19:47
Well, good afternoon everybody. It's now 2 o'clock, so it's time for me to open this afternoon's hearing session into
19:53
the examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. My name is David Spencer. I'm the inspector appointed by the
19:59
Secretary of State to conduct the examination of the submitted plan. Can I remind people at this stage to please
20:06
ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their silent settings, please?
20:12
I think there are some people in the room who weren't here this morning. So, can I just invite the council to do the usual um housekeeping matters, please?
20:21
Good afternoon everybody. We're not expecting any fire alarms. So, if there is an alarm, please can you make your
20:26
way to the nearest fire exit which is just at the far side of the room and then to the far side of the hotel car
20:31
park. Toilets are in the corridor just outside of this room to the left. Please notice cables taped to the floor. So,
20:38
please be careful when you're moving around the room. And if you have a car in the car park, then please ensure you've entered your registration details
20:44
at the devices the hotel reception. Thank you.
20:50
Thank you um for that. Um I think most people I'm sort of looking around have
20:56
been at hearing sessions, previous hearing sessions. Obviously, I've in you
21:02
all probably undoubtedly had leases with Annette and have spoken to Annette as the program officer. So, you know, uh
21:09
that she's she's really in charge of everything. So, uh you're speaking to the right person there. Uh hopefully
21:16
everybody here this afternoon is for matter 10. Uh we're looking at policies.
21:21
These are the buroughwide policies in the plan dealing with the natural. Uh we're going to first look at natural
21:26
environment. We're then going to look at green infrastructure uh and open space matters
21:32
uh and landscape. Uh we're then going to look at um the burrowwide policy for
21:41
development proposals uh in the green belt and then we're going to finish off this afternoon by looking at policy
21:47
framework for the historic um environment. Um we're not going to sit today beyond 5:00. Hopefully we can
21:54
finish um a bit before then. Uh so I'd encourage people to make um concise
21:59
contributions. Um but obviously I'm here to make sure I hear from everybody on on
22:05
the relevant uh points you'd like to bring um to my attention with a focus on what potentially needs to be modified um
22:13
to the plan uh in order for it to be uh found sound. These sessions are being
22:19
recorded um but uh and then uploaded onto the examination website. So
22:25
participants are encouraged to use the microphones when making your contributions. But can I just check at
22:31
this early stage? I don't think we've got anybody from the local press here, but does anybody wish to make their own separate recording of this afternoon
22:38
session? No. In which case, can I uh just go
22:45
around the table to allow those who are going to contribute to this afternoon's discussion to identify themselves
22:51
um for the recording and for people in the room. Please, if I start on my left with the council's team.
22:57
Good afternoon, sir. I'm Paul Shedervian, KC for the council.
23:03
I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the operations manager for the spatial planner team at South Tai Council.
23:10
Hello, I'm Claire Roiff. I'm the natural environment manager for Southside Council.
23:16
Good afternoon. I'm Charles Higgins, property services manager for the council.
23:22
Good afternoon. I'm Matt Clifford, senior planning policy officer.
23:28
Good afternoon. Chris Martin from the Homebuilders Federation. Good afternoon, sir. Jack Comroy, SS
23:35
Planning representing Lick Hall Farm Limited and Durham Cathedral.
23:40
Good afternoon all. I'm Mark Murphy. I'm from Pegasus Group and I'm speaking on behalf of Belway Homes.
23:47
Good afternoon. I'm councelor Rachel Taylor for the Green Party.
23:53
Thank you. Thank you everybody. Now we're going to work to an agenda that I've previously
23:58
um circulated. It's going to follow up from my matters issues and questions. I'm going to largely be looking to the
24:04
council in the first instance in terms of the approach that they've taken and then where necessary and justified I'll
24:10
open it up to others um to come in on that um that relevant uh point. So I can
24:16
start first with my MIQ 10.1. It deals with the strategic policy policy 21 on
24:23
the natural environment obviously applies to the whole of the uh the burough. Uh and asked the point raised
24:29
in some of the representations at regulation 19 where the criterion four
24:35
of the policy uh relating to the protection of um uh woodland and hedros
24:43
within the burough. uh whether it would be
24:49
whether it would be necessary for soundness to kind of qualify where uh any any loss was either unjustified
24:56
or could not be could not be mitigated. Is it Mrs. Lamb?
25:03
Yes, that's right. So in our MIQ response to to 10.0, we've stated that
25:08
we we don't um consider it necessary to to have that qualifier within um policy
25:15
SP21. Um we consider SP21 to be the set the strategic direction in terms of um the
25:23
natural environment and dealing with trees and hedge across the burough and we feel that should be those should be
25:28
protected within the burough in the first instance. um that sort of qualified the fact that we do also have
25:33
policy 36 um which is which covers um protection of trees, woodland, hedge and
25:40
we feel that that provides sufficient clarity in terms of how applications would be dealt with in terms of how that
25:46
affects trees and hedge um and that gives the the flexibility in terms of um
25:52
how how how to justify trees um could be lost through development proposals.
26:04
Thank you for that. for those who've made re representations on this policy.
26:11
I don't it's either for the homebuilders federation or for um
26:18
uh
26:24
I'll stick I'll just stick the moment with the with the homebuilders federation whether um what I've heard
26:30
from the council is obviously a plan needs to be read as a whole. there is policy 36 as well whether there needs to
26:35
be further uh content within policy SP21.
26:42
Thank you sir. Um no I mean I agree that the the plan needs to be read as a whole but I do think then that probably puts
26:48
further emphasis on the fact that SP21 and policy 36 need to be consistent with
26:54
each other and if you read one and then you read the other there isn't a consistency there. So I do think for
27:01
effectiveness to make sure the policy SP21 is effective, it does need to reference unjustified loss in there as a
27:08
qualifier just so the two policies when you do read them together make sense.
27:15
Thank you, Mr. Conroy, please. Thank you, sir. Um, nothing too much more to add uh on top of the written
27:22
representations that we submitted. Um, just a point to note that we would agree with the wording that Mr. Martin has put
27:28
forward uh in regards to unjustified loss. Thank you.
28:00
Okay, I had nothing further for the council. I'm just reminding myself about policy 36 which the council's directed me to.
28:07
So, Mr. Cherubin, can I just make this indication SP21 is
28:13
a strategic policy sets out the ambitions of the council. It's an umbrella policy. It has to be read um
28:21
against policy 35 uh which makes specific provision for
28:27
particular circumstances as they occur. So so
28:35
sorry not 35 36 um so um there's nothing consistent in
28:41
in the policy approach.
28:47
Thank you. I note uh everyone's positions on that. So for uh
28:54
next item under uh this sort of wider strategic policy SP21
29:00
um I raised the question at my MIQ 2 MIQ
29:06
10.2 to whether it was be justified or consistent with national policy to require specific measures for I think
29:12
these are sort of identified as priority species whether that's uh swift bricks
29:18
bat boxes or hedgehog um highways u whether that needs to be
29:24
kind of reflected or embedded in policy SP21 also cross referred or had an eye on
29:31
whether policy 4047 provided a a hook for the consideration
29:37
of this this issue. But I invite the council please to respond to MIQ 10.2.
29:44
Uh yes. Um we've set out in our response that we don't consider it necessary to to include those provisions within
29:50
policy SP21. Um as we sort of said that is a strategic policy um for the natural
29:55
environment and does sort of cover um sort of broader sort of protections um for for um priority species within that
30:03
policy. Um but we have sort of um proposed some supporting text for policy
30:09
um 47 um linking from criterion 4 um 41.
30:15
Um so that sets out how nature should be considered embedded within design proposals and council considers that
30:21
this policy would allow for the features that we've sort of that you've you've mentioned there swift bricks and back
30:27
back boxes um to be skewed as part of delivery of on-site mitigation or enhancement measures which are required
30:33
by policy 34. Okay,
30:40
thank you. Um I note from various representations there's support for um
30:46
measures for priority species but I think others invite a degree of caution in terms of how far the plan could go.
30:53
Mr. Martin first and then Mr. Murphy for Belway. Thank you sir. Um I I would just on the
31:00
record say support the changes that the council have made. I think it's right that swift bricks backboxes highways
31:07
should be encouraged in development but they shouldn't be mandated and the reason for that being is the need for
31:14
swift bricks and bat boxes hedgehog highways should be assessed on a sideby-sight basis. You know it it could
31:20
be the case that a building for instance doesn't have the right orientation. It's not the right height. the surrounding context in terms of noise might mean it
31:28
might not be suitable for bats or there might be other environmental factors mean it might not be suitable for swifts
31:34
etc for swift boxes. So I think whilst you can encourage it I think it's it would be problematic and I don't think
31:40
it would be an effective policy if you have to mandate it. So I support what the council have done in terms of their changes.
31:46
Okay. Thank you sir. Um unfortunately I'm
31:51
going to be re reiterating Mr. Martin again. Um I do believe that it would be
31:56
inappropriate to require the provision of these features on all buildings where they might not be appropriate. Um with
32:03
respect to ecology, it's not a build it and they will come approach. Um so I just think in terms of identifying
32:10
mitigation measures, anything to be incorporated as part of a development should be led by an ecologist on the scheme rather than just arbitrarily
32:18
applying to all development across the plan period plan area. Sorry.
32:44
Thank you for those um those contributions. I'm going to move on to uh MIQ 10.3
32:51
uh or the separate area of recreational disturbance.
32:57
Um and my question was we we obviously looked at this as part of the habitat regulation assessment when we're looking
33:04
at legal compliance very early on some time ago now uh in the plan examination.
33:09
Uh it's just to come back to um understanding the the justification for
33:16
the 7.2 2 kilometer zone for recreational disturbance which I think st will apply to both
33:24
um was it just from the SA sorry the special area of conservation not the
33:29
special protection area in terms of that zone um
33:35
whether it's justified at that 7.2 Two is kilometers is justified at the time of plan making whether there are any
33:42
kind of alternatives and whether there is appreate work is ongoing visitor
33:49
surveys etc are done on a uh a fairly frequent basis whether there's anything that's kind of indicating that may may
33:57
need to change or um or valid valid validates the robustness of the 7.2 um
34:05
kilometers. So I can turn to the council first. Would it be Miss Rorcliffe or Miss Lamb?
34:14
Yeah, I'll I'll kick off. Um so our position on terms of the the 7.2 um
34:20
recreational zone um basically remains the same as was set out at stage one hearings. um the the distance has been
34:29
sort of identified through various visitor survey work um which has taken place incrementally over the plan
34:34
preparation process um as set out in the statement of common ground with natural England they are also in agreement with
34:41
the retention of 7.2 2 kilometers for the purposes of this plan. Um and but
34:46
also you know that that that distance will be kept under review um going forward.
