could have
2:03:01
done a schma for the the region or the neighboring authorities as well to
2:03:06
justify what they're doing and surely Sun City Council would have
2:03:13
been involved in this this schma as due to it close proximity shared
2:03:19
employment leisure links a joint sewage system
2:03:24
close trans close transport links. They've got a merge hospital service.
2:03:31
The two hospitals of South Tinside and Sunland on merged
2:03:36
uh and it's an interplay between the both on a frequent basis. I live on the
2:03:42
main road between the two and I can attest that by a number of blue light ammes that go past my house.
2:03:53
They also share a common green belt boundaries which come into play in South
2:03:58
Tai's local plan particularly in town and farm clean
2:04:04
village as well.
2:04:09
Gates said similarly join South Tside along the Ty corridor
2:04:15
and they stated in their response to the request from South Taiser that they had
2:04:21
supply surplus land supply is equivalent to 1,746 dwellings.
2:04:27
So how they can say they can't help and that wouldn't be further probed by South China side I don't know that's uh sort
2:04:36
of five times what south's yearly coin would be
2:04:43
300 a year.
2:04:54
So I would attest that the lack of a schma covering the the local authorities
2:05:00
has failed to provide the information that would be necessary to try and persuade these local governments
2:05:07
neighboring to cooperate and as I said earlier said it's a requirement was this
2:05:13
pointed out to them that is a requirement under the government guidance. So we looked at uh planning
2:05:20
advisory service guidance on local plans and they talk about being robust,
2:05:26
determined and dogged in trying to get that cooperation because it's vital if you're
2:05:32
going to have uh a strategic planning system
2:05:38
that is meaningful and can only uh be done with a collaboration
2:05:44
of linking authority.
2:05:50
Good. Thank you. Thank you. I'll hear from others and then I'll come back to to the council.
2:05:57
So I think Mr. Green as well. I think you've raised comments as well under the duty to
2:06:03
cooperate and yeah I I just feel that you know that there
2:06:09
is a lot of except out going into the green belts. uh and I I I believe that's
2:06:16
you know the duty to cooperate with Sunland and North Tai councils uh hasn't been fully fully looked into uh because
2:06:23
I have the responses from each of the council states in uh post sub9 that
2:06:28
they'll be able to assist comprehensively in meeting southside development needs sorry they'll not be able to assist but if that's looked into
2:06:34
further I think maybe that there is a possibility is the areas are available within without infringing on the green
2:06:41
belt I'll I'll come back. Yeah. Yeah.
2:06:48
Okay. Thank you. So, if I come back to the council, please. Um Mr. Clifford is
2:06:54
going to assist on this. So again, it's the submission that the council again should
2:07:01
have pushed harder, particularly with Sunderland and the this the sort of the
2:07:08
points have been raised to me that there's potentially strong kind of commonalities between South Tinside and
2:07:15
Sunderland in particular that may have warranted either joint evidence base.
2:07:22
uh I don't think M councelor Herbert talked about joint plan preparation necessarily
2:07:27
but there are a number of kind of crossboundary issues uh which he feels
2:07:33
were not either picked up in the statement of common ground or sufficiently kind of I think in his
2:07:39
words probed by South Tinside in terms of what Sunderland um was telling you. I
2:07:45
appreciate statements of common ground are part of the evidence jigsaw, but
2:07:51
presumably there are other things going on outside of that statement of common ground process.
2:07:56
Yes. Well, can I firstly just pick up the point about the statements of common ground and their content? I would just
2:08:04
point out that um they covered the key strategic matters between each
2:08:11
authority. I would also point out that we're not reliant upon them in terms of
2:08:16
demonstrating the duty to cooperate. In the duty to cooperate statement,
2:08:22
um there's a section the duty with each authority. There's also schedule the meetings.
2:08:28
So there's quite a lot of evidence as to the extent of duty to cooperate liaison
2:08:36
in terms of joint working with Sunland. Uh the councelor quite rightly pointed
2:08:42
out we've got a cross uh we've got the town end farm allocation which is right
2:08:48
on the boundary. Uh we have had several meetings with Sunland to discuss cross
2:08:54
boundary issues in relation to that such as um planning for school places and so
2:09:00
forth. And in terms of strategic housing market assessment, I didn't lead on that for
2:09:07
the council, so I'm not overly familiar with it, but my understanding is that
2:09:13
there was an element of um the consultants who worked on it who were
2:09:18
ARK 4 uh they did do an element of sort of cross boundary working of looking at
2:09:25
uh the wider market in relation to Sunderland.
2:09:31
Just pausing just just pausing there. So if you go to the duty to cooperate
2:09:38
statement and um go to paragraph 2.7
2:09:45
uh under the subtitle housing that's that's a fair summary of the various
2:09:51
consultants conclusions on the various
2:09:57
um housing market areas which exist
2:10:03
And uh although one when one looks at the the the helpful plan which shows the
2:10:08
juosition of the authorities one would be quite surprised in reading
2:10:14
2.7 as to the self-containment of the various areas in terms of the
2:10:21
market housing areas. And uh so uh for those who've not had
2:10:28
the opportunity uh to read it or would like to know what it says very briefly
2:10:34
um the various schmars concluded that South Tinside is an appropriate market
2:10:41
area uh for local plan policy making. Sunderland uh can be considered to
2:10:48
represent an appropriate housing market area. So again a discrete one albeit there is some overlap. County Durham um
2:10:55
is an appropriate housing market area. Gates Head and Newcastle share a housing
2:11:01
market area. Uh and Newcastle is also part of a housing market area with North
2:11:07
Tinesside. And North Tinside is part of a wider housing market area that
2:11:12
includes Newcastle and Northland. And North umberland can be described as a
2:11:17
largely self-contained housing market area. So those are the the market area
2:11:23
dynamics.
2:11:29
Thank you. Yes, I would uh reinforce that and I
2:11:34
would I would also reiterate what I said earlier which is um
2:11:41
we have the various duty cooperate mechanisms.
2:11:46
Um and Sunland have indicated very clearly
2:11:54
that they are not in a position to assist and we have to assume that they are familiar
2:12:00
with their own situation in in coming to that view. They're professional planners. we have to assume that they
2:12:08
know um their own area better than than anybody else and that they're able to
2:12:14
express an informed opinion. And in terms of sort of the various um
2:12:22
mechanisms and ways in which kind of cooperation can occur in in um this part
2:12:28
of the world, there's obviously individual meetings, authority to authority. I think Mr. Clifford you
2:12:33
referred to there's obviously wider groups where planners from constituent
2:12:40
authorities get together on a regular basis. Is there anything else
2:12:47
going on on a on a wider um I'll call it a subreional basis as
2:12:54
that's the direction of travel we're we're going in in terms of either
2:13:00
the sort of wider bodies Yes, there are wider bodies which deal
2:13:07
with cooperation such as the uh local enterprise partnership.
2:13:12
Um you've got the northeast combined authority so forth. Um
2:13:18
there's various working groups um that deal with different issues such
2:13:23
as aggregates working um and then there's general planning and
2:13:29
policy working groups. Um so these are groups which deal with a
2:13:36
whole range of planning matters.
2:13:48
Thank you. I mean, we'll look at how we're obviously looking at housing need um tomorrow and I probably come back to
2:13:54
the issue of the appropriateness of South Tinside as a uh as a housing uh
2:14:00
market area. Um, one of the issues that, um, councelor
2:14:08
Herbert referred to on a sort of a crossboundary basis was the sewer system. Now, we're going to come back to
2:14:16
this at various points, certainly this week. um just on a a very high level
2:14:22
basis obviously parts of South Tinside link into Sunderland in terms of the
2:14:29
sewer network and ultimately to the Henden um treatment works. Was there any kind
2:14:37
of discussion you know to advise in terms of the as a
2:14:42
strategic matter between the two authorities? I appreciate you have statements of common
2:14:48
ground with the Environment Agency, North Umbrean Water, Natural England on
2:14:54
a on a a raft of things, but was it was wastewater
2:15:00
treatment can you recall an issue raised or discussed with Sunderland specifically?
2:15:07
Uh it has been certainly discussed. um wastewater issues form part of uh
2:15:14
dialogue with Sunderland. Yes, thank you. And that's obviously I'll be
2:15:21
looking into the addendum and the duty to cooperate statement
2:15:27
as the evidence for for that dialogue with Sunderland. Whether it's been formally recorded in
2:15:33
duty to corporate discussions, I'm not able to say off the top of my head, sir. I do certainly I'm aware it has been
2:15:40
discussed may have just been informally I'm not sure.
2:15:45
Okay. Thank you for that. We'll come back to this issue no doubt at various
2:15:52
discussions but just on the duty to cooperate specifically is it
2:15:57
I was going to come to Mr. agree because you obviously raised in your statement specifically around whether Felgate has
2:16:03
been appropriately treated as a strategic matter. I mean it is a strategic policy. It's policy SP8. So
2:16:09
it's a strategic matter. I think your view is it hasn't been Can I can I come back in? I've got it
2:16:16
together now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean I mean basically you see Felgate and I will refer to Felgate because it it's it's on
2:16:23
the boundary with Gates Head. It's on the boundary with Sunlands. So forgive us if it's going to be cross reference with the issues later on. But but
2:16:30
basically the statement of common grounds uh you know gates clearly highlights in their you know in their
2:16:37
statements severe concerns about the white mapool infrastructure the road infrastructure.
2:16:44
H now a lot of it is based around the A184 which approaches the
2:16:50
uh white map roundabout from from from the left and heads across the gates. They're going to be putting a lot of
2:16:55
construction into there. Uh but there's very little mention of the A194 from
2:17:01
White Pool which leads into Felgate which is part of Gates as well. Uh
2:17:06
they've raised it on on numerous occasions and nobody knows who's going to pay for it anyway. You know it's it's
2:17:12
it amasses to millions of pounds. Uh I think one part of it 40 million. Uh and
2:17:18
the other the other statements are you know in in the statement of common ground they've mentioned a metro station
2:17:24
which would be built uh between Pilo and Felgate because it's a long stretch. Now
2:17:31
according to recent uh government funding that's now not going to go ahead they're going to proceed into Washington. So they have mentioned it
2:17:38
but I think it was more an aspiration uh in the hope that it was going to be built which they've mentioned it which
2:17:43
would go well for the local plan but uh there's now no to my knowledge there's
2:17:48
no funding now available for it. Uh now the the other issues are you've got
2:17:53
statement of common grounds with North Thumbling water. H now am I okay mentioning this or will that have to
2:17:59
wait until mention it now because I mean it is a duty duty to copyright statement of
2:18:06
common ground. What you've got is uh the the main uh the main discharges of
2:18:12
water from any plans development on uh on Felgate would be into the local burns
2:18:18
and it's and the actual sewage infrastructure would go to I believe it's uh Hen
2:18:25
I've got information here you know in relation to Hen and personally I wouldn't place any emphasis on the
2:18:30
statement of common ground I mean from in relation to North Umbrean water because of the you know there's in press
2:18:37
issues related to what's going on, but there's consistently sewage discharges. Uh, you know, these are the new 2024
2:18:44
figures. I mean, in wagon way alone, uh, there were spills, uh, 179 times for
2:18:50
2,946 hours. Now, that it's that constantly open. I mean, the a couple of
2:18:56
days ago, they were opened and there was very little rain. So, so that the cap capacity I believe isn't there you know
2:19:02
that's the one with the North Thumbland water. Now there is also uh just bear
2:19:08
with us uh the infrastructure delivery plan uh
2:19:14
you know I know I've mentioned you know the million metro station but there's very a low gate said went on a lot about
2:19:22
white may pool again there's nothing mentioned further down the line and there doesn't appear to be anything
2:19:27
anything at all to do with the middle lane roundabouts uh that's that's it I I think
2:19:36
right yeah and they've also this is to do with the again the white may pool
2:19:41
junction uh they've raised concerns that uh you know close to wley collery that
2:19:48
they have done the uh they have done the the systematic traffic data service I I
2:19:53
don't get it I don't know what the exact name of it is but what they've highlighted however it's assumed the figures have been based on a generic uh
2:20:00
B2B use extracted from tricks which is the survey uh program and experience
2:20:05
with the likes of Fallingsby. Fallingsby if you don't know the area is a big there's a big industrial estate to the left of White Mool uh and what the what
2:20:13
they've says is uh you know it would suggest that that the reality could be very different from the generic
2:20:20
approach. So basically I believe what they're saying in that is they've looked at all of this data on computer but in
2:20:26
reality it's it's it won't work you know it's it's yeah
2:20:31
and that's it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And I think as I said, Mr. Green, from
2:20:37
your statement, I think your view is felgate hasn't been sufficiently considered as part of these kind of
2:20:44
discussions with Gates Head other and you say other other bodies. We're going
2:20:49
to be looking at waste water as I say various various sessions. You can see I'm concerned that I'll go
2:20:55
into the the discussions that we're going to have later on in in the thing, but it's it's been totally excluded. I
2:21:00
mean, everything's been excluded. Uh You know, I think I went back to where we went to the very first initial meeting
2:21:06
during the consultation period where, you know, the council didn't seem aware of the major traffic issues. They didn't
2:21:12
they weren't aware of the major flooding issues. And I think it's been totally overlooked by the likes of of Sunland
2:21:17
Gates and in particular South Tid uh you know, and it's it's we're stuck right in
2:21:22
the middle because we're right on all of the boundaries, you know, it's yeah I mean in relation to traffic surveys, uh
2:21:30
there is data now available uh which was carried out in March which the council have haven't given out yet
2:21:37
and it's you know we have asked for this since January the 6th for them to
2:21:42
highlight the traffic issues you know which would be relevant to different authorities but uh we were due to have
2:21:49
it discussed at the next cap meeting which obviously is this week the next cap meeting is this week and we were
2:21:55
told you know that it was going to be on the agenda but now for some reason it's not uh you know so be we feel it's
2:22:04
because these meetings are going on and the information that would have been given out on January the 10th would be
2:22:09
detrimental to the local planet and would actually highlight the traffic issues that are actually in this area.
