15:37
Okay, it's half past 9, so it's time for me to start this morning's session into the examination of the South Tinside
15:43
Local Plan. Um, just to introduce myself to everybody, I'm David Spencer. Uh, and I'm the planning inspector appointed by
15:50
the Secretary of State to carry out the independent um, examination of the submitted plan. This is the plan
15:56
submitted by the council uh in March of last year uh upon which people uh
16:02
attending today's session uh who've made representations on the plan would have done so back in January through to March
16:09
of 2024. Can everybody hear me okay in the room?
16:16
Yep. Thank you. Can I again please remind people to ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their
16:22
silent settings please? Can I check? Is there anybody here this
16:28
morning from the local press? No.
16:33
Can I turn at this stage um to the council for the usual um housekeeping matters, please?
16:41
Thank you, sir. Good morning, everybody. We're not expecting any fire alarms, so
16:47
if there is an alarm, please make your way to the nearest fire exit and then to
16:53
the far side of the hotel car park. Toilets are in the corridor outside this
17:00
room. Please note there are cables attached to
17:05
the floor, taped to the floor around the room, so please be careful when moving around.
17:12
If you have a car in the hotel car park, then please ensure you've entered your registration number in the devices at
17:20
the hotel reception. Thank you. Thank you for that. Now, these sessions
17:26
are being recorded uh for those who are unable to attend or wish to observe uh proceedings but not be in this this
17:34
room. Um those recordings are being uploaded uh onto the council's uh
17:40
website for people to to view at a later stage. But can I ask at this at this
17:46
point in proceedings, does anybody else wish to make their own separate recordings of this morning's session?
17:53
Nope. Okay. Well, we'll do normal um introductions um shortly. uh and just
18:00
remind everybody where you do make a contribution to the discussion to please use um microphones so that people can uh
18:07
pick up uh the discussion particularly on the the recording. Uh in terms of
18:12
this independent examination, I'm assisted in the process by Annette Feny,
18:18
the independent program officer who's over to my left. Um Annette is based
18:24
here while we're having the um hearing sessions. So if there's anything you need in terms of documentation or
18:30
queries about the examination process, please speak to Annette. Uh and if she's not here, otherwise her details are on
18:37
the examination um website. Hopefully everybody's here for uh start
18:43
of discussion on matter 11. This is looking at the infrastructure and transport policies that apply burough.
18:50
These are the burrowwide policies uh in the plan. um and therefore will apply across the
18:58
entire burough. Um we've obviously had discussions at
19:04
various points around specific sites. Uh I'm keen as part of this session not to
19:10
reopen too much of that discussion and we're looking at the kind of effectiveness
19:16
uh and um uh consistency with national policy the
19:21
justification of the the strategic policies and I say the buroughwide policies as they'll apply to all
19:28
development proposals across the burough in relation to transport uh and infrastructure.
19:34
We will need to finish today or sit no later than 12:30. So I appreciate if
19:40
contributions to the discussion uh are reasonably concise. And as I've tried to
19:45
highlight or encourage at earlier sessions from those who say that the plan is not sound, I need to understand
19:52
why that should be the case and potentially what needs to be changed or modified uh in terms of the content uh
19:59
of the plan whether the plan should go forward uh full stop. Are there any
20:05
questions matters people wish to raise procedural or process points at this early stage before I get into the
20:12
agenda? Mr. Green. Yes, I have some figures from yesterday
20:17
uh in relation to the traffic flow on the A194 and it will fit into one of the first points that we will be discussing.
20:23
Uh this wasn't made available till until yesterday. Uh so if okay, I'd like to
20:28
mention that. Thank you. Are you able to tell me where these figures have come from and
20:35
potentially why they're now sort of being identified at this very late stage?
20:42
Yes. A it's I was you know informed that they were going to be chased up on the 26th of October by Southside Council and
20:49
this was just made available yesterday from Gates Head Council. So we weren't we weren't giving them and
20:56
and it's it applies to A1 194 because yesterday we did we did discuss that you
21:01
know there was figures missing and we've just literally been made available being made available yesterday
21:10
and sorry sir it does show massive increase in the traffic on the 194 so it highlights what were indicating
21:15
yesterday. Okay. I mean, I think I've said through my
21:22
um guidance notes for the stage two hearing sessions that once people have
21:27
prepared their statements, I was not going to accept further evidence or material. I mean, this is a
21:34
a hearing. Um it's not sort of comparable to a committee meeting or uh
21:40
there is a process to this and a process of fairness. Um, I was mindful when the
21:46
dates moved from November to January that this might arise and I repeated
21:51
again on my notes in terms of the change of dates. No more new material or
21:57
evidence. I appreciate there may be a timing issue around this, but I think I'm going to take a firm line on this
22:03
Mr. Green because otherwise, you know, other people can come to me with other
22:09
additional material. we are in a a sort of a clear sort of process um for this.
22:17
Um I don't quite understand why this data couldn't have been obtained earlier and I'm also slightly confused as to why
22:24
Gates head are providing data in relation to something that's part of the network
22:30
uh here in South Tide. Mr. Mail, thank you sir. Uh it's just to give a little little bit of understanding
22:36
around the the data source Mr. Green's referring to. So, Gates County Council is responsible for a time and wear
22:42
traffic and accident data unit which is a independent traffic source whereby
22:47
they've got a range of traffic counters across the network. Um, you know, as to
22:52
the responsibility for when the the traffic counts updated. It's not a responsibility of South Tide Council. It
22:58
primarily lies with South with Gates Council. But this is in addition to other data sources. There's a range of
23:05
traffic counters on the network that the Department of Transport have got. Um so
23:10
again it's just to provide you with some rationale behind what the data source is really sir if that would be of
23:15
assistance. Thanks. Thank you. Well my line is I'm not going
23:21
to accept into the examination any further material. I'll see where we get to in terms of the discussion today Mr.
23:27
Green and what you refer to but I'm not formally accepting in any further
23:34
material. Councelor Kilgore. Yeah, thank you sir. I I think um you know I very much respect um your
23:40
decision on that. I think when we talked yesterday around vision-led approach and
23:45
um the need to put back in and run back through um certain figures with regards
23:51
to the robust data um and and if that is continuing to be run through which which
23:59
it was mentioned yesterday um I really am delighted actually that it's recorded on YouTube because the narrative
24:05
throughout um this hearing is is really relevant to to today and in particular.
24:11
And this data that Mr. Green now has um is really relevant to that vision-led
24:18
approach um and and I accept that you're not accepting it into the inquiry, but it is um it is really relevant to the
24:27
infrastructure um along that A194 for SP8. It is absolutely crucial, sir.