34:54
And just to add, it does apply to both designations, the SACE and the SBA.
35:01
As I think as we discussed at stage one hearings, the buffer itself is just a
35:06
recognition that if there is development that will lead to further recreational
35:12
pressures, it's scoping it in within the kind of habitat regulations for further
35:18
work. There's going to be a potentially a likely significant effect or an adverse effect that cannot be ruled out.
35:24
Therefore, you need to consider mitigation. It's not necessarily saying any anything and everything within 7.2
35:30
kilometers would have an adverse effect. It's going to be development that will generate a recreational pressure for the
35:36
visitors. Yeah. So, it's specifically linked to recreational disturbance, not other impacts. And it's on sort of there's a
35:44
fairly standard approach now that um it's 75% of interviewees in the visitor surveys were within that 7.2 2
35:51
kilometers zone from the studies that were done at the time of plan making. Um, and that's a fairly standardized
35:57
approach. It captures the majority of visitors and it doesn't allow the outliers, you know, those that have come
36:03
on holiday from far distances to kind of pull it too far. So, it's a fairly standardized approach across country to
36:09
apply that 75th percentile line and that's come out at 7.2 too on that early
36:14
those earlier visitor studies.
36:21
And once the development is within the 7.2 km and it's assessed through the the
36:27
habitat regulation assessment process in terms of the appropriate may have to go through appropriate assessment. The
36:32
mitigation is likely to take the form. Is it a financial contribution
36:37
towards is it things like wardening or other measures interventions?
36:44
Yeah, so we've been encouraged by natural England to put in place a strategic mitigation scheme. It's it's very difficult for individual
36:52
um developments to to put in effective bespoke mitig mitigation per development. Um so the idea is that you
36:59
you put in an effective strategy um that involves you know staffing the coast and
37:05
and providing that presence that warning presence that to educate and inform people about behavior changes
37:11
effectively making wildlife um positive behavior changes um and other impacts um
37:17
and and that that's funded collectively by all of the developments that are captured within the recreation
37:22
mitigation zone. if they choose to contribute, they can offer bespoke mitigation as an alternative. They're
37:27
not forced to pay into the scheme. Um, but it is an approach that's
37:33
probably creates less burden on the developer because it's a straightforward payment and it's taken care of. They
37:39
don't have to evidence that they have their own robust separate mitigation to do the same job.
37:47
But that separate if they want if somebody wanted to go down the route of separate mitigation that could take the form of alternative kind of green space
37:55
to provide a an an alternative attractive kind of area for recreation
38:01
or visiting. I think potentially that could form part of a package within South Tinside. Our
38:08
visitor surveys have suggested that diverting people from the coast is actually quite tricky. It's got its own
38:14
intrinsic, you know, draw for people and and they tend to want to go. So the, you
38:21
know, other strategic mitigation around the country have included suitable
38:27
alternative green space in South Tide. It's considered that that would be a
38:32
potential small part, but it certainly couldn't deliver all of the mitigation. So for a development to just say, well,
38:38
we've got a bit of green space. Nobody from our development will go to the coast. probably would be difficult to
38:44
evidence that in any robust way. Thank you. And then in terms of how this
38:51
ultimately feeds through in terms of a financial contribution that's been the basis of further viability work is that
38:58
because the sums or the figures are are changing or have have changed in
39:05
terms of the additional work that was done by is it CV viability
39:12
Yes, that's correct. So the um as part of um our action points, we submitted
39:17
the uh new mitigation strategy which has been produced in support of this local plan. And that's identifies a figure of
39:25
um £737 per per dwelling that falls within the
39:31
7.2 km zone. That is an increase from the current total which is
39:38
403 £43. So obviously is a significant um uplift and change. So um we have
39:45
considered through the viability um work to ensure that it is a cost and a burden that could be supported through the plan
39:52
process. Thank you. Um if we can bring in others
39:58
then so Mr. Conroy please. Thank you sir. Um also a point of
40:03
clarification on on our end in regard to the intended application of policy 34 which which requires mitigation for um
40:11
residential uses falling within 7.2 km. Uh if I could turn your attention to the
40:16
publication policies map. Uh you'll note that the we're looking at the northeastern corner of site SP8 falls
40:24
partly within the 7.2 km zone and then the remainder of site SP8 appears to
40:29
fall outside of the 7.2 2 km zone. Now, subject to a recreational pressure being
40:35
identified uh through future delivery on site SP8. Um the question we would have
40:40
is whether sites that were bisected by the 7.2 km boundary, i.e. where part of
40:48
a a residential plot may fall outside of the 7.2 km zone and part of the plot falls within. Would the council require
40:54
a contribution uh for only those houses which fall wholly within 7.2? 2 or would
41:02
they require plots which are partly biseected by the 7.2 2 km to also
41:07
contribute again appreciate it's getting into the uh the granular detail but I think it's important to understand at
41:13
this stage thank you
41:19
thank you um invite the council who wants to respond to that point please
41:24
so any plot with a residence that that falls within the zone would be asked to
41:30
make a contribution so if part of the site and dwellings plots within the site entirely out with the 7.2 they wouldn't
41:37
be asked but those that fall within it in any part of it would.
41:43
I mean is is the point Mr. Conroy I mean if a site or any part of a site falls
41:48
within 7.2 two kilometers is going to trigger
41:54
uh you know the habitat regulations go through its own appropriate assessment and presumably as part of that process
42:00
there would be dialogue with the council and or and presumably natural England in
42:05
terms of what the extent of the likely significant effect is what needs to be mitigated or do you want are you seeking
42:12
some some specific detail within potentially policy 34
42:18
I think it was more so just an understanding of how it would be applied. I think there is reference made
42:23
um within the the 2020 wildlife strategy um referring to residential plots which
42:30
fall partly or whole and wholly within apologies the 7.2 km buffer. I just
42:35
noted and apologies I may have missed it whether there was any supporting text which which supported that position but
42:41
again as you say sir it would be a matter to be discussed with the council at planning application stage. It was
42:47
just whether the council could provide any clarity at this stage which I think they have done so. So thank you.
43:00
I think probably the point I was trying to talk to was paragraph 1116. So where proposals in this case for residential
43:06
development are within the 7.2 2 kilometer threshold whether that's in part or
43:11
whole then obviously it's they're advised to contact the local planning authority for advice presumably that
43:17
would be the way forward not sure it's necessary for soundness for the plan itself to try and sort of uh countenance
43:25
every every scenario. Yeah,
43:31
the policy makes a very clear and black and white requirement about resident
43:36
residences within the area uh contributing. So if part of a site is
43:42
within then those houses within that part of the site will be required to contribute.
43:48
But um that consultation or discussion with the local planning authority will
43:54
also reveal whether it's actually whether this should be applied strictly
43:59
in a particular case where for example let's just hypothesize rather than take your client side. Um you you've got a
44:07
couple of houses in a major development site falling within but the access to
44:13
that development site is 8 and a half kilometers away. Would you really
44:19
require the developer to pay a contribution in those circumstances?
44:24
So it's a you don't have to apply the policy strictly if circumstances don't
44:31
warrant it and that degree of flexibility is always within the system.
44:38
Thank you, councelor Taylor. Thank you, sir. The council's confirmed
44:44
that the 7.2 km recreational zone remains unchanged from stage one hearings. They have quite rightly
44:52
correctly indicated the policies that this applies to within the South Tide draft local plan. We believe that it is
44:58
essential that this is not ignored or watered down by developers as the policy is also supported by natural England.
45:07
Thank you. I probably should say at this stage, I mean, obviously this plan is accompanied by a separate um habitat regulations
45:15
assessments that will come on to tomorrow in terms of whether that'll need to be just kind of added to or um
45:24
uh any further sort of addendum to it. Um but I've as part of examining this
45:31
plan, I'm also caught by the or work within the habitat regulations assessment. So I've got to be satisfied
45:37
myself that there's not going to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the kind of qualifying features of uh the
45:44
sites as a result of this plan as a whole. So is
45:50
uh these are um stringent rules we operate within.
45:57
Thank you. I'll move on then to my MIQ 10.4 which is around wildlife corridors.
46:03
um two sort of parts to this really. The first one is around whether it's
46:09
justified u potentially consistent with national policy that development which was would
46:14
arrive would give rise to significant adverse impact on kind of the value and
46:20
integrity of these corridors would only be permitted where it can be suitably mitigated and compensated.
46:27
Um invite the council again to speak to its answer to 10.4. four
46:33
please. Yes. So we we set out in the response that we do consider that the wildlife
46:38
corridors are shown as a policy map are justified and consistent with the MPPF.
46:43
Uh the corridor mapping was prepared in accordance with the MPPF paragraph 179A
46:48
which requires plans that identify and map wildlife rich habitat and ecologically
46:53
ecological networks um including wildlife corridors. Um the key evidence document in support of the
47:00
identification of these corridors is the the wildlife corridor report um which is NAT 16. Um so this this report was
47:09
jointly commissioned by both Sunland and Gates councils um and has informed um
47:14
the identification of wildlife networks across the three authorities. Um the methodology um for this work is clearly
47:22
set out within that document as well. um and it confirms that the wildlife corridor mapping is consistent with MPPF
47:29
and has used the best available data and therefore should be considered as a robust evidence base for for this local
47:35
plan. Thank you. And in terms of the sort of the baseline evidence for these wildlife
47:41
corridors, they are of a value that would require if harm arises that they do need to be mitigated or compensated.
47:48
That's that's justified.