2:22:15
But the council I mean I have asked them uh and they did you know I was given the
2:22:21
thumbs up that it would be in in these calf meetings that are going to be taking place very soon but it's now it's been taken off it hasn't been put on the
2:22:28
agenda so it's going to go for another six weeks. Thank you. Well we will come back to
2:22:33
transport next week when we look at um Falgate. There's a a big item on the the
2:22:38
agenda for that. If I can just turn to the council then please and it's under my uh agenda item 3A
2:22:45
part two. I think it picks up part of what Mr. Green is saying about the consideration of Felgate as a strategic
2:22:51
matter. And obviously I'm mindful that when the plan was published in early 2024, Gates Head Council uh raised
2:23:00
various representations including uh under the duty to cooperate. Obviously,
2:23:06
time has passed and ultimately Gates Head have signed a a statement of common
2:23:12
um common ground. I think probably without going into too much of the detail because I want to discuss
2:23:18
transport around Falgate in in more detail next week, but I don't know if Mr. Clifford or somebody else could just
2:23:25
just outline how you went about kind of addressing the points that Gates had had
2:23:31
raised perhaps within this kind of wider umbrella that you know the impacts of of Felgate are not being discussed with
2:23:38
neighboring authorities perhaps perhaps they are and now they're they're being sort of what worked to resolution.
2:23:46
I think the first point I would make is, you know, we didn't specifically focus
2:23:51
on Felgate because obviously it's a an allocation in South Tinside. So what
2:23:58
Gates Head's concerns were were the impacts on the wider
2:24:03
traffic network and particularly obviously in Gates Head. Um but
2:24:08
obviously the allocation land south of Felgate will contribute to those um to
2:24:15
those concerns. So we had a series of meetings with Gates Head and as a result of those
2:24:22
meetings um without going through all the detail um
2:24:30
we commissioned further modeling to undertake an impact of the
2:24:38
assessment. We obviously had the strategic road network forecast report but Gates wanted us to go beyond that.
2:24:45
They wanted us to look specifically at the impact on their network. We agreed to that. We commissioned an assessment
2:24:52
of the impacts on the Gates network and the outputs from the assessment were
2:24:58
provided to Gates. Gates had considered that whilst the additional information
2:25:04
facilitated a better understanding of the proposed mitigation at White Marool, they required a broader holistic
2:25:12
understanding of the impact on their network. And so
2:25:18
South Tinside Council commissioned the a crossboundary traffic flows
2:25:24
assessment. This was provided to Gates in April 2024.
2:25:30
Gates Head considered that whilst it provided an indication of traffic flows through Hu Junction, there were still
2:25:36
gaps in their understanding. So it was agreed that Gates Head Council would
2:25:41
produce their own study and that South Tinside Council would constructed the liaz with uh Gates Head Council
2:25:50
um providing any information that they required to progress the study.
2:25:57
The report found that while there were some impacts in terms of the transport network in Gates,
2:26:04
um they're not specific enough to justify the addition of a sort of a specific
2:26:10
mitigation scheme for Gates in the Southside IDP. Um, so I feel that we've
2:26:19
done absolutely everything to address their concerns and as you say that's
2:26:24
resulted in the signing of a statement of common ground and Gates Head withdrawing their objections to the
2:26:31
three policies they objected to on duty to corporate grounds. So I I don't see what more we could have
2:26:38
done to address that. Thank you. I'll pick up the issue of the metro when we come to Felgate and uh
2:26:46
Falgate specifically as one of my questions around uh public um transport.
2:26:53
Um in terms of um
2:27:02
I think I will one of the things I will want to go away and reflect on is around
2:27:07
the duties to cooperate and waste water. I appreciate the council has got
2:27:13
statements of common ground with North Umbrean water. I say the
2:27:18
environment agency um natural uh natural
2:27:24
England. Um is there any other evidence
2:27:31
the council would want me to bear in mind around the dialogue that you've had? Is
2:27:37
that is that captured within the GC cooperate statement? There have been
2:27:44
specific or separate meetings.
2:27:51
Can we have a think about that? Yep. Can I leave that with the council as an
2:27:56
action point as there's anything else I need to kind of have before me? I'm mindful North and Water are coming to
2:28:02
these hearing sessions. I'd be interested to hear what they say. not particularly on the duty to cooperate,
2:28:08
but I think just given that there are uh consistent sort of comments about the
2:28:16
capacity and the ability of uh the waste, excuse me, the wastewater infrastructure to accommodate the
2:28:22
planned growth. I appreciate the council up until this point has had the comfort
2:28:29
of those statements of common ground. Um so I I'll obviously have in regard to
2:28:34
those in terms of that specific legal um duty, but if there is anything else
2:28:39
in terms of meetings or Yeah, we'll have a look at that. Um um
2:28:46
if it's external to the existing evidence base um then of course um we
2:28:51
will need your permission to to provide it to the examination but but we'll look at that. Um so far as uh the legal duty
2:29:00
is concerned we're not um tasked with interrogating
2:29:05
the quality of the answers from a statutory undertaker. uh we have to
2:29:11
assume that it uh operates um properly with regard to due process and acts with
2:29:17
integrity and the statement of common ground uh with North Umbrean water
2:29:23
clearly indicates that there is no issue with headroom clear. Um so uh in terms of um the duty
2:29:33
to cooperate we've done all we can. If there are residual issues um which need
2:29:39
interrogating by through through this examination process in relation to failgate specifically then it's
2:29:46
something which that particular organization can address and answer to you.
2:29:55
Thank you uh Mr. green on duty to cooperate.
2:30:07
Yeah, the duty to cooperate with North Rian water. Uh I mean what what they're
2:30:13
highlighting is you know as Mr. Clifford's just stated that you know they're stating that the capacity is
2:30:19
there but the evidence is there that it isn't there. I mean I mean the infrastructure that they have at the
2:30:26
moment is you know there there's that many housing developments going into not only Gates but into into South Tide
2:30:33
possibly into Sunland. Uh the infrastructure there was put in many
2:30:38
many decades ago. uh you know and and there is in gates said this is the for the fallingsby flood plane which
2:30:44
actually floods onto felgate you know and I know the gates have mentioned that
2:30:50
the followings be you know as an area of flooding and again I'm just concerned that I'm cross referencing with the
2:30:56
issues we're going to be ident identifying with felgate but that's the result that's just that's basically uh
2:31:06
an eighth of a mile from from the white manpool junction Uh and this is the issue that's
2:31:12
happening. Now if they deny if if there's deniability that these problems aren't happening uh
2:31:19
why are why are they constantly again this will go into Felgate you know why between 23 and 24 did this did this you
2:31:25
know attempt you know they did 17 gully cleans on on the Felgate estate in 24 to
2:31:32
25 they did 805 now what they're trying to do is you know the the statement of
2:31:37
common grounds they're trying in in South T are trying to put it that uh
2:31:42
there isn't an issue you know which comes down from gates but but there is and the evidence is there it's photographic evidence but we'll be
2:31:49
putting the majority of this in the fell gates am I correct there it would go into the fel sp8 so we'll pick this up
2:31:55
under felgate sp8 next Tuesday North and water are attending tomorrow afternoon
2:32:02
for the spatial strategy sessions that's just the overview of where development
2:32:08
should broadly go and how it should broadly be distributed within in uh the South Tinside area. Um so I have got
2:32:16
specific questions for for North Umbrean Water for that that particular session. Uh I've heard the what the council said,
2:32:23
you know, they say they've engaged with North Umbrean Water. They've been given specific advice up until this point
2:32:30
about the capacity of treatments uh plants. You know, they've taken that
2:32:37
advice. Um and that's uh in terms of uh
2:32:42
their uh um uh how they've gone about the the
2:32:47
specific kind of duty uh to cooperate. Uh whether there have to be sort of
2:32:53
careful there the duty to cooperate is a specific legal requirement around engagement and sort of dialogue. there
2:33:00
may be separate kind of soundness issues about whether the plan itself
2:33:05
uh is justified or whether there need to be specific changes in light of wastewater evidence. But in terms of the
2:33:12
specific legal requirements, that's what I was kind of looking at um today. But I note your
2:33:21
just ask one more question, Mr. Spencer. Uh are Northland Water still responsible
2:33:26
for the are they going to be responsible for the the uh Fargate developments?
2:33:33
I don't know if the council can answer that now, though that's something we pick up as part of the Fargates. Yeah. Okay.
2:33:39
Discussion. I'm assumed there's nothing I've read to the alternative that there would be a private treatment solution or
2:33:46
it's so um I'm sitting here now thinking Northland you know the Felgate development and
2:33:52
other developments will connect into
2:33:58
this is something you would need to confirm with North Umbrean water but my understanding is it wouldn't necessarily
2:34:03
um are we talking about uh capacity it would North of Green
2:34:10
Water. Yes. Okay. I mean, the reason I was asking was that there's an estate, a local estate just
2:34:15
being built. It's not under North R. It's been passed on to a company below them. And and we we'll question Northern
2:34:21
Ring Water about that. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Lavel, please.
2:34:29
Yeah. Just to pick up on a comment made about we have no issue with headroom.
2:34:35
Obviously legally the urban wastewater treatment regulations deal more than
2:34:40
just with headroom i.e. capacity at wastewater treatment works. Urban
2:34:45
wastewater treatment regulations deal with the collection and treatment. So we're talking about the sewage network
2:34:52
and to say we have no issue with headroom. They haven't covered the fact that they have major issues with the
2:34:58
collection and onward flow to the waste water treatment works.
2:35:04
Thank you. If I can just bring the duties to cooperate discussion to the
2:35:09
final point on my agenda and that's around um specifically the timing of the
2:35:14
statement of common ground with with Newcastle City Council. Obviously this came in after the plan was submitted.