24:34
Thank you. Well, we'll come back to the A194. There is a reference to it in policy 51. So when we come on to
24:40
transport we can pick it up there. Um I was just looking around the room. No no no further contributions on this
24:48
particular point. I appreci I mean I was going to say a few remarks just
24:53
generally around infrastructure to kind of help set the scene for this this morning's session. So I'll I'll do that
25:00
and maybe people want to reflect on what I'm going to say and then where that um
25:05
informs your kind of various contributions. So just in terms of infrastructure
25:10
uh which is the first item on this morning's agenda and then we'll go on to look at the trans the transport policies
25:16
for the burough. Infrastructure is often a contentious issue for local plan um examinations
25:24
um and it's often said you know the infrastructure cannot cope with uh the demands arising from development. I
25:31
think what I'd invite us to all bear in mind is when some of this development is
25:36
planned to take place and we discussed yesterday in terms of the housing trajectory
25:42
most of it is going to come forward after sort of four or five years from now. So nothing's you know a lot of a
25:50
lot of the growth that the plan is is looking is looking at is not going to be happening uh immediately or straight
25:57
away. There has to be a proportionate evidence base uh for uh plan making and
26:03
when we're looking at identifying site allocations we're not dealing with planning applications and the level of
26:08
detail that will be needed at the planning application stage. The evidence is for for plan making is to inform uh
26:16
policy requirements and a key to that will be the infrastructure delivery plan which will be the first item uh we look
26:23
at in particular for developments that are likely to come forward beyond the
26:29
sort of first five years of the plan. So um you know from sort of early 2030s
26:36
the tests around infrastructure needed is one of a reasonable prospect. It's
26:42
not a uh that's a relatively uh low bar because I think it has to be
26:49
accepted in plan making that there is going to be uncertainty. We're looking ahead over 15 years. Not everything is
26:56
known at this stage and part of that is because certain aspects of infrastructure are
27:03
going to be the responsibility of certain infrastructure providers. They work on either three or five year kind
27:09
of funding cycles. So they will not be in a position as we sit here now to sort of say with certainty what is going to
27:16
be delivered particularly towards the later years uh of the plan. It's also
27:21
important and it's a legal uh embedded in kind of legal tests that plans
27:27
address the impact related to their growth. It's not for developments to remedy and address existing deficiencies
27:34
within infrastructure. Although there may be um some slight uh
27:39
uh parallels where you know to unlock growth uh will require some
27:45
consideration of uh where there are existing um issues. And then finally,
27:51
just in terms of the broad sort of strategic picture for infrastructure,
27:56
planners often refer to something that's known as the presumption in favor of sustainable development. Bit of a
28:01
technical term, but it's in the national planning policy framework. And for plan making it says that as a minimum
28:07
authorities should be providing for the homes and jobs that are needed unless
28:13
the adverse impacts of doing so would be sign would significantly and demonstrabably outweigh the benefits.
28:21
Such a scenario could be in my view where we've got a showstopper situation
28:29
uh in relation to infrastructure. Now for the record as I sit here now in terms of all the representations I've
28:35
been through on the plan I don't have anything from any of the infrastructure providers whether that's highways water
28:42
education health electricity gas nexus uh as the public
28:48
transport uh metro network rail saying that their networks fundamentally can't
28:54
cope with the level of growth that's identified in this plan. So I'm coming from it from that perspective
29:03
and I'd just say in terms of looking ahead and going forward
29:08
there's often a sort of a chicken and egg dimension to when infrastructure comes forward and when it's kind of
29:14
potentially could be needed. But I'd say to any local authority
29:19
potentially one of the advantages of having an up-to-date local plan is
29:24
having is being in that position of providing certainty to infrastructure providers that they know this is where
29:31
development is likely to take place and we can respond um accordingly. So, I
29:36
thought it would just be helpful just very briefly to set out some kind of um context to um this morning's discussion
29:44
and perhaps how I might be looking at things as a as a a welltraveled weary um
29:50
planning in inspector. So, I'd like to move on then to issue
29:56
one uh and the infrastructure needed to support sustainable growth. I'd identified at my MIQ uh 11.1
30:05
um I think the significance of the infrastructure um delivery plan as part
30:10
of the key evidence base um for the plan. I would just like to um invite the
30:16
council to just set the scene in terms of the robustness of that work uh and
30:21
whether there's anything that potentially um needs to kind of change or be be
30:27
reflected uh through the infrastructure development plan work.
30:33
Thank you sir. Well, in terms of the robustness and validity of the IDP work, um there's two
30:42
sections to the IDP. the overview which presents a descriptive overview
30:48
organized thematically. And then there's the infrastructure
30:54
delivery schedule which provides a detailed breakdown of the items of
30:59
infrastructure needed to deliver the local plan including the estimated time
31:04
frame for delivery, possible funding sources and whether the item is critical, essential or desirable in the
31:12
context of the policies and allocations in the local plan. In terms of the
31:17
process for preparing the IDP, it has involved extensive engagement both internally
31:24
within the council and externally with other stakeholders. Internally,
31:31
contributors have included the strategic transport manager, environmental protection team, and the school places
31:38
planning manager. External contributors have included National Highways, North Umbrean Water, Nexus,
31:46
and the Northeast and North Umbrea Integrated Care Board. This is referenced in the duty to
31:53
cooperate statement in relation to National Highways and North Umbrean Water.
32:00
And in terms of will the IDP require updating,
32:05
I think we've already acknowledged through the updated statement of common ground with national highways that an update is required to reflect the
32:13
vision-led approach um to transport.
32:21
Thank you for that. Now I don't want to interrupt the flow of discussion, but can anybody spot the obvious mistake I
32:27
did earlier? I haven't invited people to introduce yourselves.
32:32
So um uh if I can start on am I right please?
32:38
I was feeling a bit agrieved. I'm Paul Shadowvian Kings Council acting
32:44
for the council. I'm Matt Clifford senior planning policy officer.
32:50
Good morning sir. My name is Trevor Mill. I'm strategic transport manager at Southside Council.
32:56
I'm Jeff Horseman, team manager, development management at South Tinside Council.
33:03
Vanessa Engelston from my transport representing Lavick Hall Farm, the promoters of the Felgate site.
33:10
Bob Latim, Whitburn. I'm Steve Lavlla from Whitburn
33:16
Neighborhood Forum. Good morning. I'm Dave Hutchinson from East Balden Neighborhood Forum.
33:23
Good morning, councelor Geraldine Kilgawer for the Felgate and Headworth ward. Good morning, Dave Green representing
33:29
the state of Felgate Green Belt Group. Thank you everybody. Okay, we'll now
33:34
return to the uh return to this discussion. So can I also just understand from the council I think
33:40
you've outlined there Mr. Clifford um that the infrastructure delivery plan as
33:46
you say separates out identified infrastructure as whether it's going to be critical
33:52
to the delivery of the plan essential or something that's going to be desirable to kind of securing uh overall um
33:59
sustainable development in terms of those items that are identified as critical. So um really kind of uh highly
34:12
highly identified as as as being required. Uh
34:19
how was that process un undertaken and you able to advise me just generally what is identified as as being critical
34:27
because obviously not not all infrastructure is but is there any kind of themes that emerge?
34:38
Thank you sir. Well, as you rightly say, the um
34:43
the infrastructure is prioritized critical, essential, desirable.
34:49
The critical designation is primarily relevant to highways projects and it's
34:55
been informed by extensive discussions with um the gentleman to my right, Mr. Mail,
35:02
and also with National Highways. And essentially uh a view is formed
35:08
whether it's actually going to be uh critical to mitigating the delivery of development proposed in the local
35:15
plan. And obviously as evidence has changed as we've progressed through the process what might be considered
35:22
critical has evolved. Um and I know there's been different
35:28
views about that which which you've heard but um that is essentially how
35:33
that process has worked.
35:44
Thank you. as I indicated earlier in terms of various representations on the plan from other uh infrastructure
35:50
providers and not necessarily identifying sort of fundamental kind of issues. So that's reflected
35:57
through in terms of the infrastructure um delivery plan um in terms of there
36:04
not being kind of critical projects for things like wastewater or
36:10
um health or other other dimensions of infrastructure.
36:21
Well, I think with wastewater, I mean, essentially those are projects
36:26
which um are part of North Umbrean waters remmit. Um so we can't really ask for for
36:34
contributions for them to do X Y or zed. Um
36:40
they have provided us with the um they've not objected to the
36:48
local plan. they have uh stated that there is the capacity. I think we've already had that discussion.
36:55
Um so there aren't sort of actual projects identified in
37:03
the infrastructure delivery schedule in relation to wastewater.
37:09
Um in relation to health care uh we have liazed with the
37:15
integrated care board um and continue to do so. Um but there aren't specific
37:23
projects. It's a bit of a fluid situation to do in relation to primary health care provision. Um so it's
37:31
difficult to actually say X Y or Zed will be delivered at such and such a point. Um
37:39
the providers are are sometimes independent operators, general
37:46
practices. Um so they're in a discussion with the ICB about their future plans etc. Uh and
37:54
obviously it's quite a a sensitive topic.