47:55
Yes. So the the wildlife corridors are made up of different features. Um and it follows follows on from both the lot
48:02
review um the lot report should I say and the nature networks evidence
48:07
handbook by natural England 2020. So those two documents heavily informed the
48:13
the criteria and it following the Lorton report
48:19
wildlife network should be made up of core sites which are your more ecologically rich um and then areas of
48:28
um secondary features which provide the linking habitat between those core sites and stepping stones which are possibly
48:35
slightly more where you have a lot of built development which in a very urban bur like ours we Then you can't always
48:41
join everything up but it provides sort of little hops for things certain types of species certainly to move and then
48:47
the buffer zone that only the core sites are buffered and this again is in is
48:53
follows on from from the lot report. So one of the key principles in rebuilding nature is to reduce pressure on
48:59
wildlife. So reduce the pressure on those core sites by improving the wider environment including buffering wildlife
49:04
sites and this can help reduce uh improve resilience sorry and help sites to work at a larger ecosystem scale. So
49:11
the concept the bigger concept within the local report doesn't necessarily mean more land area. It might mean that
49:18
what you have is is buffered and is more resilient by what you do around it. Um so it can help reduce negative impacts
49:24
of edge effects. It can promote potential benefits of eco tones. That's where habitats transition from one into
49:30
another. And the zones can help reduce impacts of adverse land management within the surrounding countryside. Things like pesticide spray drift within
49:36
agricultural landscapes, human and pet disturbance in more suburban or urban areas. So for example, the ranging
49:43
behavior of urban domestic cats is 300 to 400 meters. So if you have some buffering distance between development
49:50
and core sites, then you're you're trying to ameliate some of those wider effects. So I believe that it's fully
49:57
ecologically justified and from sort of thinking about sort of
50:04
moving forward I mean does that have a significant effect or impact on the burough in terms
50:10
of by the time all these kind of sites are identified and buffering is the result that
50:17
large parts of the of the burough are um within sort of the the policy for for
50:25
for wildlife corridors. The policy doesn't sterilize
50:31
um the wildlife corridors from development. We're very much you know this predicated with this word a
50:37
significant impact. So there are you know if a proposed development would sever a section of the wildlife corridor
50:44
that would be considered a significant um development might be able to happen on or in the edges. Um and it actually
50:52
provides you know opportunities within developments to enhance you know the areas that aren't developed to improve
51:00
the wildlife corridor and perhaps what we you lose in space you make up for in quality. So it doesn't preclude development but it does shape
51:07
development so that we don't lose our ecological networks which in a very urban very like Southside we're
51:13
geographically constrained. We've got the sea to one side we've got the highly modified river tine to the north. We're
51:19
very urban. Um the the little bits we have left I think are precious both to
51:24
the the residents and to the wildlife and we need to make sure that we've got that functioning corridors.
51:33
Thank you. If I can bring in others on this part of um policy 34. I don't know
51:40
Mr. Murphy if you want to go first and then I can hear from Mr. Martin rather
51:45
than the other way round. So thank you sir. Um I think in terms of
51:50
what I'm going to just about say now is I'm reiterating what we put in the the hearing statements but in essence um we
51:58
fundamentally disagree with the extent of the buffer zones that have been identified. um
52:04
in some cases I mean if if you're allocating areas of land large sws of land surrounding these um secondary
52:11
features and your core sites um I appreciate that it's not going to be an overt sterilization
52:18
of th those parcels of land um but you've got instances where you've got allocations which form um part of the
52:25
council's housing delivery supply uh which are being allocated as these buffer zones and you think well how can
52:31
you meaningully make a contribution towards um preventing the ecological designate
52:37
the degradation of these the core sites and the secondary features at the same time as accommodate development in a
52:43
meaningfully in a meaningful way. Um
52:48
I think that that's that's our main point. Um but it's just I think in terms of not against the principle of
52:55
identifying the buffer zones themselves. It's just I think when you've got an um
53:00
an arbitrary distance allocated between these core sides and secondary features um and then the buffer zone it doesn't
53:06
take into account the site specifics and whether some of these areas can meaningfully make a contribution towards
53:13
buffer zone status. So that would be our main concern. Thank you.
53:20
I hear from Mr. Martin and then Mr. Conroy.
53:25
Thank you sir. I support what Mr. Murphy says there. Um the the actual approach
53:33
the council's done in terms of oper you know identifying core sites secondary
53:38
features and buffer you know in principle that's fine for us. It's how that's then been
53:46
applied. So if you look at sort of secondary features that does include
53:51
topologies like golf courses, cemetery and church grounds, I would query the
53:57
biolog the the biodiversity worth of some of those because they tend to be quite highly managed areas. You know
54:04
golf courses are regularly treated with sort of pesticides and uh you know trees are sort of pruned not necessarily to
54:11
help nature but for aesthetically you know part of the the course.
54:17
But that's by the by it is really the buffer zones that we have an issue with.
54:22
And I think it's it's the arbitrary nature of 250 mters for call sites, 500 meters for international sites. And then
54:29
the impact of that is if you look at annex B of the wildlife corridor review. So that you then end up with vast sways
54:35
of the burough basically be falling into wildlife corridors. Uh we discussed uh
54:41
last week how um housing figures are very tight in the burough in terms of the buffer of of uh of number of homes
54:49
compared to the requirement. I think the council need every help they can to be able to promote things like windfall
54:56
sites. Uh and whilst I know Miss Rorcliffe does say that it doesn't sterilize those sites which is is true
55:02
that it can have a an effect in terms of layout and density and how efficiently you can use a site. Um
55:10
it's interesting because I know that in other instances they've there a more sort of
55:15
hierarchical approach to buffer zones has been promoted. So I think so you you were the inspector at North Tinside
55:22
local plan. I think a hierarchical um system was put in place there or
55:28
something more sight specific. It just seems that work had gone in looking at the core sites, some work had gone in
55:35
looking at the secondary sites and then when you read the wildlife corridor review, you get to the buffers and it's just that they've just made an arbitrary
55:41
figure and just put it in there. And I just think it needs more justification buffer sites and a greater sort of
55:47
appreciation that you're weighing up here um the need for wildlife corridors
55:52
with the need also that the council have to meet the housing requirement over the over the plan period and have and give
55:59
every opportunity that they can get to be able to meet that.
56:14
Thank you. Uh Mr. Conroy, please. Thank you, sir. I won't labor the points made by uh Mr. Murphy and Mr. Martin. As
56:22
we set out in our hearing statements, um our stance is similar to to those raised by colleagues here uh in that we
56:28
question the the arbitrary nature of the 250 meter buffer zones which clearly isn't a sightsp specific uh assessment
56:35
of uh the development sites including those strategic allocations within the plan. I think one other point just to
56:40
add uh on on uh that basis looking at the wildlife corridors review uh I think
56:46
it's paragraph 5.3.4 four um there is reference to the approach taken in Sunderland in regards to buffer zones uh
56:53
and I might paraphrase if that's okay. So um further refinement of buffer zones
56:58
also resulted in areas of existing built development being excluded for Sunderland. Uh large sites undergoing
57:04
construction allocated sites and other sites which had already received planning permission were also removed.
57:09
So, I'd question whether a similar approach could be taken here, removing buffer zones from those sites put
57:15
forward for strategic allocation, linking into Mr. Murphy's point about housing delivery and supply. Um, if the
57:21
council were not minded to to consider such modification, we would fall back to our previous point as to why a 250 meter
57:28
buffer zone has been applied. Thank you.
57:34
Thank you. Can I turn to the council in terms of uh some of the potential
57:40
modifications that are being put forward by others uh in relation to the approach to uh wildlife corridors?
57:46
I think our simple response is that the ne they're needed neither to make the
57:52
policy effective or sound.
57:58
What's important is the assessment that's made at the time the application is made.
58:24
Okay, I will reflect on what I've heard
58:30
further. Um, can I just
58:35
I will reflect on I'll also look at presumably the sustainability appraisal has looked at alternative
58:42
policy options or policy approaches because I think what I'm being invited here is that there are alternatives
58:47
there potentially are alternatives I understand the council's position you don't think nothing's necessary to be
58:52
made nothing no changes are necessary for soundness we're just trying to when
58:59
I sort of reflect further on the matter just to understand will this sustainability appraisal have looked at
59:06
alter alternatives whether what would be the harm if we didn't have a 250 m buffer potentially or there was a more
59:12
flexible approach. Um no uh the s sustainability appraisal
59:18
hasn't sort of considered those options as the the policies informed by the evidence and the wildlife corridor
59:24
review which basically has set those um those buffer zone distances and like I say it's an approach that's been a
59:30
document that's supported evidence for for Sunland and Gates Head as well. Um, and so those buffer zones are are
59:36
applicable across those authorities as well. In this report, I've been specifically referred to the
59:41
approach taken by Sunderland, which presume is on the same shared evidence base. Um, and an indication that's they
59:48
potentially taken a slightly alternative approach to existing sites. Um, I'm
59:55
slightly in the dark on that, but I mean, is the council aware or recognize what what I'm being what I'm being
1:00:01
advised? Yes. So um it's correct that Sunland have removed um their allocations from
1:00:07
the from the wildlife corridors but at the time this evidence base was prepared was back in 2020. Sunland were at a much
1:00:13
more advanced um point in their plan making at that time.
1:00:19
Um whereas we weren't. Um so the we've just sort of forwarded the sort of the
1:00:24
approach from the evidence-based document. But like I say the wildlife corridors do not preclude development.
1:00:31
It's you know that it's an sort of mitigation or consideration which would have to be considered for allocations or
1:00:37
any development coming forward within those areas.
1:00:44
Thank you. And then in terms of the oh councelor Taylor
1:00:50
thank you um regarding the local plan if it's adopted it's going to have a huge
1:00:55
impact on wildlife corridors and I just wanted to reiterate what officers were saying. And I think we should be listening to the experts, you know, in
1:01:01
the wildlife corridor review and the ecologist about these buffer zones. I don't think we should be minimizing them
1:01:07
and um you know, regard what the developers are saying. I think we need to keep what the council have in place.
1:01:13
I think it's really important for for the ecological emergency and the climate emergency.
1:01:21
Thank you. And then in terms of the evidence uh and the extent of the wildlife corridors I think the council's
1:01:28
appended various maps to its statement uh in terms of whether I think my MIQ
1:01:33
10.5 was I think just to understand whether the extent of the delineation
1:01:38
how they're shown on the policies maps is justified whether there's any sort of further changes that might be necessary
1:01:45
to the policies map before we move to any main modifications.
1:01:52
I think that was my MIQ 10.5. So, there's been a a few changes
1:01:59
proposed and it's really just to to mop up a few mapping errors from the original exercise where, for example,
1:02:05
buffer zones have been missed from um small areas of core sites. So, we've
1:02:10
just identified some of those mapping errors and seek to um rectify those and
1:02:16
they're fully in um in accordance with methodology set out in the wildlife
1:02:22
corridor network review. We'll come on to it tomorrow. In terms
1:02:27
of a schedule for sort of policy map modifications, obviously the plan the council's provided as part of its
1:02:33
statement is a quite a sort of a small scale.
1:02:39
I think we just need to be whatever is presented it's kind of can clearly be identified what the changes are. So it's
1:02:44
a series of smaller maps that enables people to see where that where those
1:02:50
changes um have been made. But understand from the council statement there will be some
1:02:57
um some some further ch further changes to the exact kind of delineation of some
1:03:04
of these cor parts of the corridors. Yep.
1:03:10
Are there anything further on wildlife corridors before I move on to the next subject? No. We move on to policy uh 35
1:03:21
delivering biodiversity net gain uh BNG as it's often referred to. It
1:03:29
obviously now is a legal requirement. things may change but we'll work within the current rules as as they are. Um and
1:03:38
it's whether given that kind of requirement through the uh the environment act um what's set out in the
1:03:44
planning practice guidance whether a policy on biodiversity net gain is is
1:03:50
necessary within in the plan. I think the council says it is and I think just
1:03:56
hear why that should be considered the case in response to your MIQ 10.6 six please.