2:35:21
Um, and I guess my broad question is should I be concerned about the timing
2:35:26
of that? And just just generally how strong is the dynamic between South
2:35:32
Tinside and at Newcastle? I appreciate you kind of technically adjoining authorities or be it with a river uh in
2:35:39
between. Um maybe you know the direct connections are not
2:35:44
are not that strong or in terms of some of the strategic matters. Mr. Clifford. Yes sir. Um the council does not
2:35:51
consider that South Tinside and Newcastle have a strong functional relationship in planning terms.
2:35:58
Um so there have not been duty to corporate meetings to discuss planning
2:36:04
issues uh specifically because neither authority recognized a need for them.
2:36:11
For this reason, the statement of common ground was not progressed earlier. Um however
2:36:18
for completeness the councils have now signed a statement of ground and it clearly demonstrates
2:36:26
that there are no areas of disagreement between the two authorities. So I would submit that there is no real
2:36:33
concern about the timing of the statement.
2:36:41
Thank you. And I've obviously got that statement in front of me. um as part of the examination process. Councelor
2:36:48
Herbert, there is an inter relationship. It's a
2:36:54
transport hub Newcastle and there's a major employment center. A large proportion of people from South Townside
2:37:01
work there. So really when you look at the uh ability of Newcastle to provide
2:37:07
housing, they're projected to provide a thousand houses a year in their local plant. They've just announced that near
2:37:14
the town center, there will be a development of 2,500 dwellings. Now, looking strategically, if you got
2:37:21
people commuting a long distance, people might prefer to live nearer where they want to work. So, I think that there's
2:37:28
areas where they could investigate more common uh strategic planning.
2:37:38
Thank you. And as part of the statement of common ground with Newcastle,
2:37:43
I appreciate the authorities in this part of the world. You're kind of different stages of plan making. These
2:37:50
things never quite align uh as the way some people might like them to. But um
2:37:57
it's part of that statement of common ground, Mr. Clifford. I mean, is there any I mean, I don't recall Newcastle
2:38:03
saying they're looking for South Tinside to assist with their housing need or
2:38:08
that they've got capacity to assist South Tinside in in
2:38:15
any way? areas of
2:38:22
sorry areas of agreement included um that
2:38:28
Newcastle is not able to assist South Town in meeting its its housing requirements. So and and the same
2:38:35
applied to economic needs. So that issue was was referenced and
2:38:42
there was a dialogue between the two authorities and and it was agreed that Newcastle were not in a position to
2:38:49
assist.
2:38:58
I don't as far as I'm aware I don't believe we have actually been requested by Newcastle to assist in meeting their
2:39:05
needs.
2:39:19
I would just add to that, sir, that um they're at a relatively early stage in plan making. So there may be a request
2:39:28
as part of that process. Thank you. I think I think where the the
2:39:34
sort of faint bell is ringing somewhere deep in the recesses of my mind is a a
2:39:39
regulation 19 rep from one of the house builders who are looking for additional
2:39:45
green belt release in South Tinside saying maybe Newcastle will struggle to
2:39:51
meet its housing uh requirement. I think when we start looking at this bigger picture
2:39:57
um is why I asked the question are are other authorities similarly affected in this part of the world irrespective of
2:40:04
housing or uh employment geographies which I appreciate there'll be a strong degree
2:40:09
of overlap in places is it nonetheless a situation where authorities are in a
2:40:16
similar potentially a similar position to South Tinside including Newcastle who are also a green belt authority that
2:40:23
once have tried to sort of turn every stone within their area. They may be looking similarly for reciproc
2:40:31
reciprocally asking South Tside or others to help meet their their housing
2:40:37
need. I park that there because I appreciate we're probably straying I'm starting to stray slightly outside of um
2:40:45
uh the plan that's um before me. But um I've got no further questions or points
2:40:52
I wanted to raise on the legal duty to cooperate. I think if the council can just assist on whether there is anything
2:40:59
further in relation to uh meetings with North Umbrean water that aren't captured
2:41:06
already within the um the evidence um before me that would be helpful. I'm
2:41:12
mindful of time and uh what we still need to cover. I'm going to pass over sustainability appraisal at the moment
2:41:18
because I think that's a relatively straightforward matter in my mind. Um,
2:41:23
and I want to pick up the habitat regulations assessment because this is an area that people have uh commented on
2:41:31
specifically and raised as part of the uh uh specific requirements around um plan
2:41:39
making. So this is item five on my agenda for this morning. Uh, just have a quick change.
2:41:45
Okay. Would you mind if we turned off the air
2:41:52
conditioning because I'm finding it's interfering with my ability to hear what's being said as well as being
2:41:58
remarkably cold.
2:42:11
That's better. Would
2:42:24
it assist me, Mr. Shadow? Even if you introduce See, there's a new a new
2:42:30
person at the table. We're ready now. Army. Would you like to introduce yourself? Mrs. Rocliffe.
2:42:39
Hello. I'm Miss Rorcliffe. Claire Rockcliffe. I'm the natural environment manager for South Tside Council.
2:42:47
Thank you. Um and in terms of the habitat, obviously the plan is accompanied by a habitat regulation assessment uh dated January 2024
2:42:55
prepared by footprint um ecology. I've read that to date uh Natural England
2:43:03
have not raised any issue in terms of the content or findings of the habitat
2:43:09
um regulation um assessment. Um it's obviously a
2:43:16
uh although it's been prepared to accompany the um submitted plan, it's uh
2:43:24
a document that could still be looked at, updated or accompanied by an addendum if as a result of this
2:43:30
examination, you know, it needs to be uh further um updated. But I'd like to deal
2:43:36
first with um the nonwater uh issue which is around recreational
2:43:43
disturbance and visitor management because at the time the plan was submitted in the statement of common
2:43:49
ground with the first statement of common ground with natural England. Um there was a query around whether further
2:43:56
sort of ongoing monitoring work around uh visitor uh numbers where they were
2:44:02
coming from in terms of visiting the coastal habitats uh was pointing to an alternative to the
2:44:09
current 7.2 kilometer buffer. Uh and I think from the latest statement of
2:44:15
common ground with natural England the 7.2 Two kilometer buffer remains
2:44:21
appropriate for plan making at this stage but with perhaps a recognition
2:44:27
looking forwards that as visitor survey work is sort of further analyzed that could change but it it remains
2:44:36
justified at this moment in time. Is that correct?
2:44:43
Yes. So the council still um considers that the 7.2 to uh recreational buffer
2:44:48
is um justified in terms of providing sufficient mitigation in terms of HA. Um
2:44:54
I think for for context um the council undertook um further
2:45:00
visit the surveys in winter 2324 where as we were preparing our publication
2:45:06
draft local plan um that was to look at basically the evidence evidence base
2:45:11
which supported the the H at that time. We were aware that the um the latest
2:45:17
studies that had informed the identification of that 7.2 kilometer buffet were um undertaken um in the
2:45:24
winter of 2019 2020 so pre- pandemic. Um so we were conscious of the the passage
2:45:30
of time with those and also um behavior of visitors to the course as well. Um
2:45:36
and we wanted to see um if we needed more robust evidence to see if there had
2:45:41
been any changes in terms of how the course was being used by people. Um as
2:45:46
set out in the the statement of common ground, we sought advice from Natural England on that point and they advised that we should undertake another
2:45:54
winter's worth of visitor surveys to to pick up those points to make sure that the evidence was as robust as possible.
2:46:00
So that was undertaken. Um the key findings for that are set out in the uh
2:46:07
South Tinside visitor survey report which is
2:46:13
NAT27 no 25
2:46:19
sorry. Um the key findings in that report showed that there had been an increase in activity um for visitors um
2:46:26
using the coast. Um but the key points um in there was that 52% of visitors
2:46:32
came from within safe tin side which pointing to a large number of visitors from outside of the burough who were
2:46:37
also coming and using the coast. Um and that the report suggested that that
2:46:43
could justify extending the buffer the recreational buffer from 7.2 km to 10.5
2:46:50
km. Now we discussed that further with natural England as set out in the the
2:46:56
statement of common ground and we've taken the position that for the purposes
2:47:03
of this local plan and this H we are going to retain the 7.2 kilometer buffer. Um in the statement of common
2:47:10
ground in paragraphs 3.7 to 310 we set out the three key reasons why we have
2:47:16
proposed to do that which are in agreement with natural England as well. Um in summary they are um due to
2:47:23
methodology and geographical uh limitations of the survey in terms of the survey that was taken undertaken in
2:47:30
23 24 just looked at serine side um whereas previous surveys had looked at
2:47:36
um undertaken visit surveys through Sunderland and also Durham as well. So it covered a much broader geographical
2:47:43
area which meant a direct comparison to the studies was difficult to make. Um we
2:47:48
also considered the sort of the consistency in regional approach and applying uh recreational buffers at the
2:47:55
moment. So Sunderland currently apply a 7.2 km buffer as well. So sort of
2:48:01
linking into the crossboundary effects and looking into um future mitigation
2:48:07
and monitoring survey work then it seemed appropriate this time to retain the same a similar buffer as Sunderland
2:48:13
at this point. Um furthermore um the actual physical geographical coverage of
2:48:18
the burough that the 7.2 buffer offers does cover the vast majority of South
2:48:24
Hines side itself. It's only sort of the the very western limits of Heban um and
2:48:30
sort of the southern joining areas of Gates Head where um which aren't included within that recreational
2:48:37
buffer. Um so like I say this has been discussed with Natural England. being
2:48:42
able to agree um the updated statement of common ground which we received last week. Um I think it's also important to
2:48:49
note that within that statement of common ground um the council's committed to keeping this buffer under review. Um
2:48:55
and also um we have a strong commitment to cross boundary working with Sunderland and other local authorities
2:49:01
where needed in terms of reviewing this and keeping it um under under review as
2:49:06
as things progress. So if the buffer was potentially to
2:49:12
change that would be a matter in the council's view for a local plan review or the next local plan to look at you
2:49:19
know alternative if there is the evidence does point to an alternative buffer to the 7.2 the local plan the
2:49:26
next local plan would would look at that and in terms of the consequence then of being within the 7.2 kilometer buffer
2:49:35
um that triggers mitigatory payments towards
2:49:42
um coastal management and steering visitors in different directions and
2:49:48
different beh appropriate behaviors.
2:49:56
Yeah. So um any new housing within the the zone is considered to have um
2:50:02
potential a likely significant effect on the coastal designations and it's very
2:50:08
difficult to come up with bespoke mitigation for each individual application for each individual um
2:50:15
application for residential. So the preferred approach that Natural England has has put forward and that the council
2:50:21
has been undertaking um since 2018 is a is a strategic approach to that mitigation um which is then funded by
2:50:28
those developers. If they wish to pay into it, they can choose to put forward a bespoke um version of mitigation if
2:50:33
they wish to do so. But the vast majority pay in to the system that the council then deliver which is our
2:50:38
coastal recreation mitigation strategy set sets that out.
2:50:46
And just to check from a as a consequence of this kind of recent dialogue and kind of exchange with
2:50:52
Natural England, the mitigatory kind of payment sums, I presume they're index
2:50:57
linked, but they haven't fundamentally changed or varied in light of the the
2:51:02
recent consideration of visitor survey works. That still remains.
2:51:10
So we anticipate that the financial contribution for the the payments that required will increase to where from
2:51:17
where they they currently are at this point. Um we are still refining the the
2:51:22
mitigation strategy with footprint ecology and we're also working alongside Natural England to to finalize that
2:51:28
document as well.
2:51:35
uh forgive me if I've I've missed this in all all the reading and uh material in front of me. Is there an anticipation
2:51:41
that that mitigation strategy would be sort of finalized within this kind of
2:51:47
examination time frame to inform? Just think you
2:51:53
there's usually a session on local plan viability and various inputs whether it's something that's likely to be
2:52:00
beyond this kind of plan examination and feed into the next next plan. I think there is a prospect that we'll be able
2:52:06
to have um a final draft of that strategy um within the examination period. We are at a fairly advanced
2:52:13
stage with that. So that could be produced at uh at some point.