38:01
Thank you. And I I will come to others um shortly um in terms of um had to sort
38:08
of just revise and amend the agenda um last week for this item. But just in terms of the general um funding
38:15
landscape, a number of people have made representations on the IDP. So the
38:21
infrastructure delivery plan um obviously in the appendix 2 schedule
38:28
it's got kind of the list of infrastructure. I think where costs are known, they're identified, but that's not always possible. Um,
38:39
and then the the schedule sort of says that the there'll be a sort of um
38:45
uh a look towards either developer contributions or other sort of potential funding sources um to deliver or cover
38:52
the costs of some of this infrastructure. I know the council was just able to very sort of briefly just
38:57
advise what potential sort of funding sources could be available in addition to kind
39:04
of developer um contributions to help deliver the plan over the next 14 15
39:09
years. Well, the IDP provides an overview of
39:14
funding and delivery. So including the the council's capital program, developer
39:20
contributions as you mentioned section 278 agreements, potential sources of
39:25
external capital funding. So in addition to the topic areas um of
39:34
the IDP, there's a section in each of the topic areas, there's a section on
39:39
plan, provision, and funding. And in addition to the sources listed in the
39:44
IDP, there's also the national highways road
39:50
investment strategy that though the draft RZ 3 covering the period 2025 to 2030 is fully committed,
39:59
there's potential for funding from a future RIZ during the plan period.
40:06
uh two recent sources of funding not necessarily local plan specific but
40:11
demonstrate that the council has been able to ex obtain external funding.
40:18
uh MHCG local growth fund um which will start in April 2026 and which replaces
40:25
the UK share prosperity fund um
40:34
and planned investment in Jarro um 20 million pounds over 10 years
40:40
starting in April 2026 and Bidic Hall starting in spring 2027.
40:47
So those around sort of community projects. So there are external sources. Um
40:54
obviously we can't look forward over the whole
40:59
plan period. Funding sources change but I think the council has been quite
41:05
successful in obtaining shown it has the ability to obtain
41:11
successfully external sources of funding. Um and I think uh in stage one hearings
41:19
uh Mr. Finch made the point that this authority has a successful record in
41:25
terms of securing external funding for
41:31
um and working in partnership with National Highways to deliver strategic infrastructure.
41:37
Um notwithstanding the point Mr. Finch has made that there isn't funding available at the moment because of
41:43
National Highways funding situation.
41:48
Thank you Mr. M please. Thank you sir. I was just going to add some context in addition to Mr.
41:54
Clifford. Um I think it's worthwhile to reference that the Northeast Combine Authority has got a significant amount
42:00
of devolved funding powers. Now in terms of transport um the council has uh over
42:06
the years uh managed to secure significant amounts of investment whether that be act of travel funding
42:12
through act of travel england and as well as funding through um the sustainable transport fund as well as in
42:19
the impending transport for city regions investment. I think it was touched upon by councelor Kilgawa yesterday. Um I
42:26
think from the period of 2027 to 2032 it's expected that the region as in the
42:32
northeast will receive close to 2 billion pound over a 5-year period and whilst there is longstanding commitments
42:39
for example the the Washington loop which will be a metro extension there is an opportunity for local authorities to
42:45
bid in for significant investment around sort of strategic points on the on the
42:50
highway network but that said also public transport improvements as well as sustainable transport transport
42:55
improvements. So just to give you some further context and I think just to reiterate the point that Mr. Clifford made, we do have a a really strong track
43:03
record for where we identify schemes, we secure the investment and we deliver on
43:08
that investment. Sir, thank you. Thank you. I'll do a final point for the
43:15
council and then I'm going to bring in people who are on my my left. So in
43:20
terms of my agenda, I think it's been referred to um already
43:26
um in relation to the national highway situation. My point or question is
43:32
whether it would be necessary to update the infrastructure delivery plan to help inform or support any consultation on
43:40
proposed modifications. I think the answer to that is unequivocally yes to to reflect a change
43:50
in the requirement uh which is currently set out in the IDP
43:58
uh and will involve a change also to schedule two to bring it up to date.
44:05
Thank you. made a note of that and we'll come back to that
44:10
as part of a final administrative session so I can just understand how
44:16
everything will come together um going forward. But I've made a note of that. Thank you. Okay. Um I'll now turn um to
44:25
others on my left. I'll start with councelor Kilgore. I also maybe invite
44:31
Mr. green as well because I know from your statement you were querying whether
44:37
all of this will be deliverable. Uh and then I'm going to as part of this round invite Mr. Lavel
44:45
in terms of your submission and statements in terms of identified earlier there's no kind of critical
44:51
infrastructure identified in relation to wastewater. I think you've got a different view or position on that. So
44:57
I'll come to you and possibly Mr. Fatima as well on on that point. So I'll start
45:03
with councelor KGA first please. Thank you sir. Uh mine isn't so much
45:08
around the detail of the infrastructure at this particular point. Um but it is it is to come back around the funding.
45:14
So um I'm fortunate enough to sit on the Jara Forward board and and it is around
45:20
initiatives for particularly young people in our community and actually bringing forward events or structures in
45:27
place to um encourage people coming into the burough and and for those in the burough. It is very much limited to I
45:34
think the NE32 post code. So I wouldn't envisage from from what I've I've read
45:40
and been involved in at length that that would cover any infrastructure costs um
45:45
at all. It's more around tangible um things in situ uh for our communities to
45:52
benefit from by way of grants etc which is um currently um underway. So I I I
46:00
really am very cautious around suggesting that this
46:05
might be available and that might be available. That that is not what that's for. And it's very clear um on the
46:11
government website as well. And I think when we're looking at um
46:17
other funding per se without any guarantee of that or any real structure
46:22
around what is available, I don't think that we can make any assumptions. So
46:27
thank you.
46:36
Thank you, Mr. Green, please. It's okay. Yeah, thank you, sir. So, I know we
46:41
discussed yesterday, you know, all the funding requirements. Uh there's a lot of critical infrastructure, you know,
46:46
required around the local road network. Uh but I think, you know, that's uh some
46:53
of it was that was classed as desirable with the new figures we have. it may be approaching the critical and you know
46:59
this may be a time to mention the figures uh it's it's dramatically increased on the A194 alone by uh 12
47:08
well by 5,300 vehicles a day and and you know if this information had been made
47:13
available on Tuesday you know I would have mentioned it then but that then brings into the Mill roundabout which is
47:19
desirable but putting that that now that we know that that much traffic is actually on the on the road network
47:26
Yeah, then it it does become critical. You've also got uh the E185 on here
47:32
which is heaven. Uh that's critical. That's another 750,000 and it's all building up. Uh the Milane approach road
47:40
to that that Lavicks are going to take off the new developments on Millane again that's desirable and but it's now
47:48
that we know the true figure. uh it it become in my opinion it should be relooked at it should be you know some
47:53
of it should be designated critical and I think that's a failing in the local plan and again I think there can be no
48:00
build on the failgate green belt until these figures are put right with accurate data uh because otherwise
48:07
what's going to happen is houses are going to be built uh you know the infrastructure is not going to be there
48:12
although it's promised the funding is not going to be there possibly so the houses are there and I cannot see you
48:18
know the chance of the council then turn national highways turning around to lab bridge and saying well we're not going
48:23
to let anybody in until you put the infrastructure because that would be another 5 10 years. Uh, and I think it's
48:29
seriously needs a little look back to be looked at because it's it's essential to the local residents that it's put right
48:36
because bear in mind also that there's going to be an approach going onto the 20 mph road around Felgate itself which
48:42
then brings into the Felgate Avenue junction with Monton Lane uh because figures there you have got in in an
48:48
appendix there was something like 7,000 to 8,000 a day just going through that junction alone. Now at that junction
48:55
there's a single lane metro bridge which brings the whole area to a standstill. You have got all the all the pictures
49:00
they are on on me appendices uh and it the whole situation you cannot put a
49:06
housing development of this size on that with the current data that's uh we've
49:12
been given and that indicates that it is seriously flawed and I don't think they can go ahead with SP8 on the current
49:18
figures. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I'm just looking at the latest infrastructure delivery plan. Um,
49:26
not so getting sort of too sight specific, but just for my note and record, the Mill Lane roundabout
49:32
improvements I see are identified as essential rather than desirable. That's on page
49:39
63 of that appendix. So, I've made a a note of that. Just in response to what
49:45
I've heard from Mr. green before I bring in um Mgleston
49:54
council's indicated that it will look it will look at the the IDP
50:00
in relation to some specific issues and that will be available to kind of inform
50:05
the um main modification consultation. I mean more generally as d I mean data and
50:12
information invariably changes all the time we get things I mean just just this
50:18
point about the infrastructure delivery plan being a living document and maybe inviting the council to just explain
50:24
what that could mean and you kind of potential
50:30
um changes um going forward.