1:04:02
Thank you. So just to be clear that policy 35 does not repeat national policy. It obviously sets out that BNG
1:04:09
should be made in accordance with the statutory framework and it doesn't repeat that. So should that change that
1:04:15
national guidance then that would be expected to change. The policy 35 um
1:04:21
sets out really a locationational hierarchy for the delivery of biodiversity net game when it's offsite.
1:04:27
Um so the national biodiversity gain hierarchy that is mentioned in the
1:04:32
statutory guidance um sets out a requirement to to enhance
1:04:38
on-site first um then create on-site and then go to offsite and finally for
1:04:43
credits. That's not what our policy does. Our supports um is there to support our own ecological networks and
1:04:50
it's a bespoke locationational hierarchy. So without this guidance developers are guided only by incentives
1:04:56
within the biodiversity net gain metric and there's two points that would guide where they might deliver offsite. One is
1:05:03
strategic significance where the same weight is given to delivery across the whole LNRS sorry the local nature
1:05:10
recovery strategy as and when that's adopted and as a local authority we are in a multi- authority local nature
1:05:16
recovery strategy with Gates Head and Sunderland. So equal weight would be applied to delivery to in those
1:05:22
authority areas if we were to merely go off what is proposed in the statutory guidance. There's also a spatial risk
1:05:30
multiplier within the biodiversity metric and that penalizes proposals where off-site habitats located at a
1:05:36
distance from the impact site. But it applies again this applies the same weight to both local planning authority
1:05:42
areas and the national character area. So a developer could say, "Well, we're proposing within the same national
1:05:49
character area." Two of those apply to South Tinside. We've got the um Durham
1:05:54
Magnesium Limestone Plateau, and that stretches from South South Tinside through three local planning authority
1:06:00
areas, Sunderland, Durham, and Hartley. So we're getting 23 miles away by the time we're in Hartley.
1:06:07
And the other national character area that the metric would apply the same weight to would be the tin and wheellands and that extends into six
1:06:15
local planning authorities. Gates said, Sunderland, North Tinside, Newcastle, Northland and Durham. So a developer
1:06:21
could pick any of those and it would be considered the same as if they were delivering within South Tinside. So our
1:06:28
policy has a South Tinside first approach. It prioritizes
1:06:33
delivery within the burough to try and ensure that we don't end up with a net loss of biodiversity where where
1:06:38
possible. Um we don't want the impacts to be here and BNG to delivered be delivered somewhere else. We want to
1:06:45
benefit from BNG not just for ecology but also for health and for the ecosystem services that BNG delivery
1:06:52
sites might bring. and we're supporting our own local nature recovery strategy and nature networks like the wildlife
1:06:59
corridor networks by by promoting this South Tinside first. So
1:07:05
yeah, we we want to promote delivery of our own local nature recovery strategy and within South Tinside as a priority
1:07:11
and we were guided by quite a lot of the training that we received as local authority early doors in biodiversity
1:07:16
net gain where we were told that where local plans would fit in would be to shape this locationational hierarchy and
1:07:24
that's what we've sought to do with this policy.
1:07:31
Thank you. Then just uh to assist me on uh the implementation of
1:07:37
the policy is the where are things with the south of Tynam where local nature
1:07:43
recovery strategy is that coming to fruition? It is. So we've just the the
1:07:50
um public consultation on the draft local nature recovery strategy um actually closed on the 18th of January.
1:07:58
Um so literally a couple of days ago. Um obviously there'll be a period of time
1:08:03
to take into account the responses to that consultation which might result in changes to the local nature recovery
1:08:09
strategy. Um the aim will be to produce a full local nature recovery strategy
1:08:15
within the next few months. We don't have an exact date for that. Um as you
1:08:20
can imagine aligning that across three local authorities is more uh complicated than when it's entirely within one local
1:08:27
authority. Um, but yeah, we're we're seeking that should be finalized and it'll certain it'll be finalized within
1:08:33
2026, I would imagine, prior to the local plan actually being finalized.
1:08:41
Thank you. Are there any further points people wish to make in relation to the
1:08:48
implementation of policy 35? I've got a separate question on viability which I'll come on to but just the
1:08:55
construction and uh as have been set out to me the locationational hierarchy for delivering uh biodiversity net game Mr.
1:09:02
Martin, thank you sir. Um don't necessarily have
1:09:09
um too many comments on on the policy. I do think potentially for effectiveness
1:09:15
it needs to be clarified that this is to do with mandatory net gain rather than non-mandatory net gain. And I do think
1:09:22
that will be increasing importance in if you know if the government are to be believed then you know there may well be
1:09:28
an expansion into non-mand mandatory net gain in on some brownfield sites or
1:09:33
certain small and medium sites. So whether it just needs for clarification this policy applies to mand sites that
1:09:41
fall under the mandatory biodiversity net game rather than non-mandatory
1:10:03
and then in followup up. I've made a note of that, Mr. Martin. In followup to
1:10:08
uh my MIQ 10.7, um,
1:10:14
excuse me,
1:10:19
I asked the general question. We may well come back to it tomorrow when we look at what planwide viability, but an
1:10:25
opportunity for the council to just confirm uh whether the approach to delivering biodiversity net gain has
1:10:31
been adequately accounted for. please.
1:10:37
Yes. Yes. And we set out on our MI response that has been um considered through the
1:10:44
viability testing. Um and I'm going to get into a bit more detail around that tomorrow and um Mr. Nume will be here if
1:10:50
there's any more detailed questions on that. We'll give an opportunity to those
1:10:57
who've made representations on this point. I don't know if it's Mr. Murphy or Mr. Martin, who wants to go?
1:11:05
Mr. Martin first and then M. Uh, thank you, sir. Um, it it's a difficult it's
1:11:12
it's it is a difficult thing to do to make an allowance for BNG in viability because it is extremely sight specific.
1:11:19
Um, when I went through the viability assessment, um, here I think the general
1:11:25
assumption used is £30,000 per hectare. I would suspect that's a little bit on
1:11:31
the light side only because if you look at what the typical cost is if you go to a
1:11:38
third party for biodiversity units, it's typically 20 to35,000
1:11:44
we're finding. Uh and then obviously if you have to go down the statutory credit route and even though that's the last
1:11:51
resort that they they sort of start at £42,000 and can go up to albeit this is
1:11:56
fairly rare £650,000 uh per per uh credit and then obviously on those statutory ones you need two
1:12:03
credits for every um for every biodiversity unit and on third party uh
1:12:09
officer I understand it's one and a half is don't look at this mcliffe um if If
1:12:15
you look then so then if you're looking at a site you're effectively saying a hectare site
1:12:22
would only you would only account for at best one biodiversity unit. Now most
1:12:30
sites that I've seen or aware of it tends to be multiple units you need to to achieve on a site. So from looking at
1:12:38
it on from that point of view, whilst I appreciate it's difficult to come up and I think it is going to be a challenge
1:12:44
for a lot of local plans in terms of how you account for BNG in viability, it does seem a little bit on the light
1:12:49
side, I would say. Uh and what I would like to see in a viability update is um
1:12:56
a bit of sensitivity testing potentially. I mean obviously biodiversity net gain
1:13:03
has been coming for some time. is through national legislation. Has that had any bearing on you know
1:13:11
land values recognizing that this is something that
1:13:17
development is going to have to by law provide for or qualifying
1:13:23
developments. Yeah. And obviously it's it's man where it's mandatory it needs to be accounted for but that doesn't necessarily mean
1:13:29
that it causes viability issues on sites. And it's it's uh not necessarily
1:13:35
the the cost as well. It's to do with um the sequential sort of preference to to
1:13:40
have it on site which again is for ecological reasons perfectly understandable. But the the unintended
1:13:46
consequence of that is you're squeezing net developable areas. So, um, you're
1:13:51
likely to get fewer units on a site than, and I know we we talked about this in in in stage one, fewer units on there
1:13:58
than you would otherwise have that your vise might may get. And there's a difficulty and you can't necessarily
1:14:03
double up open space with BNG, for instance, because they serve different purposes and often with BNG, you may not
1:14:09
want people sort of disturbing that area. Um, so yeah, it's it's a tricky
1:14:15
one and it's one that I I think the industry, especially up in in the north where residential values are lower, are
1:14:21
still we're still grappling with in terms of being able to address it.
1:14:28
Mr. Murphy, was there anything you wanted to add from Belway's statement? Nothing significantly beyond with what
1:14:34
Mr. Martin has just stated there. Um but I was going to just say yeah in
1:14:40
terms of we do think that broadly we provide a worked example within our hearing statement about the realities um
1:14:46
that would be associated with delivering BNG offsite associate with um Belway's
1:14:51
allocation um perspective allocation um
1:14:58
and I think that taken into account with the relationship with the council's policy about where um
1:15:06
If off-site provision is to be accommodated within the burough that might put exacerbate a premium
1:15:11
associated with delivering BNG um offsite associated with some of the allocations just because you can have a
1:15:19
a number of sites which are vying for a couple of spaces which can it can be accommodated within the burough. So in
1:15:26
summary um I I just think yeah this needs to be carefully considered.
1:15:32
Thank you.
1:15:38
Thank you. Is there anything further the council wishes to come back on on those points? Morcliffe,
1:15:45
I was I was just going to come in on Mr. Martin's sort of ask almost about the um
1:15:51
the number of units required um and and actually the closer you are to the development site, it is it is more one
1:15:57
for one. It's as you get further away, so it does promote local delivery.
1:16:12
Thank you. We may well return to bodiversity net gain as part of tomorrow's vi wider viability
1:16:20
um discussion. We're going to move on in terms of policy 36. So this is um
1:16:30
the policy for the protection of trees, woodland uh and hedros. Uh my question
1:16:35
at 10.8 Eight. I'll turn to the council in the first instance whether the policy was positively prepared and consistent
1:16:43
with national planning policy reference to same paragraph we discussed this morning 131 of the MPPF
1:16:51
in terms of whether there needs to be where it says existing trees are retained wherever possible. I think
1:16:58
recognizing there may be circumstances where some sort of tree loss is is
1:17:03
unavoidable. Yes. So set out in our MIQ response, we
1:17:09
do consider that the policy has been possibly prepared and is consistent with prograph 131, um the policy supports
1:17:15
incorporation of trees and new developments and provides um criteria which must be demonstrated um to justify
1:17:21
the loss of trees through development. Um I think it's a starting point sort of reflecting back on SP21. Um we do want
1:17:29
to see trees and wood and hedros retained as far as possible within um um development proposals. Um but as
1:17:37
acknowledged you know the policy um does set out that there are cases where trees
1:17:42
will be lost through development and that's um set out within criteria 2
1:17:47
which sets out um different sort of considerations um which would have to be demonstrated um by developers to justify
1:17:54
the loss of trees within the within site.