2:52:31
Thank you. I've just made a note to myself. That's probably something I will come back to the council. Appreciate
2:52:36
we're having a wide ranging discussion, but I I may after the stage one hearings just ask for a bit more clarity on the
2:52:44
likely time frame for that that strategy.
2:52:49
Okay. Before I move on to water quality issues, Mr. Green. Yeah. Can I just
2:53:00
of 7.2 two. Does that mean if anything's built within that buffer zone, uh, it has to be mitigated? That's has to be a
2:53:08
mitigation. Mr. Rocliffe, yes. Any additional um residential
2:53:14
housing within the 7.2 buffer um needs to effectively mitigate its impact and
2:53:20
that's usually through the payment, right? Yeah. Because Felgate's within 6.9 km of the, you know, within the
2:53:27
buffer zone. Now, Felgate is a massive uh you massive h you know, wildlife
2:53:32
habitat, natural habitat, and I'm just wondering how how that how they're going to do that. Uh and also, you know, as
2:53:40
far as I know, and you you could correct us if I'm I'm right, CLA, the habitat assessment for Felgate, did it not just
2:53:46
begin last December? And it's still ongoing because I know it's got to go through the four seasons, hasn't it? win
2:53:52
uh spring, summer, autumn and as far as I'm aware it's being carried out at this moment in time.
2:53:58
Okay. I would prefer at this stage be looking at the habitat regulations. So it's the
2:54:05
impact on uh I still tend to refer to them as internationally protected habitats. Hope that's still a an
2:54:12
appropriate phrase. Um I appreciate I I do want to discuss biodiversity in
2:54:18
particular around Felgate when we come to that next um next week. I mean just
2:54:23
very briefly in terms of does the council concur that the Felgate um site falls within 7.2 kilometers from
2:54:32
the uh the relevant the nearest habitats. Yes. So there is a map that is included
2:54:38
in our hearing statement to this question which shows the 7.2 2 km um
2:54:44
boundary and it does show that there is a proportion of the fellgate allocation which does fall within that 7.2 km.
2:54:53
Thank you. I want to move on to water quality. Mr. Lavel's been patiently sitting for most of the morning and
2:54:59
we're going to come on to the issue um
2:55:04
in relation to particularly the development procs close to uh the
2:55:10
coastal habitats and I want to deal with this in two parts if you seen my agenda. O want to deal with the water issue
2:55:16
first and then I think the Whitburn neighborhood forum have also queried about urban effects in terms of the proximity of development to the coastal
2:55:25
um habitats but deal with the water issue first. Obviously the habitat regulation assessment
2:55:31
does look at issues of water quality. It doesn't rule out that there's kind of going to be no uh it doesn't um screen
2:55:40
it out at an early stage saying there'll be no kind of um potential pathway here. It did go on to look at that uh
2:55:47
particular issue both in relation to the Durham Coast special area of conservation. to the cliff uh habitats
2:55:55
and then separately in terms of the special protection area for birds also linked to the uh the Ramsar uh site
2:56:03
designation I think from everything I've read correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Lavel, I
2:56:09
don't think the issues particularly concerning around the the cliff
2:56:15
uh habitat. I think the habitat regul regulation assessment is reasonably
2:56:20
clear that there's no kind of direct pathway that any kind of sewer uh overflow outspill is not happening at
2:56:26
the kind of the cliff top uh and kind of seeping down the kind of the cliff face
2:56:32
it's it's occurring um elsewhere. So there's no kind of direct
2:56:38
kind of harm or relation potential harm or relationship. There is a combined sewer overflow at
2:56:43
Marsden which uh spills regularly
2:56:48
uh not in compliance with urban waste water treatment regulations. Um there there also as you aware a very
2:56:55
contentious long sea outfall at Witburn which although it goes 1.5 kilometers
2:57:01
out to sea uh there were major concerns about the uh intensity and the
2:57:09
regularity of the spills from that as you see there's a lot of emphasis in the
2:57:14
h to recreational disturbance and we're not going to uh discuss that as far as
2:57:19
I'm concerned but in terms of the water quality it is one of the pathways and if I can refer you to uh paragraph 4.17 of
2:57:27
the HRA it clearly says on there the sewage treatment works for South Tside
2:57:33
at Harden and Henden and these are far removed from the cliffs and there is therefore no need to consider headroom
2:57:40
or capacity for these in relation to Durham Coast SEC and basically that's
2:57:46
all the Her has to say on water quality what the H does not take into
2:57:52
consideration are the 60 plus csos that
2:57:58
exist in the border that spill into the river dawn and the river tine. Uh the
2:58:03
csos when I say csos combined sewer overflows they are euphemistically
2:58:09
referred to now as storm overflows but they com they carry combined sewage.
2:58:16
uh the Howen, for example, the Howen Surge Treatment Works has four uh CSOS
2:58:23
and one of these in 2021 had 162 spills.
2:58:31
Another one had 149 spills and in 2022
2:58:37
in two 210 spills in 2023. Obviously those are in direct contravention of the
2:58:43
urban wastewater treatment regulations which say all waste water is collected
2:58:48
and treated apart from in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances a roughly unusually heavy
2:58:57
rainfall. When we talk about 162 spills we're talking about not the amount of
2:59:03
spills because they use a what they call a 12 24hour recording system. So it's
2:59:08
actually 162 days. So for 162 years, so the there been many
2:59:15
many more spills, but each day. So when you compare the rainfall, there was no
2:59:21
way that in South Tide there's been for example 162 days of exceptionally heavy
2:59:29
or unusually heavy rainfall. So going back to the 60 storm overflows that flow
2:59:37
down into the tine and across the Witburn coast. Obviously we'll have a
2:59:43
problem at Little Haven Beach at the moment whereby it's only recently been designated and uh there's a certain
2:59:50
organization awarded it a brown flag rather than a blue flag. And that's down
2:59:55
to the uh down to the samples taken by the environment agency which shows the
3:00:02
water quality is very poor. It's not the only one on the northeast coast color codes as other problems for years. The
3:00:10
60 overflows that uh spill into our uh
3:00:16
blue waterways uh spilled 1,775 times in
3:00:21
2024. And this is information provided by North Wind Water to the environment
3:00:27
agency. They test it by wave event duration monitors which only tell
3:00:34
you how many spills and how long you've spilled for as opposed to the long sea
3:00:39
outfall at Witburn which actually gives you the starts and finishing times of
3:00:45
the sewage of the pumps that pump untreated sewage out the sea. North
3:00:50
water will say oh it's only a rough estimate because you can calculate the actual volume spilled out at sea by
3:00:57
looking at the start and finish time the pumps cost the pump at 1.5 tons per
3:01:03
second in water for example was on parliament TV saying
3:01:08
those those you can't you can't uh you can't depend on those uh figures because
3:01:16
it those are just rough estimates but the same figures have been given to the uh DERA to the EUA and the UK
3:01:23
authorities have relied on those figures and give them to the European Commission back in 2012. So as a ballpark figure
3:01:31
they've been they've been accepted throughout. So these figures which a ball a ballpark figure show uh regular
3:01:39
over the last few years a million tons of sewage discharged at Whitburn.
3:01:44
So you're talking about 1.5 mill kilometers out. Now going back to the
3:01:50
the treatment works you mentioned on uh strategic uh needs for sewage etc.
3:01:57
Fortunately unfortunately for myself I've been constrained as part of the Woodburn forum to look at things in the
3:02:04
Woodburn forum area. So quite often the council will turn around to me and say you can't comment on things that's
3:02:10
happening in Felgate. can't comment on things that's happening in the wider bar from a Witburn neighborhood uh forum
3:02:16
perspective. You have to constrain yourself to what's happening in Witburn. So in in order to produce a neighborhood
3:02:22
plan, we put it through the planning inspector. We took advice from ACOM and this and the other and we ended up with
3:02:28
a very watered down version of what we wanted in terms of a sewage policy. We do have a sewage policy which asks for
3:02:34
rigorous analysis of the capacity both in terms of collection and treatment of
3:02:41
uh waste water and uh we found that for dry water flows north water will always
3:02:47
say we have the capacity to take to treat when it doesn't dry water flows but urban waste water treatment regulations are quite clear in as much
3:02:55
as all waste water should be collected and treated and north water will tell I
3:03:02
can't get here on Wednesday unfortunately. I've got to watch the grand bands. North water will tell you uh that they
3:03:08
they don't have a problem that they have the capacity uh which I see they do not
3:03:14
and we'll touch upon off what decision notice in due course uh in terms of uh
3:03:20
when I refer to uh matter five in due course but going back to habitats uh the
3:03:27
HR like the uh with respect to water quality Her is required to consider The
3:03:34
urban wastewater treatment regulations were relevant. A key aspect of the urban
3:03:39
wastewater treatment regulations is requirement for habitats regulation assessment to ensure that wastewater
3:03:46
treatment plants and discharges do not adversely affect protected sites such as
3:03:52
special areas of compensation conservation and special protection areas. Obviously at Witburn we have
3:03:57
rocky pools. the rocky pools where birds feed you know and it's been it's been noted that it's a feeding ground for
3:04:04
curu redback purple sandpaper and sandstone. So you've got all these
3:04:09
various protected birds that feed there. And our argument is that a million tons of untreated sewage will adversely
3:04:16
affect them. But there's never been a HR uh conducted for Whitburn
3:04:23
Long Sea overflow and there's never been one conducted for the 60 or so of storm
3:04:29
overflows that flow into the blue waterways of South Tide.
3:04:34
Obviously, storm water overflows are not featured in the HR, but they're part of the urban wastewater collecting systems
3:04:41
and treatment facilities. The urban wastewater treatment regulations provide for an absolute obligation to avoid
3:04:47
spills from storm water overflows save for exceptional circumstances such as unusual heavy rainfall. The urban
3:04:54
wastewater treatment regulations alongside other regulations address not only nutrient enrichment from waste
3:05:00
water discharges but also other pollutants. These regulations aim to protect water bodies from the adverse
3:05:06
effects of waste water including those beyond nutrient related issues like
3:05:12
utrification. So as you'll be aware improperly treated sewage can contain a wide range of
3:05:17
contaminants including bacteria, viruses and chemicals. They can pose a risk to human health and the environment. The H
3:05:25
in this plan takes insufficient account of the regulations or any other regulations and they discount any likely
3:05:31
significant effects of various policies within the plan in relation to hydrarology and that's in relation to
3:05:38
Durham SCSC North Coast SPR and the RAM. It it declares given the distribution of
3:05:45
development in the plan we can identify that housing growth and other development will not lead to any further
3:05:50
deterioration in water quality or supply of the Durham coast sec with no impacts alone. There's no need for in
3:05:57
combination assessment as there's no risk of cumulative effects
3:06:03
for the North Coast SPI. Rams water availability and water quality in relation to impacts from development are
3:06:09
ruled out as a cause for concern but there isn't the evidence to back this up. They haven't done a HR yet in
3:06:15
effect. Going back to Henden and the capacity
3:06:21
the headroom it has no storm overflow tanks. So when it rains, it spills to
3:06:27
sea. It had 116 spills in 2021, 99 spills in
3:06:33
2022, and 119 spills in 2023. So that's both of our treatment plants are
3:06:40
spilling regularly outside the regulations and that's why OffWD
3:06:45
produced a decision notice. who bearing in mind off what produced evidence to
3:06:50
show North Water who will turn up on Wednesday to say that they're in breach of regulation 44 of the urban wastewater
3:06:58
treatment regulations regulation 42 and schedule two of the urban wastewater treatment regulations
3:07:05
and section 94 of the water industry act plus condition P it's a instrument
3:07:12
appointed appointment directors which are intended to protect the water environment fund and for the animals and
3:07:17
plants that live in and around the water as well as for recreational purposes.