50:38
Clearly some of the assumptions made now based on the available data will change
50:43
over time or may change over time. The IDP is an
50:50
essential foundation for the plan in many respects
50:55
and bearing in mind also that it will inform decision making and the
51:00
requirement for section 106 contributions or the imposition of for example
51:06
grampion conditions. Um the
51:13
there is a need to keep this under review.
51:20
have regard to information that is available from those who have already been
51:25
consulted in relation to this and whose work has inputed into the outcomes.
51:32
So that will be done. Um and uh in that respect um it might might be appropriate
51:40
um to identify that review process in the plan itself so people understand
51:45
that it's continually under review.
51:52
Um assessments have to be made at a point in time. Um what we can't do u through
52:00
this examination is undertake further reviews of the assumptions made there and in relation to highways
52:09
unless there's something quite critical obviously which draws a question mark over whether or not this is correct
52:16
in relation to highways and national highways. The modeling has been done and the predictions have been made on the
52:23
basis of what national highways and our consultant Cisco believe to be the
52:30
relevant and up-to-date data. Quite clearly there may be other data sets
52:35
used for other purposes which have different outcomes but they would need to be interrogated to understand if
52:42
there are differences why those differences exist and it could be due to the monitoring and of course the purpose of that data
52:49
collection also needs to be understood. So it would be
52:55
um misguided as it were to start comparing one set of
53:00
data with another when you have at your disposal the findings of
53:07
a reputable consultant and and
53:12
government's own executive agency dealing with some very very important critical infrastructure provision.
53:25
Thank you. I've just reminded myself I think paragraph 14.7 of the plan refers to the IDP
53:32
um being reviewed. So there's a reference. Yeah. Okay. Uh Mr. M please.
53:40
Yeah. I was just going to add some context further. Um I think in terms of the the road network as it stands today
53:47
uh we need to be considerate to the fact that there's regionally significant events proceeding outside of South Tai
53:53
Council namely there's there's major road works on the A1 there is time bridge maintenance works which has
53:59
actually restricted the time bridge down to single lane traffic in both directions um that will all all have a
54:07
consequence on how traffic moves around in the northeast um because of the restrictions around the time bridge and
54:13
indeed the clean air zone that's been instructed across the the time bridge there will be expectations of
54:19
fluctuations in traffic where motorists resort to finding different routes. So
54:24
again it's just to provide some additional narrative that there will be regionally significant events that
54:29
affect the road network but as a council and added to what was recalled earlier we are content that our evidence that's
54:36
been submitted is robust. Thanks. Before I come back to others, I will
54:42
hear from Miss Eckleston next, please. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to um
54:49
reference a couple of points that in terms of the council's response to AP12,
54:55
the questions that you posed after the first sessions um the updated work that's been done by the council and has
55:01
been reviewed by national highways um undertook two elements that the first was to provide clarification to national
55:09
highways that the traffic data that had been used in the original assessments which were based on 2022 data were
55:16
representative of current conditions. s and one of the supporting documents in that AP12 response did present that um
55:23
comparison of traffic flows between 2022 and 2024 and proved that um the baseline
55:30
model that had been used was still robust and representative of current conditions. So that provides an an
55:36
update in terms of um making sure that that the most appropriate up-to-date data has been used. And then the second
55:43
element was in relation to the visionled assessment which actually dealt with the traffic forecasts associated with the
55:49
proposed local plan developments and that looked at changes in policy in terms of promoting sustainable transport
55:55
and what impact that has already and will have on travel movements moving forward in terms of increased working
56:01
from home, increased use of sustainable transport and things. Um and it's that combination of assessments that have
56:08
been undertaken in the work that was was done through the summer which has then led to these changes in the infrastructure package which are now
56:14
reflected in the proposed changes to the the schemes that are identified in the IDP. So um notwithstanding what Mr. said
56:22
about some data that he's received in the last few days. I think certainly from our perspective, we think that the
56:27
work that the council and national highways have done over the last few months in in ensuring that the data that
56:33
they've got and that they've presented and used as the basis for the assessments has been done properly and and and is is is a robust basis.
56:43
Thank you. Who wants to come in as councelor Kilgar first and then Mr. Green?
56:48
Please, sir. Um I I completely refute that. Um I think that the the data that
56:54
we received yesterday was from um a senior highways officer in Gates Head Council. So um it's it's information
57:02
that they've collected and worked with South China side on and and that data is is used to formulate um the information
57:10
that we act upon. the data that has been collected that has been referred to um around 2022
57:17
um is not adequate for the purposes of of today or the local plan moving forward. Um I think the data that we're
57:24
referring to in 2022 absolutely would be valid and and has been used. It's not accurate. It's not up to date. It's not
57:30
relevant. Um and this is what we need to be looking at. And what I what so what I really want to say is that on reflection
57:36
of yesterday I went home and in between a very brief interlude of going to Borough Council I looked at the YouTube
57:43
videos of of last hearing. So I would I would point um
57:48
members around the table um including Mr. Shadow Ravian at Miss Egleston there around the meeting on the 15th of um
57:56
July around 3:58 into the meeting I think in the afternoon and uh 4:29 as
58:04
well that whole session refers to the infrastructure and the likelihood of
58:10
funding and I know Miss Eston you did you did come back to me yesterday around the provision it clearly you clearly see
58:18
um the the provider the the developer will pay for the arm into the
58:24
development and a proportionate uh contribution which was 40 million that
58:30
we were talking about at the last um hearing um towards the progression of
58:36
this. Now I'm really concerned that I'm hearing different um communications
58:42
around the need for a master plan, the need for this IDP to be absolutely up to
58:49
date. Of course it does because the plan is not sound unless it is and also an
58:54
SPD around SP8. Now, there's been a massive scary shift between the view and
59:03
the direction of King's Council um at the at session one um to today and to
59:10
yesterday. And and I am deeply disturbed as as a member of the council to hear
59:18
the shift in the narrative between then and now. What has happened? what has
59:25
been discussed that members of this local authority are not aware of who has
59:30
the power to make those decisions and that the information that I would urge
59:35
you sir to rely upon is in those YouTube videos it is stark
59:44
thank you um I wouldn't use the word power but it rests with me to determine
59:50
whether main modifications are necessary to the plan in order to make it sound.
59:55
I'm hearing the submissions. I've heard the position from the council uh yesterday and from others, but it will
1:00:02
still rest with me as to whether I think that's necessary for the tests of um
1:00:07
tests of soundness. So, um that's it's
1:00:13
uh I'll leave it at at that for this this moment in time. Mr. Green, please.