1:17:59
Thank you. I recall councelor Ty you referred to policy 36
1:18:04
um part of our previous discussion I think it's when we were looking at some of the specific sites or climate sorry climate
1:18:11
change last week I think you you obviously made comments at that time
1:18:16
on policy 36. So is there anything further specific you want to just raise or repeat again in
1:18:22
relation to the policy? Um yeah I just um so in answer to MIQ 10.8 I don't
1:18:29
think no other the policy isn't positively prepared um I want to address a fundamental soundness issue in South
1:18:35
China side draft local plan its failure to require the retention and integration of existing mature trees on allocated
1:18:40
sites even where there is sufficient space to design development around them.
1:18:46
The national plan and policy framework is clear that the plan system must support the transition to net zero by 2050 and take a proactive approach to
1:18:53
mitigating and adapting to climate change incidental features. They are existing functioning climate
1:19:00
infrastructure. They capture and store carbon, reduce urban heat, manage
1:19:05
surface water, improve air quality, and support biodiversity.
1:19:11
permitting their routine removal in favor of a blank canvas approach causes an immediate and irreversible
1:19:17
environmental loss within the plan period. Replacement planting does not compensate for the loss for decades. A
1:19:24
local plan that allows avoidable tree loss cannot credibly be said to support
1:19:29
net zero or climate resilience as required by national planning policy.
1:19:34
Crucially, this is not something that can be left to developer discretion. Developers are legally and financially
1:19:41
incentivized to minimize constraints and costs without a clear policy requirement. True retention becomes
1:19:47
optional, negotiated late in the process and routinely lost to viability stage.
1:19:53
At the viability stage that is not planled development, the local plan must
1:19:59
set the rules. It must not rely on individual developers to decide whether irreplaceable environmental assets are
1:20:04
retained or removed. This is particularly important given the commitment South Tinside Council itself
1:20:10
has already made. The council has declared a climate emergency adopting climate action objectives and committed
1:20:16
to protecting and enhancing biodiversity and green infrastructure.
1:20:22
These com commitments cannot be delivered if the local plan permits the routine loss of mature trees on
1:20:28
allocated sites. There is a clear disconnect between what the council has signed up to in principle and what the
1:20:35
draft plan requires in practice. The NPPF also requires highquality design
1:20:40
that responds to site context and local character. Good design works with
1:20:46
existing features. It does not erase them for convenience. Treating mature trees as obstacles rather than assets
1:20:52
undermines placemaking, landscape character, and long-term sustainability. The issue must also be viewed in the
1:20:58
wider legal context. The government has acknowledged it is not on track to meet legally binding environmental targets
1:21:04
under the environmental act 2021. In that context, it is not justified for local plans to allow the loss of
1:21:11
existing environmental assets that directly contribute to those targets.
1:21:16
Public expectations have changed. There is now widespread recognition that mature trees increase the quality,
1:21:22
health, and livability of new developments. Planning policy must reflect this evidence-based shift. The
1:21:28
draft local plan does not require developers to demonstrate that tree loss has been avoided, nor does it set a
1:21:35
presumption in favor of retention. This is a clear policy gap. I therefore
1:21:40
submit that the plan is not justified nor effective and not consistent with national policy. to be found sound. It
1:21:47
must be modified to make the retention and integration of existing mature trees a core requirement with their loss
1:21:53
permitted only where no reasonable alternative exists and where overriding public benefit is clearly demonstrated.
1:22:01
In a declared climate emergency planning policy must protect what already works, leaving the fate of mature trades
1:22:07
developer choice is incompatible with that responsibility. Earlier on today we're talking about
1:22:13
tree line streets NPF3131 and it was said that it's nonprescriptive
1:22:19
um for developers. Now I would argue that I think we needed to be very prescriptive
1:22:25
um just and um so you know current mitigation on sites
1:22:31
tree planting the trees are often planted within the gardens of um developments for instance at the college
1:22:38
site and there's no monitoring um with past um developers either regarding the
1:22:44
trees out planted in gardens and we found that residents often remove those trees and they're not replaced.
1:22:50
And of course that goes at the BNG initial figures but then they aren't replaced. So if it's trees are kept on
1:22:56
streets then it's within developers remit to keep an eye on those trees more
1:23:02
and once the council do the highway then the council would of course take that over and those trees would be safe. Um
1:23:11
regarding hedges going on to hedges if I may. Um so the hedge loss um certain
1:23:17
sites like the AMP and Felgate the AMP um about 2 and a half thousand linear meters of hedges were lost there and if
1:23:24
the Felgate development was to go ahead there would be over 6,000 linear meters
1:23:29
of hedge were lost there and there's been lots of tree loss on the AM site as well. um and the the knock-on effect of
1:23:37
both of those sites um there's been change road layout changes
1:23:42
and again more hedge loss to those so it's a cumulative effect again um that
1:23:47
you know that's a huge issue um so the the modification request I made last
1:23:53
week would be um just to finish up would be um and I did mention this in regulation 18 and 19 phase and I'm again
1:24:00
haven't mentioned it unfortunately would be the word and change of should retain existing mature trees in hedge rotor
1:24:07
must retain existing trees in hed mature trees in hedge if designs feasibly
1:24:12
allow. Thank you.
1:24:30
Thank you. Look at that suggested change uh versus
1:24:37
uh what is already in the policy. Then the policy starts council Taylor by trees woodland and hedro shall be
1:24:42
protected and suitably retained as part of um the integ as an integral part of
1:24:47
the design uh of of the development. You mentioned various repeat point points
1:24:53
about particular emphasis on mature trees. Um perhaps if I can invite the council in terms of just
1:25:01
uh obviously aware of you know veteran trees can attract a particular status
1:25:07
but in terms of mature trees if that was the policy wording that was necessary
1:25:12
for soundness how that would be to to implement what I suppose it's what is
1:25:17
meant by mature tree how's that defined um in terms of a potential policy range.
1:25:28
Mr. Rcliffe, in terms of defining a mature tree, it
1:25:34
actually varies per species what would be considered a mature specimen. So, it's quite a nuanced descriptor. Um,
1:25:42
veteran trees aren't necessarily old or mature trees either. They have particular features that ascribe them
1:25:49
the word veteran rather than it being purely age related. Um, so there's quite
1:25:55
a lot of nuance in in using the word mature tree in terms you'd probably have
1:26:00
to make the judgment per tree on a development rather than be able to apply a blanket age classification for
1:26:07
example. I'm not the horiculture officer for the council so I probably couldn't get into more detail than that on that
1:26:14
particular point. Thank you Mr. Martin. Next.
1:26:21
Thank you sir. Um don't necessarily have comments on the word wording of the
1:26:27
policy because I think it it it strikes a balance there in terms of a
1:26:32
presumption in favor of of retaining trees unless there's reasons why you can't. Often you'll find with
1:26:37
development sites it might be that the only place you can put a safe access in for instance is unfortunately where a
1:26:42
tree is and you have to lose the tree. Although often in most cases you will need uh to do replacement planting or it
1:26:50
might be some piece of infrastructure but on the whole our members try and retain trees wherever possible and the
1:26:57
whole um now with sort the advent of BNG that's especially important for um for
1:27:03
developers. Um it makes achieving a 10% gain easier if you're not losing trees
1:27:09
and hedge rows unnecessarily on the site. In terms of mature trees, I would
1:27:15
caution against using that for the reasons that Miss Rorcliffe made, which
1:27:20
is it depends on the species. It depends on the condition. I think you would need
1:27:26
to to define that through an arborultural assessment for each site rather than using it. I think there's a
1:27:32
danger in using a policy that's not readily defined. ancient trees and veteran trees are sort of readily
1:27:38
defined. And I guess if there are trees that fall out of that category that need
1:27:43
that are seen to be of of of value, they you would presume they would be tpoed
1:27:48
anyway. Thank you for invite councelor Taylor to
1:27:54
come back in. Mr. Murphy, I've obviously read Belway's statement and the changes
1:27:59
you're seeking to the policy, which I think is the qualifier in the first part of the policy sort of where possible or
1:28:05
some sort of something to that effect. That's correct. Nothing further than that. Thank you,
1:28:11
Councelor Taylor. Give you the opportunity to come back. Thank you. Would definitely need mature
1:28:17
written in there. And as was mentioned, you need an agriculturalist to come and say if a tree is mature, but with a any
1:28:23
kind of visual tree assessment. Anyone who's an agriculturist knows when a tree is mature, that's easily identifiable.
1:28:30
So that can should definitely be written in the mature tree. Thank you. Thank you,
1:28:37
Mr. Martin. Very briefly. Very briefly. Um I would caution against mature though because it doesn't take
1:28:43
any it doesn't take account of a tree. So a tree might be mature but it could be diseased for instance and you might
1:28:50
need it might need to actually be beneficial to remove it to prevent further spread of of a disease and think things like ash dieback and that sort of
1:28:57
thing. Um so it's just a caution against using that phrase.
1:29:04
Thank you. I'm going to move just a final point. Councelor Taylor definitely has keep maturing but it
1:29:10
could maybe be healthy mature trees. Thank you.
1:29:16
Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms of the agenda. It's a final point in terms of natural environment. I just
1:29:21
mindful as part of the stage one work. I invited the council to um uh
1:29:29
add some add further to the existing habitat regulation assessment work and an addendum has been uh prepared by the
1:29:37
consultants who undertook the initial um work and it's at AP3
1:29:43
in terms of the examination material before me. Uh I think in asking for that
1:29:50
work I'd obviously heard and read a lot of evidence around particularly water quality and mindful that the council's
1:29:56
two internationally protected habitats are at the coast and um in terms of just
1:30:04
completing the whole picture and I think from myself sort of feeling assurance that um the plan is not going to have a
1:30:11
significant uh effect on the qualifying features of those habitats and probably
1:30:16
have more in mind the special protection area and the two qualifying bird species
1:30:22
uh perhaps less so than the um Durham Coast SACE.
1:30:28
Um I'll just perhaps give the council if there's an
1:30:34
opportunity an opportunity there's anything further they wish it to add or draw to my attention from that work. And
1:30:40
it struck me that these qualifying bird species there appears to be a
1:30:46
correlation that if um there is less sewage in the environment
1:30:53
can have or potentially there could be a correlation in terms of an adverse impact on the numbers of these bird
1:30:59
species which is the the wintering turnstone and and the purple sandpiper.