3:07:23
So from our perspective from the perspective of uh Whitburn Neighborwood form that the plan uh it's not
3:07:30
reasonable in terms of the uh statement of common ground uh for the local
3:07:36
authority to place considerable weight as it does in the information provided by Northman water. All those regulations
3:07:43
and contraventions I've mentioned are actually criminal acts and if they were prosecuted in the magistrates court they
3:07:49
could lead to a fine imprisonment or both. The UK authorities have decided to
3:07:55
take more of the civil enforcement route. So we'll have a decision notice whereby North and Water have agreed to
3:08:02
undertake 157 million pounds worth of improvements to uh make situation better
3:08:09
as part of the enforcement. So what Northman W have done is they've more or less accepted the decision notice the
3:08:16
findings of off what and the decision notice and they decided to improve things. Uh what I'd said to this uh
3:08:22
inquiry is I've looked at the uh uh draft waste water management plan and
3:08:29
they promised to improve things and promise to get spills down to less than 20 uh on average over all of the
3:08:36
combined service civil overflows. But there's no evidence how they're going to do that. There's no evidence whatsoever.
3:08:43
Going back to So, can I just stop you there, Mr. Mr. Lavel? I think I just want to come back
3:08:49
a bit more to to the habitat regulation assessment. I think if I can just summarize what I
3:08:55
think you're saying to me is you think the habitat regulation assessment for this local plan hasn't gone far enough
3:09:03
or um has sufficient evidence to kind of conclude that there would be no um
3:09:09
significant uh effect on the qualifying features particularly the
3:09:16
the um special protection area which is as you say it's the rocky pools. It's
3:09:21
where there are two particular bird species that are associated um with that
3:09:27
habitat for which are the reason for um the designation because obviously the habitat regulation concludes
3:09:35
that um in relation to those particular bird
3:09:41
species they feed in the exposed open coast which I'm assuming is the rocky kind of foreshore where water quality
3:09:48
from local discharge poses uh much less risk. They're feeding on invertebrates,
3:09:54
including those associated with rotting um seaweed and algae. I think I'm getting from your submissions is that
3:10:00
this is an underestimate. There's a potential underestimation. Yeah, I I don't think there I don't think there's been any assessment done.
3:10:09
I think it's only speculative that that hasn't been any testing of the water done on the rocky pools. There hasn't been any definitive, shall we say,
3:10:16
measurements of the invertebrates, etc., not that the birds feed upon. And anecdotal evidence will tell you that
3:10:22
the rocky pools at Witburn have been decimated over the years due to water
3:10:27
contamination. Indeed, I've got various material before me, Mr. Latimer and
3:10:33
others, photographs, etc. I just turn to the to the council on this particular um
3:10:39
point and really the kind of the robustness of the habitat regulation assessment to kind of conclude
3:10:46
uh in the way that it does given obviously things
3:10:52
uh have moved on kind of more recently. Um,
3:10:57
I don't know. I'll put the council on the spot whether this is an area within the habitat regulation assessment that
3:11:04
does need to be kind of looked at again or further whether it's the council's view. No, there is sufficient here to
3:11:11
reasonably draw the conclusion that there'll be no uh
3:11:17
adverse effect on the the qualifying features these two bird species.
3:11:23
This this process is an ongoing one. the duty, the legal duty imposed on on you
3:11:30
as part of this process and on the council is ongoing. Um, and I think it's probably best
3:11:38
rather than come up with an answer to that question now that we reflect on it and to see if there is any further work
3:11:45
that may need to be done uh in order for that duty to be properly discharged if at all.
3:11:52
So, would you leave that one with us for the time being? I will uh as a an ongoing matter I mean
3:12:00
I I do note there has been obviously a recent update to the statement of common ground with natural England. There's a
3:12:06
specific paragraph in there on water quality where natural England
3:12:12
accept and still agree with the habitat regulation assessment. But I think I'm just mindful throughout this process and
3:12:19
we'll be hearing from North Umbrean water tomorrow. uh there obviously has been further
3:12:26
submissions made as part of the examination process.
3:12:31
um that any kind of degree of risk around this is managed and whether it's the case of the council's consultants do
3:12:38
look at this a bit further as one option um that they still remain
3:12:44
uh in light of the um the offwatt um
3:12:50
report that they still stand by that con and there maybe needs to be more added into the habitat regulation to
3:12:56
assessment to say actually because of when these bird species are here
3:13:01
and the type of habitat they they they like there isn't the issue that we some of us may feel there is. Um so yes, I
3:13:09
think I will take up the council's offer to to look at that further. I mean
3:13:15
one of the key issues is whether there's any been any change in baseline conditions.
3:13:21
So that will need to be um confirmed one way or the other. and
3:13:27
secondly whether there's been any change in circumstances or further information
3:13:32
uh that needs to be addressed through the H process. So we'll look at that.
3:13:38
I mean I'm just mindful from the I mean one of the points that's been put to me by Mr. Lavell is the habitat regulation
3:13:43
assessment must kind of have regard to or take into account the urban
3:13:48
wastewater treatment directive. Um I don't know if the council would agree with that. I'm mindful there are
3:13:55
separate processes governing separate bodies. Um I was quite clear in my mind
3:14:01
what the habitat regulations cover. Uh and what we're looking at here
3:14:06
is specific bird species linked to a specific habitat and whether you can
3:14:12
reasonably draw that there, you know, there isn't a water quality issue that's going to adversely affect those bird
3:14:18
species. That that's essentially the issue. Um um so far as other duties and
3:14:26
regulatory requirements are concerned, one must assume that there will be compliance with those.
3:14:32
Um so but we we we will look into the whole picture and if if it's appropriate at a later stage in this process, we can
3:14:40
address you um address the point more broadly with a topic paper uh which
3:14:46
might provide some assistance. Thank you. I'll consider that carefully because I'm mindful, Mr. Lavel, there
3:14:53
are others who have a lot of knowledge on this uh deep interest in this. So, I
3:15:00
want to make sure they're not prejudiced by material that comes in that you don't
3:15:05
have an opportunity to look at or comment on um in due course.
3:15:12
Just on
3:15:19
I know we're running out of time.
3:15:28
Thank you. Um, so it's just to point out that the HR obviously looks at some quite narrow boundaries. We're looking
3:15:34
very specifically at the impacts of the proposed development on or the local
3:15:39
plan on the Durham Coast SACE features which are the vegetated sea cliffs. Um
3:15:45
and the features relate to the clifftop and the cliff slope which is well above the tide line. It includes grassland, wetland and scrub around the cliffs. um
3:15:53
the sewage outflows into the sea are therefore below the area where that feature occurs and therefore there's no
3:15:58
means by um so effectively paragraph 7 uh 4.17 of
3:16:04
the H covers that vegetation on the sea cliff and natural England's own site improvement plan for the Durham coast
3:16:11
sack identifies that fertilizer use and runoff from agricultural land as a current threat but it otherwise
3:16:16
highlights no other issues relating to water quality because the pathway between the sewage overflows and and the
3:16:22
vegetation on the cliffs is there. So, it's it's regardless of the water quality, there isn't actually the vector
3:16:29
between the two to impact the Durham Coast sack. Um, and just coming in on the relevant
3:16:36
features for the North Umbrea Coast SPA and the Ramsar site. The two named species are Turnstone and purple
3:16:42
sandpiper. They both feed on rocks and exposed coasts. Um, sandpiper feed on
3:16:48
mollisks and other items like worms, algae and flies within those rocky pools and turn stone turn proper food under
3:16:54
stones and seaweeds. Um, and they eat a really wide range of food including um, insect shellfish.
3:17:01
They they even scavenge on dead materials such as damaged muscles or corpses of large animals and they'll take uh, vegetable matter and human food
3:17:08
scraps. So, it's a very wide range of food. Um, as such, the diet of both of these species is unlikely to be affected
3:17:15
by nutrient enrichment into the sea. Um, so it's just not considered to have a specific impact on the food source of
3:17:21
these birds. And there are studies that show from the Northbury course that actually there's potentially positive
3:17:28
impact of sewage on the food source for the birds. And there's a study done by Brent and Godard in 2007 which um looked
3:17:35
into the impacts of changes in sewage disposal on water birds wintering on the North Umbrea coast.
3:17:41
Um and that actually shows a decline in the bird species after improvements of sewage treatment in a in a specified
3:17:47
area. And one of the reasons it was concluded that it was a um a result of
3:17:52
decreased food resources. Um the supple supplementary advice on
3:17:57
conservation objectives from Natural England which was published in October 2023
3:18:02
states that improvements in water quality may actually be a contributing factor in the decline of populations of
3:18:08
both species. and that the risk of utrification across the site has been assessed as low using the environment
3:18:15
agency's weight of evidence approach. So, Natural England have supported the conclusions of the HR that the water
3:18:22
quality issues are unlikely to have um an impact on the integrity of the qualifying features of the European
3:18:29
designated sites. Thank you. I'm mindful of time and we
3:18:35
will need to take a lunchtime um break. I'm prepared to go for say about another
3:18:40
five or so minutes. I'll give Mr. Lavel first opportunity to come back on what
3:18:46
I've heard then briefly from Mr. Green and then I just want to wrap up some of the other habitat regulation issues. Mr.
3:18:53
about with regard to with regard to sewage and nutrification and nutrient sort of basic there's more
3:19:01
in sewage than just phosphorus and you know nutrient enrichment you know
3:19:07
there's all the chemicals you know there's all the uh contraceptive pills there's all the drugs in society and
3:19:12
they affect the birds and me see I didn't bring any figures with me but there's been studies shown that uh birds
3:19:19
affected by contaminants in the sewage uh The sewage acts like a contraceptive
3:19:25
and they no longer breed because they can't because of what what they live on.
3:19:30
So you can't tell me that this the million tons of sewage at Whitburn per year isn't affecting the rock pools and
3:19:37
isn't affecting the birds. Mr. Green, please. Yeah, it's just uh I
3:19:44
mean Steve's mentioned a lot about Witburn, but uh we're you know we we have all of these storm overflows all
3:19:49
the way down the town, you know, uh and and what it is is as Steve you know I highlighted you know there's lots of
3:19:57
them and there's so you know there's so many of them discharging. I mean, wagon we in heaven 179 times. Uh, down by the
3:20:06
T tunnel 108 times. Uh, Tide again towards the tunnel 111
3:20:13
times. You know, I I could go on, but there's loads of them. Now, that's that heads down to South Shields. Uh and I
3:20:20
mean we're only a mile a mile and a half from from uh from Whitburn and it it
3:20:26
will you know the stuff coming down the T is obviously going to have an effect on the area around South Shield and it'll spread. I mean one of the councils
3:20:33
one once highlighted the fact that uh you know that's Sunland's problem you know with the Witburn uh issue but South
3:20:40
Shields has got a problem as well and with with all of this coming down the Dawn Valley and down the river T that
3:20:47
will be having a massive effect on the on the uh the habitat around the area
3:20:52
it's got to be and I I think I mean Northland water which are here tomorrow I I think that statement of common
3:20:58
ground everything about them stinks like what comes out of out the overflow. Uh I
3:21:05
think surely if South Tites rely on on their information knowing what's going on then surely is
3:21:12
is not would it not be corporate negligent on their behalf if if they if they go on what North are actually
3:21:19
telling them. I mean it's all right to put a signature on two documents but that's not evidence that it doesn't exist.
3:21:24
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just um come back to the habitat
3:21:30
regulation assessments? I've heard what the council said around the water quality issue. I understand that there
3:21:37
seem to be some bits and pieces there from Miss Rorcliffe that kind of added to the kind of the overall picture uh
3:21:44
and a reference to a report. I had just had a quick look in the bibliography of the HR and I couldn't actually see that
3:21:50
report from but but what I'm think I'm steering to the council towards is to be
3:21:57
open to or to think about whether there is some additional content in an updated version of the H if we get to a stage of
3:22:04
say potential modifications. Yes, there's maybe some additional or for the
3:22:09
the cons habitat regulation assessment to reflect on what it said so far whe
3:22:15
there's any additional evidence or material that leads it to either an alternative conclusion or
3:22:22
reinforces the conclusion that they've already uh they've already drawn. So
3:22:27
that's what that's what we'll undertake. So we'll give that undertaking now to to to do that.