1:00:20
Yes. Uh just going back to what Mr. mail said in relation to uh you know the time bridge works that would actually make
1:00:26
people put that would actually put less traffic on the road because there's a felgate there's a metro station there's
1:00:32
no way that you know cars would head out the A1 194 into Newcastle sir so I I
1:00:38
question that I wouldn't travel to Newcastle if the time bridge is getting uh you know a lot of work done
1:00:44
but sir this this is fresh at the real it is facts lives will be put at risk
1:00:49
and the residents within this area live it on a daily basis. Uh they cannot
1:00:54
build it and well well certain you know how many residents throughout REGG 19 and you know there's more recent with in
1:01:01
AIA that's LA Lavix had put in where 315 objected to it even though they weren't
1:01:06
accepted. Uh many hundreds have raised this and and uh it's SPM cannot go ahead
1:01:13
until this is all reviewed because it's a danger to life. if it's a danger to the residents who live not only in and
1:01:19
around Felgate but who live in and around the whole area. Sir,
1:01:27
thank you. Before I move off from um hearing from the community and potentially bringing in others, I mean
1:01:33
is there anything that's kind of missing from the infrastructure delivery plan in
1:01:39
terms of specific schemes or is it just a concern about the
1:01:44
deliverability of what's been identified? So I think deliverability I I don't think anyone would disagree with the
1:01:51
fact that the design needs to be input. It's it's been in need for years, let
1:01:57
alone with a potential development of 1,200 homes on on SP8. However,
1:02:03
I I don't believe it is deliverable. I don't believe the commitments around the table are solid um or or indeed will
1:02:10
will come forward. Um but equally, the 40 million pound scheme that has been
1:02:16
discussed and that is discussed on the 15th of July is absolutely what is
1:02:21
necessary. And I think that the headings, as Mr. Green has quite eloquently said the the the kind of
1:02:28
parameters the the red amber green if you like it's critical. It cannot progress. It is fundamentally flawed
1:02:36
without those being in place in advance of even suggesting a development on SP8.
1:02:43
um none of the other developments in that locality um one of them for 115
1:02:49
houses and I mentioned yesterday on the college or the old college site there is no intention for a contribution to
1:02:56
highways infrastructure the contribution there is looking at playing pitch strategy so we're kidding ourselves if
1:03:02
we're thinking that this developer that developer this is the main developer town end farm is not in our sphere for
1:03:11
that particular development there and that that infrastructure there. So I would really urge that you know the plan
1:03:18
alone is rendered um flawed on that very basis. Thank you. Sir, can I briefly?
1:03:26
Yeah, very brief. Sir, I think something missing actually missing from here as well is the actual access road from the
1:03:32
the development onto Durham Drive, sir, because that's got to be critical and it needs to be, you know, uh it's you're
1:03:40
talking about an access road that goes onto a 20 mph residential road with 17 sets of speed humps, uh three schools in
1:03:47
the local vicinity, and a successful gymnastic center. And it doesn't appear to appear. It doesn't appear in this.
1:03:54
There are two exits. And to be quite honest, you know, one stuff added but one stuff removed. But that access road in my opinion
1:04:01
should never go ahead. It's it's onto a residential 20 mph road.
1:04:07
Thank you. We sort of appreciate it's issues kind of cross over from stage
1:04:14
stage one. Is there anything further from either
1:04:20
Miss Egleston or the council in terms of what I've what I've heard? No. Okay.
1:04:26
Noted. I think at this stage then I'll turn to
1:04:33
Mr. Lavell please. uh different different topic different location but
1:04:39
obviously I've got your matter 11 statement and there's an appendix from
1:04:45
work undertaken is it by professor Hammond that's correct professor Peter Hammond
1:04:52
does a accepted sort of source of knowledge about wastewater management
1:05:00
just to help me understand a little bit more about that that appendix that you've provided Is he sort of local
1:05:06
resident or somebody who's a hydraologist or somebody?
1:05:12
He's a I understand he's a academic professor from Cambridge University who
1:05:18
lives uh uh down way down south as far as I'm concerned and he uh he's actually
1:05:26
part of a group uh uh wasp. So he lives on the river wind
1:05:34
the river wind rush wind rush which is a like an epicenter of waste
1:05:41
water problems where the uh the wildlife the wildlife and the marine life decimated. So he he he does sort of deep
1:05:49
diving into uh uses artificial intelligent deep diving into data etc. And so the report he produced for me
1:05:56
very kindly in fact corroborated uh later findings by offwood of a tri
1:06:05
weather spills at Henden Henden wast it wasn't accepted by the council but it
1:06:10
was accepted by offford etc. Thank you. And in terms of um
1:06:19
your response to my sort of massive issues and questions around infrastructure that's needed during the
1:06:25
plan period as I think I've highlighted earlier council can correct me if I'm wrong there's nothing in the
1:06:30
infrastructure development plan in terms of necessary upgrades or additional capacity in wastewater treatment works.
1:06:38
Obviously the council has engaged with North Umbrean water which they're uh
1:06:44
encouraged required to do. Um but I think you have an you have you want me
1:06:50
to take an alternative view in relation particularly to the Henden
1:06:56
wastewater treatment works. Yes. The Henden and Witburn where we live sort of thing. You know I presented
1:07:01
on Wednesday on on matter nine about water quality. Obviously that's intrinsically linked to matter 11 which
1:07:09
is the infrastructure needed in terms of sewage to uh provide the water quality in terms of sewage treatment. There'll
1:07:16
be some crossover to Wednesday when I speak today, but I think it's necessary support uh I'm going to support proposed
1:07:24
amendments to policy wording. You know, uh I'm the vice chair with Bernwood
1:07:30
Forum been going for about 10 year now. For for the benefit of the public, hi.
1:07:35
Uh I'd like to explain some background information to put into context what I hope to achieve at this local plan
1:07:41
examination. Maybe I should have mentioned the other day. Uh the volumes of untreated sewage
1:07:47
discharged at Whitburn have got progressively worse since the construction of the storm overflow overflow system in 1996.
1:07:54
There was over a million tons of sewage discharged through Witburn in 2023.
1:08:00
The Woodburn Forum created a neighborhood plan for Woodburn and one of the policies in the plan aims to
1:08:06
protect the neighborhood area from such large volumes of sewage pollution.
1:08:11
Since the neighborhood plan was made, the council have decided that they do not support our sewage policy.
1:08:18
The forum are disappointed in the council's position as a sewage policy in the neighborhood plan was not as
1:08:24
stringent as we wanted, but we were advised that the neighborhood plan that neighborhood plans are extremely
1:08:30
constrained in being able to address issues this strategic.
1:08:36
When our neighbor plan went through an examination process similar to this one, we were advised that the neighborhood
1:08:43
plan due to the constraints of what neighborhood plans can and cannot influence will not be able to solve the
1:08:49
problem as a whole and therefore the forum can and should continue to seek to
1:08:55
influence the environment agency, Northan water and South Tinside
1:09:00
policies. I'm here today to challenge policy 59
1:09:06
delivering infrastructure as it relies on evidence in the infrastructure
1:09:11
delivery plan. The IDP refers to North Roman water
1:09:16
drainage and wastewater management plan DWMP of June 2022
1:09:24
and the current asset management plan AM7
1:09:29
for North Water covering the period April 2020 to March 2025. Obviously
1:09:34
outside of March 2025 and the AM8 is yet to be published. Both plans are
1:09:41
outdated, making the IDP inadequate. I'm also here to support, believe it or
1:09:48
not, SP25 infrastructure, but I would again request an amendment that independent
1:09:56
and variable and verifiable evidence is obtained to identify any deficiencies in
1:10:02
existing provision and to ensure the sewage sewage infrastructure required to support new development is delivered as
1:10:09
an integral part of the development at the appropriate stage. And where
1:10:15
improvements are required to the sewage network to comply with the urban wastewater treatment regulations, the
1:10:20
LPA will look at potential for phase development and use a grampion condition
1:10:26
to ensure development come forward development comes forward in line with the required upgrades.
1:10:33
It was agreed at the examination on Wednesday that the local planning authority are not obliged in law to
1:10:39
defer to the advice of the sewage undertaker. An LPA is not prevented from investigating any potential failures
1:10:46
that may exist if circumstances compel it to do so.
1:10:51
At the regulation stage, which is the last time North Water were consulted,
1:10:57
Northland Water declared that there are no capacity issues at Henden and Howen waste water treatment works and as they
1:11:03
do not exceed dry weather flow compliance. I'll touch upon dry weather flow. Since then, circumstances have
1:11:12
changed with your decision notice in June 2025 which concluded that North
1:11:17
Water had breached environmental law.