1:31:11
So the studies um that have been drawn on to to do the addendum are kind of
1:31:16
quite wide ranging and if you if you look into them in detail the there can be correlation between sewage in the
1:31:24
water and the presence of birds in certain places. However, within South Tinside, we actually have really quite
1:31:30
high quality habitat, particularly at Whitburn Bents that are supporting the birds and I don't think it I think the
1:31:36
water quality is is potentially a separate issue to that. So, the whilst the addendum sets out that um the both
1:31:44
bird species have quite wide diets that they wouldn't expect to be um particularly adversely impacted by
1:31:51
sewage and water water quality. I I don't think they'll an improvement
1:31:57
in water quality. There isn't clear evidence that that would also have a detrimental impact on
1:32:02
the birds. I think we've got we have high quality habitat and we've got quite extensive areas of high quality habitat.
1:32:07
Um I don't think that food source and it's largely the foraging resource that's likely to be impacted by water
1:32:13
quality issues. I think in my view the evidence isn't there to
1:32:18
suggest that that would be particularly impacted one way or the other by changes in water quality. Um I don't think it
1:32:26
explicitly says that in the addendum because it wasn't really the point the addendum was trying to to pick that the
1:32:32
the addendum was really set out to to state that that they didn't see a clear evidence
1:32:39
that the water quality issues would have an adverse impact. wasn't really asked to look at whether improvements in water
1:32:45
quality would also have an adverse impact. It wasn't asked to look at that in particular, but when you look at the underlying studies, um I think where
1:32:53
particularly birds are foraging around an outfall and there are changes there, but our birds are foraging around good
1:32:59
areas of habitat rather than specifically around an outfall.
1:33:19
Thank you for that. Um, obviously I've got that that material and depending
1:33:25
where the the examination goes whether there's a further HA so habitat regulation addendum around the main
1:33:31
modifications. We'll we'll come on to that um in due course.
1:33:36
Is it it's before me? It's material. I did read the Wickburn Lodge appeal decision. The the decision maker there
1:33:41
had to undertake habitat regulation assessment and noted that the actual the bird spa was not part of that. It was
1:33:49
very much focused on the uh SACE the co Durham coast uh from
1:33:56
recreation and disturbance. I got nothing further I wanted to raise
1:34:01
in relation to natural environments. So thank you for your contributions on that. I'm going to um keep going for a
1:34:08
little bit and then we'll probably have mid mid afternoon adjournment. So issue two is around open space recreation and
1:34:15
the general policy for the green belt. Just very briefly to the council in relation to my MIQs 10.9 and 1010.
1:34:25
um the overarching approach to um green and blue infrastructure and whether
1:34:31
that's um soundly based in terms of what the plan is seeking to do at strategic
1:34:36
policy 22 please Mr. Clifford.
1:34:41
Thank you sir. Well firstly the evidence for policy
1:34:46
SP22 is the green and blue infrastructure strategy. That's the key evidence-based
1:34:53
document. Chapter three identifies the vision and strategic objectives for the
1:34:58
green and blue infrastructure within the burough and these strategic objectives have
1:35:04
informed the strategic approach of the policy. In terms of consistency with national
1:35:12
policy, the policy applies a strategic approach as set out in MPPPF paragraphs
1:35:17
20D and 175.
1:35:22
It's also consistent with the green infrastructure section of the planning practice guidance paragraphs 004 to 007.
1:35:34
In terms of delivery, point eight of the policy states that
1:35:40
developer contributions will be sought where there is an identified need to improve the quality, use and value of
1:35:47
the green and blue infrastructure network. And the green and blue infrastructure
1:35:53
strategy identifies plans and strategic projects across the burough to which
1:35:58
financial contributions should be secured. Strategic projects in the green belt
1:36:05
have been identified as potential compensatory measures for green belt allocations in the green belt study
1:36:14
and green and blue infrastructure will also be delivered through other policies
1:36:19
in the plan. So to summarize, we think it's an effective and justified policy policy
1:36:26
approach. Thank you. And then alongside that kind
1:36:34
of strategic policy, it's my MIQ1010, the council seeking through new
1:36:41
developments uh or sorry, seeking as part of the um
1:36:47
uh planning process uh through policy 37. Obviously the protection of existing
1:36:56
um protection and enhancing of enhancement of existing open spaces as
1:37:01
identified on the policies map but also through new development to secure uh an
1:37:07
amount of new open space provision. Uh my question to the council was whether the standards and the amount of open
1:37:14
space being sought through that policy was justified. That was my MIQ
1:37:20
10.10. 10.
1:37:26
The open space standards have been drawn from chapter six, the development of
1:37:32
standards in the open space study and developed in accordance with the MPPPF.
1:37:39
The standards are explained in detail in the open space study and including how
1:37:45
they were developed. For example, the access standard for accessible natural
1:37:51
green space in table three, minimum open space quantity and access standards in
1:37:58
the local plan is drawn from table 16 summary of quantity and access standards
1:38:04
for accessible natural green space in the open space study.
1:38:10
So we consider they are directly evidence-based.
1:38:16
And then in response to um as part of the response to MIQ 1010, the council's
1:38:23
proposing a modification to part of policy 37.
1:38:29
My question is is this just the same words in a different order?
1:38:35
Essentially yes sir. it the proposed modification.
1:38:42
Firstly to say the standards set out in the local plan should be considered when a development proposal relates to
1:38:49
development of 20 dwellings or more and the proposed modification
1:38:55
is to ensure that the relationship between
1:39:00
criteria three and four of the policy is clear. So the council proposes
1:39:06
redesating criterion 4 as three Roman italic 2
1:39:11
just to make it very clear it's a sort of subpoint of uh
1:39:18
the overarching point.
1:39:33
Thank you. I'll reflect on whether that's a main modification or something that the council could do, I think, to
1:39:39
aid that that policy. I was not anticipating hearing from
1:39:45
anybody else in relation to SP22 or policy 37.
1:39:51
No. In which case, we'll we'll do a few more minutes before a break. We touched upon some of this on mindful about a
1:39:58
week ago when we're looking at specific sites particularly in relation to Brink Burn and shooter Eid in terms of how
1:40:07
those those particular locations uh would be potentially mitigated in terms
1:40:13
of playing pitch um provision. Obviously the council has a wider
1:40:18
strategic policy at policy SP23 uh on this matter. Uh obviously have
1:40:27
before me the plane pitch strategy uh and assessment report and the council's updated um or the council's topic paper
1:40:35
I think on this matter. Uh and I think just trying to bring all of this together um whether policy SP23
1:40:45
would provide a sort of a sound approach in terms of securing uh uh plane
1:40:51
particularly plain pitch uh provision and mitigation within the burough whether any further modifications to the
1:40:58
policy uh would be sound. I think some of them we touched upon last Tuesday,
1:41:03
but I'll give the council the opportunity to speak to its response to MIQ 1011, I think some of the changes
1:41:12
that the council's going to seek to introduce to policy SB23.
1:41:18
Yes. So, as set out in the response to the MIQ, um we've sort of explained how
1:41:23
sort of this policy has been formed by um playing pitch strategies go through the the plan preparation process.
1:41:29
Obviously, we've it's been mentioned a few times that the the current plane pitch strategy that was submitted was
1:41:35
wasn't finalized at the point of reggg 19 um publication draft, but it has been
1:41:40
informed by previous versions of the plane pitch strategy and through that emerging process as well. Um on the back
1:41:46
of that um there's three uh modifications that we are proposing to policy um SP23. Um the first um
1:41:55
modification relates to a criterion 4. uh we are where we are proposing to
1:42:00
replace um the word create to support um in terms of um
1:42:08
Temple Park at Monton Stadium um basically because both those um sites
1:42:14
are existing and that are in sporting use. So it just makes more sense and it's more accurate description um to to
1:42:22
say support in terms of improvements to facilities out there rather than creating new ones. Um and um with in
1:42:30
relation to criterion five um we're also proposing to add Harton and West Colly's welfare ground um as a identified site
1:42:39
for um supporting new plane pe playing field provision um and also he riverside
1:42:45
um the heart and west collaries wer ground um is to be added on the back of
1:42:51
um the South Shields college u mitigation um it's a a site that's sort
1:42:56
of being wrapped up in that and also being considered through the plane pitch strategy in terms of scenario testing.
1:43:01
So it seems um relevant to include it within the policy as a site identify for
1:43:07
new pitch provision and also again the Heaven Riverside in relation to GA1 and
1:43:12
action point 11 which was produced. Um it's clearly being identified as a site where there'll be pitch improvements and
1:43:19
therefore again it makes sense to include it within this strategic policy as a pitch site for for to to
1:43:26
acknowledge that those works.
1:43:32
Thank you. And that that kind of repeats and or covers what was separately raised at MIQ 10 um 12. Um if the council can
1:43:41
just help me in terms of just this kind of sticks in my mind um the Harton and
1:43:46
Westo Colleries welfare ground that's an existing facility and site. So in terms
1:43:52
of its potential role, is it around kind of reconfiguring the provision at that site or is it a
1:43:59
site that can with a bit of kind of further work and investment could do
1:44:04
more or provide alternative um pitch
1:44:11
provision. Um that site's not in the council's
1:44:17
ownership. Um however understand that the it's essentially um reconfiguration
1:44:24
um with a um 3G pitch replacing a grass one and also some additional plane
1:44:31
pitches being brought into usage.
1:45:08
Thank you. I've looked at various sites on my sort of travels around the burough. Um so in terms of the
1:45:15
modifications to policy SP23, I've seen the Heban Riverside site and that's identifiable.
1:45:22
Can I ask for some assistance from the council in just identifying where the heart and western color site is? Whether
1:45:28
it's something you can either point me to particular reference in a document. I'll find it and I'll find the plan and
1:45:35
go and have a look at this site or whether it's a separate plan that could be provided through the program officer just to make sure I look at the right
1:45:41
site. It's probably all familiar to you but as a
1:45:46
somebody from outside of the burough um I just want to make sure I looked at the right thing.
1:45:52
Thank you.
1:45:59
And then just finally to the council before I invite further submissions under policy SP23
1:46:05
just want to we talked a lot about the Temple Park site on uh Tuesday. I'm just looking at policy.
1:46:13
It has been consistently identified in policy SP23 as part of sports pitch
1:46:20
provision. I mean originally it was down for creating but Mrs. Lamb has explained the modification would be around
1:46:26
supporting it's an existing facility and it's always been identified in policy
1:46:32
SP23. Yep. Yes, that's correct.
1:46:39
Thank you councelor Taylor. Thank you. Thank you sir. Um just some
1:46:45
clarity on the heart and west store miners welfare ground. My understanding was South Tinside College site 106 um
1:46:53
regulation 106 was signed off because the mitigation for the plane pitch loss there was going to be at the heart of
1:47:00
mine as welfare as well as epnea school. So I'm I'm a little bit confused as how it's again mentioned
1:47:06
here for other sites for the mitigation. Just some clarity on that please.