3:22:35
Thank you. And then obviously that would be published in if there is an updated HA so habitat regulations assessment
3:22:40
that'll be up updated and people obviously have an opportunity to comment at that at a relevant uh relevant stage.
3:22:47
Just very finally before we take a break for lunch you've been very patient um it was something I believe was raised by
3:22:54
the Whitburn neighborhood forum Mr. Lavell, I don't know if it was you or a colleague, just around urban effects on
3:23:00
the Durham Coast SACE from in particular the two proposed housing sites in
3:23:06
Whitburn, which obviously we're going to discuss in more detail next week and the the the reasonleness of the habitat
3:23:13
regulation assessment drawing a conclusion or saying there would be no likely significant effect from um urban
3:23:20
effects, which I've kind of put in a footnote to remind myself is things like cat predation, flight tip,
3:23:26
etc. Whe that at this we'll look at two sites in more detail next week where
3:23:31
that's just a reasonable conclusion to draw for the habitat regulation assessment.
3:23:37
I appreciate you didn't author it miss roof but um is is that I mean obviously
3:23:43
these these two sites are particularly close to the SACE. Um
3:23:50
is is there that vector or that that risk of urban effects?
3:23:55
Um so the urban effects are are generally a risk if there's lots of development close to the cliffs and we
3:24:00
we're particularly talking about the Durham Coast SACE here where the habitat strip is actually really quite narrow on
3:24:06
the cliff edges and and a good chunk of it is over what a lot of the residents will know as the safety barriers. So
3:24:12
it's actually not it's sort of beyond where most people tread. It's beyond the coastal path. Um
3:24:19
the two sites in question, J5 and J6 are about 400 meters awayish give or take.
3:24:27
Um and the land use in between is is primarily Whitburn Coastal Park which is
3:24:32
managed by the National Trust. It's actively managed by the National Trust. So there's some level of natural surveillance there and management by the
3:24:39
trust to see kind of what goes on on their land. Um,
3:24:45
so we don't think that there's a a high risk of of something like dumping of garden waste if somebody's got to walk
3:24:50
400 meters away from their back gate across an open area well walked by the public to do that. And actually our
3:24:57
experience across the Southside coast where we have a lot of urban development closer to the coast than this already in
3:25:02
existence. We actually don't see those impacts in other places for the most part. There is an exception. We do have
3:25:09
an issue with that at um further south um at Woodburn Cliffs where developments
3:25:15
within 100 meters and there's an area particularly close to housing and a lotments where we do get some dumping
3:25:20
over over the edge but at at these sort of distances 400 meters we're not really seeing that. Um in terms of cat
3:25:28
predation that's not a particular issue for our birds because um of the nature of the birds they wing birds on the
3:25:33
rocky shore and that's not often where cats really go to dread. Um so and in
3:25:38
terms of fires for example spreading from houses again 400 meters is quite a distance. The other place in South where
3:25:45
we do see that impact on the sack is at trout point and that's actually not particularly close to resident that's
3:25:50
believed to be more visitors than residents that bring that. Um so we don't see that there's a likelihood of
3:25:57
urban effects from these two particular sites given the distance and the land use in between.
3:26:03
Anything further you wanted to add on urban effects will obviously look at these
3:26:08
sites in more detail next week. Again I'd like
3:26:15
rock cliff said in writing somewhere so sit down have a look at it. You know there's nothing
3:26:20
pertinent that came out of the HR we got that early. Thank you. Okay I'm going to draw this
3:26:28
morning's session to a close. We haven't covered everything that's um on my agenda now for this afternoon. We were
3:26:34
going to pick up uh employment land requirements at 3:00 because I think a
3:26:40
for saw that this first session might overrun slightly. So can I ask the
3:26:46
council and others because I think it's mainly now going to be with the council on remaining questions that I've got
3:26:52
whether we're okay to reconvene in this room in say about quarter past 2 and then we can pick up the other matter one
3:27:00
items have a brief break and then press on into employment lands. Okay. So the
3:27:06
remainder of matter one in terms of other legal and procedural requirements and essay will be at quarter 2 back in
3:27:12
this room and then we'll go into the first part of matter 2 thereafter. Thank you.
4:28:25
Okay, it's just gone quarter 2, so I'm going to resume um these hearing sessions into the examination of the
4:28:31
South Tinside local plan. Um I think everybody in the room was here before
4:28:37
the lunchtime break. So what we're going to do for the first part of this afternoon is is conclude the matters
4:28:44
under matter one on legal and procedural requirements. We're then have a short break and then pick up start of matter
4:28:51
two uh on employment needs. So, continuing with the legal and uh
4:29:00
procedural uh requirements, I'm going to jump back into the agenda back to uh
4:29:07
item four and it's the issue around sustainability appraisal.
4:29:13
Um
4:29:19
obviously the plan is is accompanied by a sustainability appraisal. I haven't
4:29:24
yet counted up all the pages but it's probably in excess of 200s or thereabouts. Yep. So it's a a
4:29:32
significant document. I appreciate people will probably come to other sessions. We'll have a view about
4:29:38
particular judgments within the sustainability appraisal particularly around how it's
4:29:45
dealt with things like um site selection. But I think as part of this session under legal procedural
4:29:51
requirements, what I'm really sort of focusing in is has the sustainability appraisal
4:29:57
met various requirements. Uh not only does it just does it exist, but obviously there are things around
4:30:03
particularly as part of the strategic environmental assessment regulations that um one would expect a
4:30:09
sustainability appraisal uh document to um consider and address. I've asked in
4:30:16
my matter is issues and questions around uh I think it's uh my MIQ 1.5
4:30:25
whether there are any um substantive evidence that the sustainability
4:30:31
appraisal report has not met um the legal requirements and I was particularly interested in how it's
4:30:37
dealt with kind of reasonable alternatives and as part of that process perhaps where completely unreasonable
4:30:44
kind of options have either been discounted or or or quickly um dealt with. So I don't know if there's
4:30:51
somebody from the council on the council's behalf who's going to just take me through the
4:30:58
I think Miss Nichols, you introduce yourself. I'm try Oh, is that working there? Yes. Um hi, I'm Kate Nichols. I'm a director
4:31:05
of planning at LU. Uh we're an independent planning consultancy and were commissioned by South Southside
4:31:12
Council in early 2020 to undertake the remaining stages of the sustainability appraisal on their behalf and have done
4:31:19
the sustainability appraisal work since then.
4:31:25
Thank you. And in terms of as I set out in my uh MIQ 1.5 just in broad sort of
4:31:32
headline headline terms how the work you've undertaken Miss Nichols
4:31:38
has satisfied the relevant requirements around SA and sorry slipping immediately
4:31:44
into planning shorthand SA for sustainability appraisal uh and in
4:31:50
particular this this kind of it can be for some plan examinations a quite a naughty issue around how reasonable
4:31:56
alternatives have been dealt with and whether you've looked at all reasonable alternatives on a sort of a comparable
4:32:04
basis and a comparable kind of depth of of scrutiny.
4:32:13
Yes. So I won't repeat all of what's in the hearing statement, but um just can I
4:32:18
just clarify the question just a sort of overview of the process that's been gone through? Yes, please. I mean I think um I don't
4:32:25
think anybody's really kind of from the representations I've read picked up significant issues of kind of legal
4:32:32
non-compliance but obviously there are things that have to be done it could be like non-technical summary or you know
4:32:39
various kind legal requirements that are anticipated and then I think where people
4:32:46
um will uh be more sort of interested or have
4:32:52
raised the issue as representations is then how things are looked at when
4:32:57
you're going to get into the the detail of reasonable alternatives. Has that been undertaken on a consistent and
4:33:05
comparable um basis? Thanks. Okay. Um so yes, in short, the
4:33:11
the essay has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the SEA regulations. There's a signposting
4:33:19
table early on and I think in chapter one of the SA report which attempts to just um sort of signpost the reader to
4:33:26
the relevant sections of the report that address each of the specific requirements of the regulations.
4:33:31
Um in terms of reasonable alternatives um yes there has been a fairly long and
4:33:37
iterative process that has been gone through um to consider the likely significant effects of the reasonable
4:33:44
alternatives in terms of the sort of overall strategy. So the amount of
4:33:49
housing and employment development and the spatial distribution of that that story if you like is told in chapter
4:33:55
four of the essay report which sets out the work the options that have been looked at summarizes the findings and um
4:34:03
sets out the council's reasons for taking forward particular options and rejecting others. Um and in relation to
4:34:10
specific site options that story is told in chapter five of the essay report.
4:34:16
There was um two or three stages iteratively of options appraisal looking
4:34:21
at those options on a um a consistent and um comparable basis over the course
4:34:28
of plan making. Um and there's a quite detailed appendix to the essay report which again sets out the the reasons for
4:34:35
that decision making and the uh yeah the rather weighty annex one which sits alongside the essay report is um the
4:34:43
detailed appraisal matrices for each of those sites and I would say um the length of that could look potentially
4:34:49
off-putting but it's very much um due to the number of site options that were considered.
4:34:55
I think I've read somewhere that when um LU were appointed to look at the kind of
4:35:01
the site sort of appointed to look at the sustainability appraisal and in particular the this kind of issue of
4:35:07
site assessments which does consistently crop up at local plan examinations how
4:35:12
sites have been looked at. You actually sort of went back and put more sites in.
4:35:18
Was that a reasonable approach? We did. Um yeah, sorry for what that does to the length of the report. But um
4:35:24
we felt that when we um when we were first carrying out work for the council, the first thing we did was a sort of
4:35:30
quality review just to take stock of the work that had been done to date. And we we felt um from our independent review
4:35:37
that that was broadly robust and sound and helpful. One area where we did just think actually um there might be some
4:35:44
gaps that need filling was in relation to the site options because our experience has shown that um the sort of
4:35:51
bar if you like for saying that site options are unreasonable and therefore don't require SA is quite high. Um we
4:35:57
weren't completely convinced that the civv criteria that had been used at that point to identify the sites that were
4:36:03
reasonable in terms of the sea regs were were quite tight enough. So we did some work with the council to um just sort of
4:36:11
hone those s criteria a bit, make sure that they were duly precautionary and that if there were sites that weren't
4:36:17
very clearly subject to absolute constraints that we were very comfortable saying these are not reasonable options then they should be
4:36:24
included. So that did result in quite a large number of sites coming back into the process and then all of the sites
4:36:30
were reappraised um on a consistent basis at that point because what he we'd also done was make just a couple of
4:36:37
fairly minor tweaks to the framework of essay objectives that the sites were appraised against. So just to make sure
4:36:42
that they were all considered on a comparable basis, we reran the appraisal of all the options at that point.
4:36:58
So thinking through sort the plan making steps then so the essay has been reasonably consistent and undertaken by
4:37:04
C from the regulation 18 stage through to the regulation 19 that's been that
4:37:11
kind of continuous yes that's correct yes
4:37:20
thank you and As I say, I think when we come down to some of the individual um
4:37:25
sites and site options and particularly on Thursday when we get into kind of the
4:37:32
site selection process, um people may have sort of different
4:37:37
views on judgments taken in um sustainability appraisal. I'm always view sustainability appraisal is an
4:37:44
inherently sort of judgmental kind of process. Um but in terms of
4:37:51
um LUC's kind of track record and uh involvement
4:37:57
in local plan sustainability appraisal is it something you do a lot or um is
4:38:03
self time side you know uh the first or is this something you've
4:38:08
no work accepted elsewhere? Uh yeah far from it. Um sustainability appraisal is a key work area for LU. Um
4:38:16
I myself have been working on sustainability appraisals for local plans for more than 15 years. Um I've
4:38:23
worked on dozens a significant proportion have gone through examination and been found sound. So I am confident
4:38:29
that our approach is tried and tested. Um and just to add there in relation to what you were saying about the sort of
4:38:35
consistency and the need for judgment that is a significant issue when you're dealing with a really large number of
4:38:41
site options. So the methodology that we use and that has been applied um in this case is to take a sort of GIS-based
4:38:49
approach where we um have uh a largely automated model where we've got um
4:38:55
assessment criteria which are set out in appendix to the SA report which set out very clear um quantified parameters
4:39:03
under which certain effects would be identified. those distances to particular constraints or features and
4:39:10
then we run the sites through a model using GIS data to apply those judgments. So um it has been tried and tested
4:39:18
through um various local plan examinations and it's been found to have a much higher level of accuracy than
4:39:26
attempting to appraise sites manually or you know to apply consistent judgment
4:39:31
across hundreds of sites. inevitably human error would creep in. So we're really confident that the approach is um
4:39:38
robust and consistent despite the very large number of of site options
4:39:43
as well as sites um sustainability appraisals. Obviously got to look at policy options um of all policies that
4:39:50
are in the plan been put through sustainability appraisal including the
4:39:56
kind of the option of what if we didn't have a plan or we we did nothing.