1:11:25
North Umbrean Water did not contest the findings of OffWAD, but agreed a number of undertakings
1:11:31
including agreeing a plan to review the capacity of and minimize environmental harm from the Whitburn Henent system.
1:11:41
By agreeing to these undertakings, Northranian Water has avoided a criminal
1:11:46
prosecution in the magistrate's court where the directors and managers if found guilty could face a fine,
1:11:54
imprisonment or both, much like the criminal prosecutions brought against
1:11:59
fly tippers. Northern Water were obliged to deliver the plan by December 8th, 2025, but have
1:12:06
failed to do so. On Wednesday, there was an argument put forward on behalf of the council that
1:12:13
the regulatory regime around wastewater is extremely complex and it requires not
1:12:18
just an understanding of the current situation but also on capacity requirements for future needs.
1:12:25
It was suggested that it would not be appropriate to impose any further level of scrutiny as it that would impose a
1:12:32
positive obligation on the local planning authority to assess capacity and performance of the undertaker sewage
1:12:39
infrastructure each time it considers an application for permission in relation to a major proposed development.
1:12:49
Much like the requirement for rigorous analysis in the neighborhood plan that the council now rejects.
1:12:56
Mr. Lat Mr. Latimer has an engineering background but neither of us want any qualifications or training in planning
1:13:03
for wastewater management. Yet as normal residents of Witburn we both have an
1:13:09
understanding of the current situation and also on capacity requirements for
1:13:14
future needs. Our understanding of the current situation is that one, North
1:13:20
Umbrean water do not have the capacity to collect and treat waste water in the Henden Whitburn sewage system to conform
1:13:28
to the urban wastewater treatment regulations. Secondly, the capacity requirements for future need requires
1:13:35
improvements in the local sewage system. Understanding the current situation is
1:13:42
not complex. The LPA has all the skills and technical
1:13:47
knowledge needed to come to any verifiable decision that is not based upon assurances from the undertaker
1:13:55
itself. As an example of one simple way to assess present capacity and performance
1:14:02
of the sewage infrastructure, I suggest the LPA investigate what is the current
1:14:08
dry weather flow in the Witburn sewer system and compare this WDF with the dry
1:14:14
weather flow that the system was designed to operate
1:14:19
at when constructed. This can be determined by obtaining data
1:14:25
or data from Northine Water which is readily available such as the population
1:14:30
served for each sewage pumping station. Data regarding the flows generated in
1:14:38
the sewage system in dry weather can be used in conjunction to onward pumping
1:14:43
capacity flow rates for the pumping station to determine at what dry weather
1:14:49
flow multiple the system is currently spilling.
1:14:54
This can give an indication of the current performance of the system. the environment agency can provide support
1:15:02
with the discharge permit conditions as appropriate. I've gotten I've got such data
1:15:10
and say that the storm overflow system at Whitburn was designed and constructed to pass forward flows up to six times
1:15:17
dry weather flow. It's calculated on the water usage of a population equivalent in 1999 of 35,000 people before it
1:15:26
discharged into the environment. In 2014, North Water as part of the response to
1:15:34
the 2012 European Court judgment revised the population of the catchment area to
1:15:39
56,000 as per their 2014 business plan
1:15:44
submitted to DERA as mentioned on Wednesday by Mr. Latima.
1:15:54
In response to environmental information request, North Umbrean Water has recently disclosed that the Witburn
1:16:00
sewage catchment area now serves a catchment area population of over
1:16:05
100,000 people. That is almost three times the
1:16:10
population it was designed for. Based on the data supplied by North Room
1:16:16
Water, we have calculated that the Witburn system now discharges untreated sewage into the environment when flows
1:16:23
reach a level that is less than three times what is currently the dry weather
1:16:29
flow. Similarly, we have reached a conclusion that the pumping station at St. heaters
1:16:35
responsible for forwarding flows over the we mouth bridge to hent and sewage treatment works is discharging to the
1:16:42
environment are less than 2.5 times dry weather flow the discharges of
1:16:50
sewage into sea at Woodburn and the bottleneck scenario that exists at St. Peter's pumping station will become
1:16:57
worse as this plan stands unless improvements are made to the sewage system. In line with the off report, the
1:17:05
sewage system at Witburn has now become unfit for purpose with respect to the urban waste water treatment regulations
1:17:12
as it takes very little rainfall for the Witburn system to discharge untreated sewage into the environment.
1:17:20
It's not particularly timeconuming to obtain this data and investigate any potential failures that may exist and
1:17:26
either verify or refute our assessment. Such an investigation could also be used
1:17:33
to identify any deficiencies in in existing provision and inform any action plan needed to ensure the sewage
1:17:40
infrastructure required to support new development is delivered or plan to be delivered by North American water as an
1:17:47
integral part of the development at the appropriate stage in line with policy
1:17:53
SP25. I believe it's reasonable to expect that the scale and pace of new development
1:18:00
will be dependent on sufficient capac capacity being available in existing infrastructure to meet the de demands of
1:18:08
new development. Where this cannot be demonstrated, permission for new development will only
1:18:14
be through the provision of new infrastructure. Again, I suggest that where improvements
1:18:21
are required to the sewage network to comply with the urban wastewater treatment regulations, the LPA will look
1:18:27
at potential for phase development and use a gradient condition to ensure development comes forward in line with
1:18:35
required upgrades. Those are my submissions, sir.
1:18:42
Thank you for that. Is there anything further you wish to add, Mr. Latima, to what I've heard from Mr. Lavel? I'm
1:18:48
going to add a lot. Yeah.
1:18:53
Um I want to say first what I picked up from Wednesday meeting was that uh Mr.
1:19:00
Spencer's constant reference to the word rigorous. This was the word used in the Widburn
1:19:06
neighborhood sewage policy. I resigned from the forum because having dealt with NWL in the EA for many years, I was a
1:19:13
word aware that this word or action was never going to be strong enough in determine whether the sewage
1:19:19
infrastructure had the capacity needed. The forum disagreed.
1:19:24
I would like to just say one little thing going off the subject a little bit is that I think it's important to
1:19:31
mention because it appears you know I live in South Tide these are the
1:19:38
people that supposed to look after me in South Tide and I just cannot understand
1:19:43
why they can't see that there's something seriously wrong with the sewage system in South China side. I
1:19:50
think it's important to mention because this inquiry relates to all of South China side. When I tell you back in
1:19:56
1831, Sunderland was the site of the first outbreak of color. It was claimed
1:20:01
it arrived from ships from the Baltic and their unsanitary conditions. The evidence I provide shows these
1:20:08
unsanitary conditions have returned. Although my main concern is witburn, these unsanitary conditions apply to all
1:20:15
of Southside. The sewage infrastructure has gone past the point of being safe
1:20:21
for people's health and has even been reported as making dogs ill when they swim in the sea, which is now being
1:20:28
investigated. I refer to the water resources management report. The report highlights
1:20:34
the flaws in relying on information provided by NWL. And I have to add that
1:20:41
NWL has been totally um what's the word?
1:20:46
Uh useless useless do worse than useless by off and
1:20:53
um on 73 NW has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient supply and
1:21:00
treatment. The offer reply report I have seen suggests NWL have not only
1:21:06
neglected their duty, they've totally failed. We must not ignore this report.
1:21:12
77. The presence of service water which does not require treatment limits the
1:21:17
ability of the wastewater treatment works to acet accept additional foul
1:21:23
flows from new developments. I think this statement answers the question.
1:21:28
But I will provide evidence by way of Sunland lead local authority when he
1:21:34
states two surface water removal schemes alone have reduced the flows by 400 L
1:21:40
entering the combined sewage system with the surface water flow now going into cutthroat.