1:47:14
I think the inclusion is to acknowledge that mitigation on on the back of the college scheme. So the the section 106
1:47:21
agreement does sort of identify improvements at EPAN and Hart and Westo.
1:47:26
Um minus welfare um EPA is also included in criterion five as well as a a site
1:47:33
for for improvement. So again it's a bit of consistency there recognizing those um those improvements on the back of
1:47:40
that development. I'd identified at my um agenda item
1:47:46
under this particular policy area. I think the effectiveness of delivering new provision at Temple Park, the
1:47:53
ability at the EPA school site and the justification for the Harton and Westo.
1:47:58
We discussed a lot of that last week and I'm sort of thinking I've probably heard the evidence around some of that that I
1:48:06
I need for um my sort of reporting and conclusions.
1:48:12
Um perhaps will I mean given ultimately where we are in terms of the topic paper
1:48:19
identifying say the small quantitative shortfall and understand the council's
1:48:24
position about thinking more widely around qualitative benefits that will arise from this is there anything else
1:48:31
uh I need to be considering or the council would like to bring to my attention around those sites that was not raised at matter six when we were
1:48:39
looking provision particularly at the Temple Park site.
1:48:47
No sir, I don't think there's anything we can usefully add. I think we've set out our case reasonably clearly in
1:48:53
relation to what will result through the plan in terms of playing pitch provision and its quality.
1:49:04
Thank you.
1:49:39
What?
1:49:49
What I'm going to suggest we do is come up to half past 3. Let's take a mid-after afternoon of German for around
1:49:54
15 minutes. We can have a cup of tea, maybe spray some WD40 on a part of the
1:50:00
uh the system and um hopefully when we reconvene at
1:50:05
quarter to 4, whatever's going on will have sorted itself out. Okay, I'll we
1:50:10
could be back here for quarter to 4, please.
2:05:58
quarter to 4. So we'll resume um this hearing session for its final part this
2:06:04
afternoon before we took the afternoon break. Um hope I don't know if the
2:06:10
speaker system has resolved itself or we'll see how far we we get on. Fingers crossed. Uh I was turning to and
2:06:18
inviting I think councelor Taylor in terms of any further submissions
2:06:25
uh to what I heard at matter 6. I know you telling me there at uh your concerns
2:06:31
about deliverability at Temple Park. Yeah, that's right. Thank you, sir. Um,
2:06:36
regarding Temple Memorial Park, open space loss. Um, as I mentioned, um,
2:06:42
previously, I had issues regarding the covenant and trust restrictions that was
2:06:47
my understanding were placed on Temple Memorial Park. Um, I believe it was gifted to the people of South Shield as
2:06:53
a memorial park for public recreation enjoyment. While the council maintain the land, it is understood to hold it
2:06:59
subject to a covenant or trust obligations. The introduction of extensive fence
2:07:04
pitches risks creating exclusive or semi-exclusive use materially altering
2:07:09
the character of the land and potentially conflicting with the terms of original gift. Mr. Spencer, I request
2:07:15
that you request and read the covenant to understand that fully. Um, and
2:07:21
regarding war memorial status, the park is recognized as a war memorial in its entirety, not solely by individual
2:07:28
monuments. Um now by increasing organized sports
2:07:33
fencing and associated tree removal raises concerns regarding harm to the commemorative character setting um of
2:07:40
the of the park. Um there's also public's rights of way throughout the park. Um and the the cross through all
2:07:48
manner of different ways through the park. Um these are highways in law and must remain unobstructed. So that was
2:07:54
another thing I wanted to raise with you. Um and the scale of the proposal combined with the fence and loss of per
2:08:01
like permeability raises the question of whether this constitutes appropriate
2:08:06
um appropriation sorry of public open space rather than incidental recreational use. If so additional
2:08:13
statuto procedures and tests would apply. Um and lastly um at the hearing fencing was only confirmed by the
2:08:20
council after the issue was raised despite fencing being integral to the proposal operation. This detail
2:08:26
materially affects access covenant compliance and rights of way considerations. I respectfully submit
2:08:32
that these matters represent significant legal constraints which could be um fully addressed before the proposals can
2:08:39
be considered sound. Um the council has not provided evidence that these legal constraints have been resolved or eagle
2:08:45
even fully assessed where mitigation relies on land whose feature future use is legally uncertain. The plan cannot be
2:08:52
said to be effective or deliverable. In practical terms, this means the loss of open space at Ched is not true in
2:08:58
bringing burn is not truly mitigated. The plan assumes capacity at Temper Memorial Park without demonstrating that
2:09:05
such capacity exists in open space terms either physically or functionally or or
2:09:12
mainly legally. Um if therefore respectfully I respectfully uh submit
2:09:17
that the local plan fails to justify the loss of open space at bring bench because a proposed mitigation is
2:09:23
uncertain and constrained in the absence of clear deliverable replacement open
2:09:28
space that loss should be supported. Um if I could just quickly touch upon MIQ
2:09:35
10.10 10 with table three. The minimum minimum open space quantity and access
2:09:40
standards on accessible natural green space says 1,000 people per hectare is
2:09:46
needed in bil in bit all there's um nearly 5,300 residents. Now cheetah reed
2:09:53
is um 4.5 hectares I believe. So that's already below minimum standards in that.
2:09:59
So that's just something to touch upon. I think that's going to be actually removed in its entirety and it is the only open um space for for residents of
2:10:06
that area. Um
2:10:13
so um a sound local plan must be posit positively prepared as we know and consistent with other adapted strategies
2:10:19
by enabling the removal of read open space. A plan fails to test the internal policy coherence with a joint health and
2:10:25
well-being strategy we heard this morning. um because and I'll quote things from that strategy. It says to
2:10:31
work in partnership to improve the health and well-being and quality of life of children, adults, and families to reduce health and inequalities. Open
2:10:37
spaces help people be healthy. Um and
2:10:43
living near parks can make it easier to be active. Um so you've got in
2:10:48
contradiction with each other different policies that I want to bring that to your attention as well and that open
2:10:53
space especially in disadvantaged housing estates is vital to maintain as part of the council's own strategies and
2:10:59
again with ched that's the most disadvantaged area in the whole of South Tai which is already a very
2:11:04
disadvantaged town and that's the most disadvantaged ward in in our town. Um
2:11:12
so modification requests would be pretty huge modifications which would be to remove cheetah read um in its entire
2:11:19
well the open fields cheetah read and the plane pitches removal of bringing burn
2:11:25
site in its entirety and the removal of temple memorial park from the plane pitch strategy. Thank you.
2:11:38
Thank you. I mean some of those points were raised last week. There's probably an added dimension
2:11:44
in there. I mean in terms of covenants and I'd just like to invite is it Mr.
2:11:49
Higgins in terms of obviously the council is already embarking on quite a bit of work technical work on Temple
2:11:56
Park. It's before me in front of the examination. Have you are you going down a culdeac that you can't can't deliver?
2:12:04
Uh no the um feasibility studies been undertaken with the knowledge of um the
2:12:10
land and covenant issues. The covenants are basically held by the church
2:12:16
commissioners and there is a precedent as evidenced by other um previous um
2:12:25
activities at Temple Park um that the church commissioners are open to covenant variations.
2:12:32
um and they were um entered into when the leisure center itself was built. Um
2:12:38
and at various other times. Um so it's not unusual for covenants to exist on
2:12:44
land and it's something that we're aware of and um intend to address through the
2:12:50
process.
2:12:58
Thank you. And I obviously have the the pitch No,
2:13:05
obviously the sort of the um the pitch assessment work that the council is undertaken um I think as I referred to
2:13:12
on um last Tuesday um you start going through that and you think well there's
2:13:19
potentially considerable scope here for additional pitch provision but ultimately the report concludes by
2:13:25
saying actually we think we can only deliver this certain quantum and it's a lot less than perhaps the the wider um
2:13:34
capacity. So presuming there has been some initial kind of civ exercise as I referred to last week. I mean Temple
2:13:40
Park is a significant area in terms of accommodate the potential to accommodate
2:13:46
a variety of activities and uses. Uh yes I think the feasibility study
2:13:54
essentially provides a framework of options. There are a couple of areas that have been discounted in that
2:14:00
process already. Um and as proposals evolve for Brinkburn
2:14:07
um and the exact mitigation that is required there is known um then the
2:14:13
proposals for Temple Park would suddenly evolve.
2:14:22
Thank you. And just um see if my my memory works. for shooter Eid. My
2:14:28
recollection was that it's going to be the Temple Park or the former Temple Park Junior School that's going to be
2:14:35
the focus for mitigation for that site and that's outside of
2:14:41
Temple. It has not it's not part of the wider Temple Park. It's not It is adjacent to it, but it's
2:14:47
not there seen as two separate entities. So not no covenant issue.
2:14:52
No. And that's owned by the Burough Council. It is. Yes. Yep.
2:15:09
Thank you. Thank you. So I believe Temple um park I
2:15:16
mean the junior school site's a smaller site though than Chitter Reed site.
2:15:22
It is. Yes. Um and that's where the discussion about um partial provision
2:15:28
there and then um quality improvements at tutor would apply.
2:15:37
Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms of discussion. I've made a note of that. Thank you councelor Taylor. Um is there
2:15:42
anything further the council wishes to add or draw to my attention on that point? No. Okay. there if there is any
2:15:49
to reflect further and there's anything I need I'll raise that through the program officer and ask for the council's
2:15:55
um assistance on that point and then if it's in the examination library others will be able to uh to look at it I
2:16:03
appreciate council tell you've asked specifically if the covenant can be
2:16:08
provided I'll I'll reflect on that
2:16:14
I'm going to move on to uh landscape as the next issue on on this afternoon's agenda. The plan identifies areas of
2:16:20
high landscape value. Um this something that's of significance in national
2:16:25
policy because it will introduce um the higher bar of protect and enhance. So
2:16:30
probably needs careful um consideration um and obviously if harm occurs there
2:16:36
it's probably something that's going to be given greater weight in the decision- making process. Could council just
2:16:41
briefly outline how it's gone about identifying the various I think there's about three areas of high landscape
2:16:48
value within the burough. Yes, that's correct. There's three areas
2:16:54
of high landscape value that have been identified on the policies map. Um the
2:16:59
these areas have been identified through um an evidence-based work that was undertaken um the South Tinside
2:17:05
landscape character study. um that uh document looked at basically reviewing
2:17:11
um the designations which are included in the LDF which had been rolled forward from the sitside UDP which was adopted
2:17:19
in 1999. So those designations were of some age at that point. Um the the the
2:17:27
study itself looked at um looking at different aspects of landscape qualities including enjoyment um scenic um
2:17:34
attributes, cultural and naturalness and that set out um in our MIQ response um
2:17:40
and in the the character study itself. Um basically the the evidence report concludes that um there's the the three
2:17:47
areas that were considered to be that should be identified as areas of high landscape value were the clean hills um
2:17:54
summit and scar of balden downhill and the coast um which is trout point um to
2:18:02
um whipburn coastal park but you'll note that the designation itself um we've
2:18:07
proposed to extend that to the boundary of Sunderland um that's based on So an
2:18:13
additional piece of work that was um undertaken inhouse which is um the coastal designation just justification
2:18:19
document which is NAT 21. Um it was considered that at the time the the area
2:18:26
south of the whipbound coastal park also merited designation due to due this area
2:18:32
also benefiting from similar recreational activities and landscape character as that identified in the um
2:18:38
initial study. Um that justification was undertaken in house by a landscape
2:18:43
archite architect at the time which sets out the reasons why um we feel that that
2:18:49
um area of designation should be extended further.