4:40:01
All the policies that are in the plan have been subject to essay. We don't do
4:40:06
a sort of no policy option appraisal which is um explained I'll just find the relevant section near the start of um
4:40:14
chapter six. I think early on in the process the council had done that but
4:40:20
our view is that um you're sort of if you're appraising the
4:40:25
no plan option you're effectively appraising existing national policy or local policy and that's not really the
4:40:31
purpose of the appraisal of this local plan. So um that's not something that we do a standard in essay and didn't do
4:40:37
here.
4:40:51
Thank you. I've got no further questions on sustainability appraise. I'll bring in others. I appreciate I think as I say
4:40:57
I think when we get to kind of some of the issues around site selection people may have differing views around how
4:41:03
sites have been um appraised or or judged. I think that's helpful to me
4:41:09
this this afternoon in terms of just the general approach and legality of the
4:41:14
sustainability appraisal work that's in front of me. Mr. Green just a very quick question.
4:41:20
you know, Felgates down as a level one flood zone where where it's got no flooding or uh you know, no surface
4:41:28
water problems, which we're going to, you know, highlight on the day, but on on your on this report uh 521,
4:41:37
it's shown that uh some of the site options, this part said uh Monton burn and Close Burn, which are the burns
4:41:43
which run around Felgate. Uh as such these sites lie within areas of flood zone 3A or 3B. Uh but yeah in in
4:41:51
incoming reports what are going to have you know over the next few days they're down as uh one
4:41:59
I'm mindful we're obviously going to get into flood risk do flood risk just come across that. Yeah.
4:42:07
Is that reference to paragraph 521?
4:42:14
Okay. Well, if that's true then if that's true then surely it undermines the entire
4:42:20
fell gate build because it's it's in a completely different flood zone. It's classified as I mean on yours as 3 and
4:42:27
3B and on the south side say one as one one here. I unless I'm wrong sorry
4:42:35
it may be something we we pick up next week but I mean just coming back to your your point miss um Nicholls around the
4:42:42
kind of say uh applying geographical information systems and data for consistency of
4:42:48
approach. I don't know if this is something specific you can pick up now or something we deal with later.
4:42:54
Yeah. So just um as an immediate answer, the site options have all been overlaid
4:43:00
with the GIS uh layers which show the flood zones and that has fed directly into the effects that have been
4:43:06
identified. If there are very specific land parcels where um there are people that perhaps disagree with that then we
4:43:13
could certainly check the detail of that through the specific GIS layers. um the there's a very um low error rate
4:43:22
if you like in terms of if the site parcels have been overlaid with the the flood zones and that's what it's shown
4:43:29
then that I would assume is what IGIS data shows but we need to go back to the mapping if there's a specific question
4:43:34
about the um school that has been attributed to a specific land parcel
4:43:40
that's a big difference 3 3B and one you know that's a massive difference and that that's with the
4:43:47
pictures we've got with all the evidence we've got that should really take it should put into another completely
4:43:52
different zone. Okay. Well, pick I've got it on the agenda for for fellgate for next week
4:43:57
and I've made a note of that particular paragraph so we can Sorry if I can just come back on that.
4:44:02
Yeah. So, I understand you're talking about paragraph 5.21. So um those sections because there we
4:44:09
are dealing with such a large number of site options attempting to sort of summarize those in a um in a logical and
4:44:17
and helpful way we've done that by the various areas of the burough. So in terms of the failgate and head site
4:44:23
options that paragraph is saying that some of the site options are in those
4:44:28
flood zones um and so have significant effects for that reasons. It's not it's not saying that all of the sites in that
4:44:36
area do. Again, can I can I come back on that
4:44:41
one? Felgate the Felgate Green Belt lies on one road, Durham Drive. Uh and you
4:44:48
know what have come across is this is somewhat something I'm going to highlight in the next few days. The top part of it, which is the top of Durham
4:44:54
Drive, is is class is excluded because it's heavy traffic and flood. yet 10
4:45:00
meters down the road that parcel isn't. And this is where this is where the problems could lie because you know the
4:45:08
these reports are just totally inconsistent. Uh you know and I I put it down to the
4:45:13
local plan. The local plan I I I said earlier that what they're doing is that that altering the facts to fit their
4:45:19
local plan and the evidence is totally there that that Felgate should be taken out of the of the local plan for for a
4:45:26
mass amount of reasons. Thank you. And I assure you, Mr. Mr.
4:45:32
Green, we'll look at various re issues and the reasons uh relating to Falgate
4:45:37
in more detail next week. Can I just ask from LEC uh for the council when it says
4:45:44
there under paragraph 521 there are five sites um where they're expected to have
4:45:50
significant negative effects. So I think picking up Miss Nichols your wider point
4:45:55
of you're looking at a wider sort of geographical area and when you drill down there are some specific parcels
4:46:02
where this is an issue. Is there a an easy way I I can sort of track back
4:46:07
and find those sites SFG 15 20 40 41.
4:46:13
Yes. So the table that precedes that paragraph table 5.2 two that summarizes
4:46:19
um the scores that are then um detailed in the large annex of the um the sort of
4:46:27
performers for each site. So you can see table 5.2 to that where those red double
4:46:32
negatives are, those are the five significant negative that are referred to
4:46:43
and then I would track that through to the annex itself to look at the specific sites. Exactly. Um yes the detail of exactly
4:46:52
why that score was given to that land parcel in accordance with the criteria
4:46:57
um that are in appendix E then yes that's detailed in the annex
4:47:03
picture speak louder than words that's the top of the felgate green belt on April the 14th 2024 that's the bottom of
4:47:10
the felgate green belt thank you and I think you've provided those photographs Mr. green as part of
4:47:16
your they're appended to your statement. Yeah. Thanks.
4:47:22
Thank you. I've got nothing further say I want to raise in relation to just the the sort of legality and kind of
4:47:28
procedure of the sustainability appraisal as I think Mr. Green's highlighting. I think when we come to some of the specific sites and issues,
4:47:37
we'll we'll look into some of these uh matters in in more detail, but I've
4:47:43
got nothing further at this stage on sustainability appraisal. So, thank you um for that. I'm going to move on uh in
4:47:50
terms of the agenda, please um to pick up uh other legal and procedural
4:47:58
requirements under matter of my um agenda. We've touched upon this briefly
4:48:03
in terms of the public sector equality duty and Mr. Green has made submissions already in terms of the adequacy of the
4:48:10
public consultation against the equality. I think in terms of my um
4:48:15
questions uh for the examination uh and in the first instance to the council is
4:48:21
obviously the council is a wider public body is is um
4:48:27
uh obligated by the duty uh in terms of considering those with protected characteristics.
4:48:33
Uh and I think just give the council there's anything further it wishes to say in relation to MIQ 112 in terms of
4:48:40
how the plan is considered. um persons who have some of those those
4:48:46
uh protected characteristics and how plan making has taken that into consideration.
4:48:52
Yes. So the the issue of um public sector quality duty um and undertaken a
4:48:58
quality impact assessment has been undertaken through the sustainability appraisal process. um from from the
4:49:04
outset and preparing and preparing the sustainability appraisal, we embedded um
4:49:10
the equality impact and health impact assessment within the the essay assessment itself. Um and that's sort of
4:49:17
picked up through the the objective um the sorry the sustainability object objective 11 which is to promote
4:49:24
equality of opportunity and access and promote good relations between diverse communities and also within the relating
4:49:31
sustainability a question um where it states um will this impact upon people who share protected characteristics
4:49:38
identified within the quality act 2010. This has meant that basically every policy that's been assessed through the
4:49:45
um the sustainability process has had that consideration taken into account in
4:49:50
terms of the sustainability appraisal. And um it's noted that in section um 8
4:49:56
of the sustainability appraisal note there was an error in the the hearing statement where I was referred to as section 12. It's actually section 8.
4:50:03
There is a whole section which um sets out the equality impact assessments and
4:50:09
the health impact assessments through the sustainability appraisal. In addition, there was also an equality
4:50:16
impact assessment undertaken alongside the the cabinet report um which was um
4:50:21
taken to sorry the council report that was taken to to council um for the the
4:50:26
plan to be submitted in February as well. So again, another equality impact assessment's been undertaken to
4:50:32
accompany that.
4:50:42
Thank you. I've got no further questions on the wider public sector equality duty. So Mr. Green, I heard what you
4:50:49
said earlier around your views on consultation not meeting the equality.
4:50:54
I just put this is from one another member of our working group who's on hold. Can I just ask he's for a
4:50:59
conclusion? I mean, I didn't go through his full thing, but considering the conflicting inaccessible and technically
4:51:04
flawed evidence coupled with inconsistent communication and questionable legal practices, the South
4:51:10
Tate draft local plan 2023 2040 cannot be deemed robust or legally compliant.
4:51:16
Uh I think you know that's from one of the worm group. Yeah, thank you. Well uh
4:51:23
obviously this an area that my report will have to draw a conclusion on in terms of the I too are bound by the
4:51:29
public sector quality duties. on form my conclusion on whether the council has
4:51:34
met uh that duty uh in terms of the the contents of I'm so keen to distinguish
4:51:40
between the consultation process what's actually in the plan and what the policies
4:51:46
uh potential impacts of policies on persons with protected um characteristics. So, and we'll uh
4:51:54
undoubtedly as part of the stage two hearings come on to look at some of the particular policies around accessible
4:52:01
homes etc that um obviously uh relate to uh this particular um duty.
4:52:09
Uh moving on in terms of the agenda please um asked around compliance with the local
4:52:15
development scheme which obviously the there's the project plan or work program for the council um I think the last one
4:52:25
was earlier this year March 2025.
4:52:30
Yes. So we um updated the uh local development scheme, the LDS um to coincide with the submission of the
4:52:37
local plan. Um the previous one was um produced originally in um October 23 um
4:52:44
and then updated in March 2024 to take into account um the emerging amp um AAP.
4:52:51
Um so that set out the time scales um for producing the local plan from
4:52:56
regulation 19. Obviously there has been delays to to the time scale set out in
4:53:02
that in that version of the LDS. So it's why we update the LDS to accompany the
4:53:08
submission. Thank you. I mean in terms of just
4:53:15
appreciate the sort of the position the council's in in terms of the preparation
4:53:20
stage for the local development scheme uh and where we are today. and also
4:53:26
recognize that probably these hearings I think are happening slightly sooner than
4:53:31
the LDS um envisaged. But um I think in
4:53:36
general terms it doesn't seem that there's been a sort of a significant kind of infringement or um deviation
4:53:43
from the overall kind of program or intention that the council uh the
4:53:49
council saw saw was um was likely or anticipated would happen.