1:21:47
And yet the EU wrote, that was in 2019 when they when they did that to try and
1:21:52
upgrade the system, the Witbird system. Uh the EU wrote on the 18th of May 2021,
1:22:00
the UK authorities provided a further update and regard to the situation at Whitburn Longy outfall. They explained
1:22:07
that the final data for 2019 showed that 760,000
1:22:13
of waste water had been discharged. This shows the removal of the surface water
1:22:18
has not made a difference at all. In fact, it has made the system worse. The 2023 discharge records show that over 1
1:22:26
million cubic meters of sewage was discharged. They've made the system even worse. Now, it kind of what they've done
1:22:35
in the upgrade, instead of putting in the 10,000 cubic meters that was necessary, they put a little 3,000 cubic
1:22:42
meters in the SEAB burn system. Now, what's happening is that that's
1:22:48
affecting the dry weather floor. Um, Mr. Mr. Lim, I'm going to interrupt
1:22:54
here. I don't like to do this, but I'm hearing I think what you you told me at the stage one hearings back in July. Uh
1:23:02
if my memory serves what I'm trying to get to, I appreciate there is a very long history to this. There's been a lot
1:23:10
of effort from uh the local comm community people in the local community
1:23:17
in terms of identifying various issues. It has resulted in various outcomes in
1:23:23
the European um courts. I've got that in front of me now. Got the offwatt uh
1:23:29
undertaking as well. Office of environmental protection rulings have also referred or cross referred to the
1:23:35
Whitburn situation. I think going forward I need to understand what needs
1:23:42
to change or be amended to the plan. Is your view is is it as Mr. the has
1:23:49
suggested and identified or are you saying no we need something further uh based on based on your
1:23:56
evidence? Well, I think I would like to complete it. So then that that would be then come
1:24:01
clear what is needed.
1:24:07
I mean we heard there the relying on North Water. if you're not going to allow me to reboot that. Um, and you
1:24:15
know, um, I mean, I've got, well, it's up to you, but I mean I've even got things where I actually went into the
1:24:23
the reports last night and it didn't rain yesterday, but there was discharges being made. Now, to me, that's very
1:24:30
important and I would like to I would like to comp I haven't got much more, but I would like to complete it.
1:24:37
Thank you. If if on completing that that statement again as I said I want to
1:24:43
understand what needs to change. You you'll understand. Thank you.
1:24:49
Um a quote further from the so-called surface water removal that during 2015
1:24:56
which is in the in the resources management uh
1:25:02
during 2015 2020 NW delivered a number of agreed surface water separation
1:25:07
schemes were designed to relieve the volume of flows entering housing the
1:25:12
volumes of sewage spilling along the length of the river dawn the wagon weight heaven grass out
1:25:18
show beyond doubt that Hen does not have the capacity to cope. The records for South Shields Interceptor pumping
1:25:25
station show that 94 discharges have taken place since the 15th of October.
1:25:32
As for Henden, the following the 2001 public inquiry, the Secretary of State
1:25:38
accepted the inspector's recommendations and the inspector went to great lengths
1:25:44
to explain the measuring of the overflow. They're measuring the the flows arriving at the pumping station at
1:25:51
the Hendered Treatment Works, but they never ever measured it. Um,
1:25:59
what is now what is not mentioned is that the pump that was it at the public inquiry NWL gave up with a plan for
1:26:06
returning flows back to the foul sewer. this has now got to 11 of 300,000
1:26:14
uh cubic meters entering in the foul summer that was never accounted for. So
1:26:19
I think that's very important if you're saying you know you've heard that and we
1:26:25
can add even more. Uh at the present time the EU said the
1:26:33
system had to be upgraded by uh 2017
1:26:38
off what's now sent me this uh the the delivery plan.
1:26:46
Um the uh the environment agency said the plan has been delivered and now we
1:26:51
find that there's a penalty clause in the uh in the plan and if it wasn't
1:26:57
delivered the people of Whitburn are entitled to a 4 million uh refund. So at
1:27:04
the moment off's looking at that. So I think it's it's very important that this
1:27:10
doesn't go any further anymore until we get the action plan from offport. Um
1:27:21
European Court of Justice stated that wastewater should not be discharged as a matter of course when there were when
1:27:28
there weren't extreme cases. The whole s sewage infrastructure does not have the capacity to cope because
1:27:35
the wit burner hendon system is designed using which Mr. Lavel has referred to is
1:27:41
incorrect population figures and it wasn't of what that found out that uh
1:27:47
the population was wrong. It was me that found out that the population was wrong
1:27:52
and in the first place it was the council that provided the population
1:27:58
figures for 35,000. So use have the figures and if you look
1:28:03
what off what's saying now they're putting trying to put 56,000 into a system designed for 35,000
1:28:11
and although I'm old the the old saying is still true. You cannot put a quart
1:28:16
into a pine pot. If the existing infrastructure is full, then you cannot
1:28:21
keep putting more in what are totally discredited NWL and the easiest ability
1:28:27
to measure and maintain their sewage system. Yet the local planning authority
1:28:32
are still relying on their words. Even the most basic analysis would find that
1:28:37
the sewage system is inadequate and not fit for purpose. Although my concern is
1:28:42
the sewage flows from Witburn, at 8:00 p.m. last night, I looked at the Tinside Interceptor sewage
1:28:49
map, it showed that this CSO was discharged into River Dawn as far
1:28:55
as far as I was aware, there was no rain yesterday, let alone a storm. If this
1:29:01
local plan examination finds that policy 25 depends only on the infrastructure
1:29:07
delivery plan which totally depends on NWL and it con it continues before off
1:29:15
provides the action plan then the local plan cannot be considered sound cannot
1:29:20
be considered sound to add more sewage from further housing development would
1:29:26
not only be illegally breaking the urban wastewater treatment director ive it
1:29:31
would also lead to even greater damage to the environment. So my say is that
1:29:37
this plan shouldn't proceed until we've seen the action plan.
1:29:50
Okay. Thank you for that um clear thank you Mr. Matima on uh what you're you're
1:29:57
advising. Um Mr. green very briefly, please. It says it's just an apology, sir. I
1:30:03
mentioned that Dumb Drive wasn't the the road wasn't on the IDP, but it actually
1:30:08
is. It's on page 92 and it said section 106 and section 278, which will be
1:30:14
highways to pay for, but according to highways yesterday, they weren't paying for anything.
1:30:19
Thank you. I appreciate Durham Drivers, local highway, not not the strategic
1:30:24
road network. I've heard from Mr. Lavel and Mr. Latimer. Um I think Mr. Laval's
1:30:31
position is similar to what he was um advocating for policy 10. Obviously
1:30:37
heard Mr. Chadov in your submissions in respect of a a that sort of policy
1:30:43
approach uh in relation to policy 10 and I'm not anticipating you're going to advise me differently in terms of policy
1:30:51
25. The only point I would pick up or I'd like to give the council the opportunity to respond to is Mr. the val
1:30:58
submissions that this is it's not ownorous or difficult or complex
1:31:04
um to do this do the analysis if it was a a rigorous analysis or an alternative
1:31:10
analysis
1:31:16
I I personally don't have the means by which to respond to that
1:31:21
um however Um,
1:31:27
we have to rely upon the expertise of the water undertaker.
1:31:34
We don't have that expertise in house. We're not an undertaker in that respect.
1:31:40
What we can do, however, is make sure we consult with North Umbrean Water,
1:31:45
particularly in relation to to um major allocations.
1:31:52
And if if the response is unsatisfactory, then of course we will be alerted as to
1:31:58
whether or not uh there will be a need um to impose conditions
1:32:04
on the grant of planned permission, for example, to restrict occupation until such time as a satisfactory
1:32:13
um answer or outcome is achieved.
1:32:20
I can't say more than that. I mean I I have been through this at some length
1:32:25
already and I understand the case being put. Um but we have to be as it were led
1:32:33
by statutory requirements and on the understanding that statutory
1:32:38
undertakers will comply with the law and we've got reasonably upto-date findings
1:32:44
in relation to that and uh North Umbrean water have been thoroughly chastised
1:32:52
through that process and have given undertakings and of what
1:32:58
also done under the kosh of a further agency have dealt with that and
1:33:04
responded to it and now we're awaiting the outcome of the action plan. So we must assume for the moment that
1:33:11
due process is now being undertaken and will be complied with.