2:18:57
Thank you Mrs. Lamb for the um just looking at figure three on the
2:19:03
council statement. Can you just direct me to where that potent this will potentially be a proposed modification
2:19:09
to the policies map or is this
2:19:17
not was this already reflected but it was the evidence behind it that then thank you
2:19:41
Thank you. And then finally under this section of the agenda um it's the
2:19:47
burrowwide policy approach to green belt. So the plan contains a policy
2:19:53
41 uh effectively what I would describe as a development management policy uh
2:19:59
for the green belt area applies to the whole burough. My question at MIQ um
2:20:05
10:15 I think raised in various representations of whether it was necessary to have such a policy um given
2:20:12
what's in the MPPF about um cautioning against repeating what's in national
2:20:19
policy. Invite the council first.
2:20:26
Well um we're not repeating what's in national policy. we mainly acknowledge
2:20:31
its existence. Um and um to that end being a
2:20:37
substantial green belt authority, I think it would be remiss of us not to
2:20:42
have a policy reference to the green belt, an acknowledgement of its status
2:20:48
in the burough and the inevitable impact it will have on decision making.
2:20:54
So to that end, uh I suggest it's entirely um appropriate to have this policy in
2:21:00
here as it's worded.
2:21:06
Appreciate others have taken a um a different view. I mean if the policy stays in, there wouldn't be a main
2:21:12
modification. um is probably one of those areas where if
2:21:17
a plan doesn't have a green belt policy it would seem um odd whether it's strict
2:21:26
I suppose I'm implying myself is it's strictly necessary for plan soundness to remove the policy
2:21:32
I suppose what it what it does do is make it clear that we're not attempting to apply any further criteria which
2:21:39
might be specific to this bar in relation to the green belt areas
2:21:50
Mr. Martin, thank you, sir. Um, to be honest, it's a bit of a funny one
2:21:56
because I've seen plans that include policies exactly like this and I've seen other plans where inspectors have
2:22:02
steered away from doing it. I don't think is if any there's any harm in having it
2:22:09
there because all it does, Mr. shadow agency is it just points you to what the national policy is and it's not
2:22:15
even fixing the national policy so the national policy could effectively change and this policy would stay relevant but
2:22:22
at the same time I do note obviously paragraph 16F saying you're not supposed to duplicate it is a bit of a bit of a
2:22:28
funny one um I don't think either way it doesn't really change
2:22:34
thing
2:22:40
in which case final point on green belts um one of the national policy
2:22:45
requirements obviously where green belt is to be altered is seek compensatory improvements uh in other parts of the
2:22:52
green belt uh policy SP 7 um sets out that that would be the case
2:22:59
in relation to um those proposed sites that we've discussed um previously.
2:23:06
I think following the stage one hearings I think the council has undertaken sort of further work I think as part of it
2:23:13
was action point 14 in terms of uh the scope for compensatory
2:23:19
improvements what could potentially be secured through that uh policy I think it' also similarly be
2:23:26
engaged in relation to the new policy for town end farm if that's taken out of
2:23:31
SP7 so from the council's additional work is it able to explain is is seeking
2:23:36
additional detail within the plan or is the evidence intended to demonstrate that the principle of compensation can
2:23:44
be delivered. It's something that will be require sort of further dialogue at
2:23:50
the individual planning application stage but for the purpose of plan making
2:23:56
and having a proportionate evidence base there's enough before me to be assured
2:24:01
that these sites come forward there is deliverable or opportunities for deliverable um compensation.
2:24:09
Uh yes I think that's a good summary of what what the council is proposing. Um I
2:24:14
think the the policies themselves while this is relevant as you'd mentioned SP7 um the the new um SP7A and also SP8 do
2:24:22
make reference to um compensating improvements being required within the green belt. Um but action point 14 sets
2:24:29
out um that there is a range of um mechanisms of being able to deliver that
2:24:34
whether that be on-site or through strategic comp um compensatory measures um which I are identified through a a
2:24:42
variety of documents which make up the local plan evidence base um specifically the the ser green belt study and the the
2:24:49
appendix C that we we've talked at length at at stage one um also the green blue infrastructure strategy as well
2:24:55
which identified various action plans um across the burough where um which could help
2:25:02
deliver compensating improvements at the strategic level. Then we've also got the Sine side cycling and local um cycling
2:25:09
and walking plan as well um which has fed into the IDP which again identifies
2:25:14
certain strategic measures which um developments could make financial contributions to to to help satisfy this
2:25:21
requirement.
2:25:28
Thank you. So just to confirm from the council as a result of that additional work, there are no further modifications
2:25:33
proposed to the policies or the plans. It's it's more a demonstration of
2:25:40
the the policy is submitted would be effective. It can be it can be satisfactorily implemented.
2:25:48
Yes. So we're not proposing any modifications at this point.
2:25:58
Are there any further final points people wish to make in relation to general policy frameworks for landscape
2:26:03
green belt open space? No. Okay. Thank you. We'll come on to
2:26:09
the final part of this afternoon's discussion uh is around um historic environment
2:26:17
heritage. Is it Mrs. Routoutled from the council? Hello. Obviously,
2:26:24
um the plan sets out a a number of uh policies um to deal with this or address
2:26:33
this uh matter. uh obviously mindful the council throughout the plan making
2:26:38
process has engaged with historic England and has ultimately entered into a um statement of common ground um with
2:26:48
that statutory body. Um I was just going to very briefly go through some of the specific points I think historic England
2:26:56
still had or was still kind of being resolved through the statement of common ground. The first is in relation to
2:27:01
policy 42 world heritage. Is it technically just a singular world
2:27:06
heritage site or is world heritage sites still there? Uh there's just one.
2:27:12
Okay. And in terms of policy 42 um
2:27:20
in terms of I see it's the frontiers of the Roman Empire Hadrien's wall world heritage site and in particular is it
2:27:26
the Arba um complex in South Shields various um modifications to the policy.
2:27:34
I think have these been agreed with Historic England? Yes, that is correct.
2:27:42
And from my reading of them from the council's statement, a lot of them would seem to be sort of factual updates or
2:27:48
just ensuring that there's kind of consistency of terminology. Yes, that's correct. um just to make
2:27:55
sure that um the terminology matches UNESCO PPG and MPPPF
2:28:07
and on the whole I'd say those sort of changes kind of be minor modifications
2:28:13
but it includes a changing in criterion one of the policy from will be encouraged to should. My view is whether
2:28:20
that tips us into a main mod modification territory to be consulted on because I think it's
2:28:27
kind of the application of policy. Yeah. So that will be um consulted on
2:28:35
and the policies map or sorry the map legend. So it's not a setting it will be
2:28:40
a buffer zone. So is that yes that's consistent with uh UNESCO's
2:28:45
terminology.
2:28:58
Thank you. So I think my sort of conclusion is that the the policy itself would be subject to a main modification
2:29:03
but the supporting text and the map legend would be sort of minor changes I
2:29:09
don't see as being um strictly necessary for planned soundness. We then move on to policy 43. piece of
2:29:17
development affecting heritage assets. I don't miss Routidge if you just briefly
2:29:23
explain the proposed modifications that are set out in table
2:29:28
table six.
2:29:38
Thank you. Um there's some slight um text modification
2:29:43
which doesn't necessarily um uh
2:29:49
impact the soundness of the policy. Um, but it does make it more consistent with
2:29:54
paragraph 206 of the MPPF.
2:30:11
Thank you. And and within that was proposed changes to policy 43. Um
2:30:18
I see. So yeah, so the the additional text is highlighted in red and there will be sort of further words kind of
2:30:26
removed from criterion four and five. I think this again is that for consistency
2:30:31
with national policy. Yes, that's correct. Yeah.
2:30:37
Okay. Okay. Well, again, that's main we're main modification um territory. Um
2:30:44
and it seems that Historic England are happy with those proposed um changes.
2:30:50
And then finally, in terms of policy 45, so this is coming on to um
2:30:58
development affecting non-desated heritage assets. Uh again, uh Mr. Vlage
2:31:05
under my MIQ um 10 19. I think the council again further with Historic
2:31:11
England is proposing a change to part of this policy. Uh yes, that is correct. Um it is to
2:31:19
more accurately reflect paragraph 203 of the MPPF.
2:31:33
Thank you. So when we come to the kind of non-desated ob heritage asset non-desated heritage assets it's a a
2:31:42
straightforward kind of a balance judgment rather than um uh
2:31:49
the the tests for designated heritage assets. Yes, that's correct.
2:31:56
Okay. Again, another main modification. Had no further questions on the policy
2:32:03
approach to the um historic environment. Very much guided by the statement of common ground with historic England.
2:32:09
There are a number of changes in there um that the council has identified. Obviously, they'll be available for if
2:32:16
we go forward to main modifications consultation for others um to comment on. I wasn't expecting any other
2:32:23
contributions on historic environment this afternoon. No. So, that's probably the ground I
2:32:31
wanted to cover um for this afternoon. I've got no further
2:32:37
uh questions or points. Um there's a few things there to reflect on. Asked
2:32:43
earlier for a map of the or to locate the West West and Harton
2:32:50
welfare Um, I'd be grateful if a map or a
2:32:56
signpost where I can find that either today or tomorrow morning. Uh, we've already sent a to to Annette.
2:33:02
Right. Thank you very much. Okay. If there's nothing further then, thank you everybody for your contributions um this
2:33:09
afternoon. Um, we've got another session tomorrow morning. Again, it's probably
2:33:14
going to be similar to this morning where we're going to go through kind of various bits and pieces. So we got to finish off matter nine on climate change
2:33:21
which we do first then coming back to planwide viability implementation
2:33:27
minerals and waste and then there's a final
2:33:32
uh administrative session to see the the way forward and I'm hoping to achieve that deal with all of that by about 1:00
2:33:40
tomorrow. Okay, thank you everybody. See some of you again tomorrow morning. Thank you.