4:53:54
I mean I didn't have any further questions on the local development scheme but it does lead us into um the
4:54:03
next issue and you've referred to it there Mrs. Lamb around the international advanced manager international advanced
4:54:10
manufacturing park which I think we're going to probably slip into the abbreviation the I am is everybody call
4:54:16
it the IMP? Yes. Yeah. Um I think I just wanted to be clear in my
4:54:22
mind and perhaps for the benefit of other people here there's obviously two separate development plan documents for
4:54:28
the South Tinside area uh at this moment in time. This local plan that's before me is not
4:54:35
enveloping or reviewing what's in the AMP. It's kind of the AMP is to sort of
4:54:41
one side. It's an adopted area action plan. um and whether that's a kind of a
4:54:48
was always a kind of a legitimate approach and whether there was any kind of view as to whether the AMP area
4:54:55
should have been brought within the local plan and viewed as part of this local plan.
4:55:01
We never took the view that the should be part of the local plan. Um it's
4:55:07
always been viewed separately. Obviously, it is partly within the burough.
4:55:14
Um but the IAMP area action plan
4:55:20
forms its own adopted development plan. Uh it's a joint crossboundary
4:55:27
development plan with Sunderland. So they have the same approach that we have.
4:55:32
Um policies of the local plan are only relevant where the AAP is silent on
4:55:38
policy issues. The council has prop proposed modifications to policies SP2 and SP17
4:55:48
which clarify the relationship between the local plan and the AMP area
4:55:54
manufacturing plan. Um,
4:56:00
I would add to that that the IMP AAP was informed by its own bespoke evidence
4:56:07
base which considers the specific needs of what's called principal uses which are
4:56:13
specific to the IAMP.
4:56:19
Given the strategic nature of the IAMP, its crossboundary location within the two local BL planning
4:56:27
authorities um and the restrictions on certain types of
4:56:33
uses within the AMP, it was considered appropriate that it continues to form
4:56:39
part of its own separate development plan.
4:56:45
So in terms of the employment land review, it um
4:56:52
essentially looked at the the need to meet the local plan. You know the IAP
4:56:59
had its own separate evidence base while at the same time um
4:57:05
referencing the I am because obviously it is part of the burough.
4:57:11
So we have given consideration between the IMP and the supply and the supply and demand for employment space within
4:57:17
the burough to ensure there's no double counting um
4:57:23
with economic growth associated with the principal uses expected to take place within the IAP
4:57:30
and economic growth expected to be accommodated within the
4:57:36
portfolio of employment sites allocated through the local plan. So
4:57:45
as a state obviously there is some inter relationship but we feel that um it's
4:57:51
legitimate to maintain that separation in terms of the the two separate plan documents.
4:57:58
Thank you. And the policies map's clear and it kind of denotes that there's an
4:58:03
area that is covered by the current extent I am area action plan and that's kind of
4:58:10
grayed out. So it's quite clear that's covered by a separate um uh development plan
4:58:19
um document. Is there any kind of as you say Mr. Clear obviously there's
4:58:24
principal uses um that are designed for that amp. Are
4:58:30
any of the policies within this local plan on a wider level so design or
4:58:38
are they intended to kind of also apply within the IMP area or does
4:58:45
the AAP kind of sit um the
4:58:52
as I state the IMP has its own area action plan and that is currently in the process of being reviewed. it's um
4:59:02
progressed as far as the regulation 19 consultation that's taken place. So obviously the intention is for that
4:59:11
to um be the policy document for the IAP.
4:59:16
And I would also point out that um both authorities reviewed
4:59:22
um the IAMP area action plan
4:59:28
um in 2022 as to whether it was still I think the
4:59:33
precise terminology was something like whether the the policies were still appropriate up to date and concluded
4:59:40
that they were and um but the intention is for the for the I
4:59:47
to cover its own area the imp
4:59:52
and as you say Mr. that the council's put some thought to some additional so
4:59:58
is this text to policy SP2. So it would sit as kind of supporting text to the
5:00:04
policy to kind of just explain in terms of the employment land figure that's identified in SP2
5:00:10
is serving if I can call it the general employment needs of the burough but
5:00:17
alongside that or slightly outside it to the the southwest is a separate kind of
5:00:23
employment land provision as you say for a very specific kind of principle
5:00:29
purpose I mean, as I think we probably get on to um
5:00:35
later this afternoon, um obviously the I am it's there and
5:00:42
obviously the there's a supply chain and and wider multiplier effects if you like
5:00:48
which we're kind of recognizing in the local plan in terms of our employment requirement.
5:00:54
Um but specifically the needs for to be met on the Imp. I
5:01:00
mean the IMP was released from the green belt for specific purposes. Um was
5:01:07
judged for exceptional circumstances to meet certain specialist um advanced
5:01:13
manufacturing needs. So hence
5:01:21
um the way in which it's been looked at through the employment land review there
5:01:26
has been a a separation.
5:01:33
Thank you. I mean I was looking looking at what the council has has put forward. I mean I thought it was very helpful in
5:01:40
kind of setting the some of the context and um the differentiation between the two. I mean my view would be
5:01:48
um to potentially recommend this as one of a number potential main modifications to
5:01:54
the plan. I the council would have formed a view at this stage or whether the council's view is well here are some
5:01:59
modifications for me to kind of consider and the board would be left in my court as to whether this would be something I
5:02:05
felt was a main modification or what we tend to call in the jargon an additional modification that the council could
5:02:12
make. And I thought this potentially adds to the kind of the effectiveness of the plan to kind of
5:02:18
help draw that um distinction. I don't know if the council has a view on whether it's a main or an additional
5:02:26
anything which is apologies
5:02:31
anything which alters either the policy or the supporting text which is more than just typographical
5:02:38
I think should be considered as a main modification for safety sake um and consulted upon.
5:02:47
Um going back to the point you were making about the um status of the AAP and its
5:02:55
effectiveness in context of the this emerging plan. It provides a
5:03:01
comprehensive suite of policies and deals specifically with issues like design and things like that. So um if if
5:03:09
you when you get the chance, you probably have seen it already, but if you get the chance to look at it again, um I think it will confirm uh that it is
5:03:17
fairly um um st it is a standalone
5:03:22
document which is pretty comprehensive. So it's unlikely that there's going to be a need to refer or to apply other
5:03:29
local local plan policies.
5:03:39
Thank you. Uh I'm mindful that other sessions we will
5:03:44
touch upon the uh the IMP um including shortly as part of the employment um
5:03:50
land um session and I'm uh going to hear more about it I think
5:03:55
tomorrow and look at housing needs. Um just on this inter relationship issue
5:04:01
councelor Herbert first and then Mr. Green. just seems like another example of why
5:04:06
there should be a combined strategic plan for both authorities would fit in perfectly with that. Now
5:04:13
we've got this standalone thing sitting outside which future developments like
5:04:19
the metro line formsby extension would be designed largely to service this
5:04:25
area. So I can't see why it isn't in with the whole plan as a combined one.
5:04:33
Yeah. It's just uh w with the I am that's been that's been green belt
5:04:38
release. Has that been done already? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So so that's part of the fate agreement. That's that that side of it.
5:04:45
This is this side of it. You know where this side of it. So it's getting squashed further. But the other thing was the council's just recently put a
5:04:52
document in. It was on Friday uh related to Roman. Now what we're trying to put forward is
5:04:58
the fact that it is a brownfield site. You know there's been funding made available for sites in South Shields uh
5:05:05
and sites in in heaven. Uh but in relation to Roman H could that now
5:05:11
because of the land release for employment to do with the AMP would would Roman H then now be put back could
5:05:19
it be put back in a brownfield for housing? Okay, that's that makes sense. Thank you Mr. W. is something I I want
5:05:26
to touch upon on um Thursday when we're looking at green belt. I think you're coming for that
5:05:33
uh for that session on Thursday. Yeah. So, we'll we'll look at that then. And I know there are other other sites that uh
5:05:39
people think should also be um released for housing instead of instead of green belt. Um I'm not going to invite the
5:05:46
council now, but I'm not going to obviously lose sight. We are going to talk about employment land shortly.
5:05:52
Obviously that particular site is part of the council's proposed employment
5:05:57
land um portfolio. Thank you. I've got nothing further I wanted to raise in relation to the um
5:06:05
the IMP. So I just wanted to conclude this first matter uh and I'll first look
5:06:12
at a specific policy in the plan. It's policy SP1
5:06:18
um where um the plan contains uh the pres a policy on the presumption in
5:06:24
favor of sustainable development um which some people know is embedded
5:06:29
within national planning policy. Um I'm not going to speculate what's going
5:06:35
to be in the suite of development man national development management policies but it's hard to see the principle of
5:06:42
the presumption uh going at this stage. Um obviously there's been various representations uh
5:06:48
put to on the plan that this policy is not necessary um and should be removed
5:06:56
from the plan uh in order to make it sound. I've asked at MIQ um 116.
5:07:03
Uh I'll give the council uh further opportunities. Anything you wish to elaborate on or amplify in terms
5:07:10
of why it would not be necessary for sound what why this can be considered a
5:07:15
sound approach to conclude this policy. Yes, I think um obviously the inclusion of this
5:07:22
policy basically sets how um the presumption for sustainable development would be considered in terms of
5:07:27
development coming forward in South Tide. Um obviously I'll pick out uh particularly criterion three which makes
5:07:34
reference to the maid neighborhood plans for East Balden uh plan area and Wickburn um neighborhood plan as well.
5:07:41
So it adds a bit of sort of local context in terms of how that would be applied within South Tinside. Um, so I
5:07:48
think the the council considers the the policy to to be sound at this point.
5:08:04
Thank you. And if I was to sort of further reflect on this and suggest that this is a policy that would be removed,
5:08:11
the council say there would be a harm or something, you know, negative would arise from
5:08:19
removing the policy. I think inspectors have taken different approaches when presented with this
5:08:24
policy. Yeah. Um and it's the same also with heritage policies where essentially one
5:08:31
is driven by national policy. Um, if I were to suggest that it probably
5:08:38
wouldn't make any difference, then you've got to ask the question, well, is it effective in that case? Um, my view
5:08:45
is it doesn't. My professional judgment on this is that it probably
5:08:50
makes little difference at the end of the day whether it's in or out. But if
5:08:56
someone is reading the plan who is not offay with national policy and its
5:09:01
interaction with local plan policy and wants to understand how the policies are being applied then it's a useful policy
5:09:09
to have in place.
5:09:15
Thank you. Councelor Herbert,
5:09:22
do we skip a question?
5:09:40
Thank you. We I have not raised a specific point on my agenda about
5:09:45
question 113. Having read the various statements etc. I didn't have any
5:09:51
further questions on how the plan has gone about addressing climate change. I think I'm
5:09:57
clear from the various answers that were given. So I I didn't have any further points I
5:10:04
wanted to raise on that. I think I have tried to clarify subsequent agendas that where I haven't raised a question about
5:10:10
haven't raised a matter issues questions subsequently. It
5:10:16
means I'm kind of taken the answers that have been provided as read and there's nothing further that I wanted to clarify
5:10:23
or ask a further question on. Okay. Thank you.
5:10:29
Okay. Thank you. I think that draws now to a close uh this first uh matter one.
5:10:35
Thank you everybody for your um contributions. We're staying in this room. Uh I'm going
5:10:40
to pick up the first part of matter two on employment land needs at 3:00.
5:10:48
I'm going to stick to that time. I think councelor Herbert South Green Southside
5:10:53
Green Party are down. I think you're the only people down for this particular session
5:11:02
or my colleague was really addressing this
5:11:07
issue but I she sent some notes. I do my best. Okay. Yeah, that's that's fine. I've got
5:11:12
various questions for the council and I think um for them. So, uh I'm going to
5:11:17
journ now. We'll be back in this room at uh 3:00. For those of you who aren't for
5:11:22
this afternoon session, the next one will be back in this room at 9:30
5:11:28
tomorrow morning when we pick up the issue of housing needs. But we've got employment needs first. Is that
5:11:37
it? Is the time.
5:11:42
Okay, we'll just have a brief twominut adjournment break. So, those who want to leave can leave now. And uh Yep. Sorry.
5:11:50
Yep.