1:33:19
Thank you Mr. Horseman for the council please.
1:33:24
Yes. So I think just to add a little further to what um has just been said um just in the context of um the need or
1:33:32
otherwise for kind of infrastructure provision. I think in terms of the the issues around this term rigorous
1:33:40
analysis um um certainly our experience in terms of handling kind of major
1:33:46
planning applications has been that um there are different interpretations of what amounts to to
1:33:53
rigorous analysis. Um and one of the um one of the the the cases has been
1:34:00
discussed um during the sort of hearing has been the the Witburn Lodge um sort
1:34:05
of um scheme and um certainly with that particular planning application um in in
1:34:11
handling the planning application. There was a lot of information um provided to the council by North Umbrean Water by um
1:34:18
Witburn Neighborhood Forum that was scrutinized and a lot of detail by officers and certainly the view of
1:34:25
officers was that um we had undertaken a rigorous analysis but clearly the forum
1:34:30
had a different opinion on on on that matter. I think um as I say that the term itself is is clearly open to
1:34:37
interpretation and different interpretations in terms of what is rigorous and what um sort of isn't. Um I
1:34:44
think in terms of um issues around infrastructure provision to do with kind
1:34:50
of waste water um clearly the the there are the two dimensions kind of treatment
1:34:55
capacity and and network um capacity again just based on on major planning
1:35:01
applications that we've handled um the the evidence that we've been provided with by North Umbrean Water in terms of
1:35:08
treatment capacity is that it um um in terms of the Witburn Henden system in terms of Henden search treatment works
1:35:14
as I mentioned at the stage one hearings um the evidence we presented with by North Umbrean water is that there is
1:35:20
plentiful um treatment capacity at Henden sewage treatment works a
1:35:26
considerable amount of sort of um sort of headroom um I think the the figure that was mentioned in the the stage one
1:35:32
hearings was um sort of um headroom um of um
1:35:39
in in the order of sort of Um
1:35:44
yes it was you you were talking about sort of well over sort of um 30,000 sort
1:35:50
of um sort of dwellings sort of um sort of headroom in terms of um hend and sewage treatment works there close to
1:35:56
38,000 dwellings kind of headroom um in terms of the the issues around um sort of
1:36:04
network capacity. So when we're looking at Cso discharges and what have you,
1:36:10
again I think I would just reiterate what I said at the stage one hearings is that is a complex picture. Um we're not
1:36:17
just considering issues around sort of hydraulic capacity. But we're considering issues around the the the
1:36:24
operation of the of the system um around North Ambian Waters maintenance of the
1:36:30
system um sort of the the behavior of of consumers in terms of blockages and what
1:36:36
have you and how those are are kind of dealt with by by North Umbrean Water. Um
1:36:41
I think in in in Mr. Lavell's evidence on on this particular matter um a
1:36:46
reference has been made to the work of um professor sort of Hammond which um talks about um the matter of floatful
1:36:54
treatment which is the amount of I understand the amount of sort of um sort of discharge that northern water should
1:37:01
be passing through their sewage works in in kind of wet weather conditions and as I say allegations that the the sewage
1:37:08
works aren't being used to their full capacity in those types of conditions. Um but again I think our view would be
1:37:15
that's essentially an operational matter. It's not a it's not a matter for for the for this particular plan in
1:37:22
terms of the assessment of of capacity. The capacity is there is what we've been told by Northumbian water. um issues of
1:37:30
whether or not they're passing through sufficient sort of um discharge at the sewage treatment works um in line with
1:37:36
the capacity that's there or essentially operational matters for for the water company and not matters for for this
1:37:43
local plan. Thank you sir. Thank you. I was going to sort of bring
1:37:49
that to a conclusion but Mr. Latimer very briefly.
1:37:56
Um, I hear what Mr. Horseman says about relying on North Water. All I can say is
1:38:03
that it's over 30 years ago now I started dealing with North Water. They
1:38:09
came to see me because they wanted to build the pumping station next to us. They said to us, "We estimate it'll
1:38:16
discharge 225,000 a year." That would be the maximum would discharge.
1:38:22
In 2023, it discharged a million tons. There would be no return flows.
1:38:29
In 2023, it returned 300,000 tons. So, that's how far it's out of sync from
1:38:37
what they uh they've done. Now, the other thing is that the European Court
1:38:43
was told in the the case was between 2005 and 200 2005. Yeah. 2008 and in
1:38:52
2005 uh it discharged 540,000 ton
1:38:58
with the rainfall was about 693 millimeter in 2023
1:39:05
2024. Yeah. It discharged 944,000
1:39:10
tons from 703 mm. A half an inch more
1:39:16
resulted half an inch more of surface water resulted in 500,000 ton. Now, if
1:39:24
Mr. Horseman doesn't, you know, he's not even listening to us, you know. I mean, uh, what more can I do? You know, I'm
1:39:31
just a member of the public. We've got nobody here that to say, look, what you're saying is wrong. So, you know,
1:39:40
thank you. And and I understand that's why uh you're recommending to me to wait for the
1:39:46
the report take a precautionary approach in terms of uh when development should
1:39:52
come forward and then as part of that Mr. Lavell's suggestions around in terms of modified wording um to judge
1:40:01
development proposals when they come come forward very briefly Mr. Lavel before I move on.
1:40:07
Yeah just touching what Mr. Osman said again he he's put total reliance on what the insuranceances that North Water give
1:40:15
you know uh at the stage one proceedings you know and it goes back the fact that
1:40:20
they those assurances were at the regulation 19 stage and things have moved on since then we've got the off
1:40:26
report I put a complaint into the precursor of the OEP back in 2021 that
1:40:33
the environment agency weren't regulating the permits at Henden and Witburn obviously the OEP took over from
1:40:40
the IEGCS I think it was and they use that information and information from Mr. Latimer to to reach their findings
1:40:47
which is published in December. So we've got a long long long history of Northman water who want a statary consultee.
1:40:54
They're just a a private firm looking for profit making millions of pounds every year to feed their billionaire
1:41:01
Chinese owner as far as I'm concerned where the local plan is not sound
1:41:06
because that's taken into regard the updates of the OE the off etc. And you
1:41:11
know you can't regard the the IDP as being sound because it relies on outdated information. That's all. So
1:41:17
thank you. Thank you. Okay, it's coming up to 5 to 11. What I'm going to suggest we do is
1:41:23
take a midm morning adjournment. Um, come back at 10 11. We've got a bit more
1:41:30
to discuss on infrastructure. But for the benefit of Mr. Lavel and Mr.
1:41:36
Latimer, I'm not returning to the uh the wastewater issue. So, if you wanted to to leave at this point, thank you for
1:41:43
your contributions this morning. Thank you, sir. It's appreciated early this year. Thank you.
1:41:49
Can I just say one more thing? is in the in the um
1:41:55
in the plan you refer to something about from 2015 to 2020
1:42:02
and um I would like to say something about that because now we'll find from off that North Umbrean water was
1:42:09
allocated a huge amount of money for to put the systems right and what we find now from
1:42:17
off and off's investigating this now is that they underspent 277 million
1:42:26
and they're being allowed to keep half of that uh 277 million and the other
1:42:32
half should go back to the the people of South Tide. Now, I haven't had any money
1:42:39
back, but I mean, that's irrelevant. But it's the the the 277 million to
1:42:45
underspend when the system's in such a state, you know, it's just we're on our
1:42:51
own. We don't seem to have any regulators or anything to look after us. Um we we're having to put our case
1:42:59
forward and you know really this is not even the real place to put it. But we
1:43:04
can't, you know, you do an EI to North Umbrean water and uh they just bend it
1:43:10
for phobia off and same with the environment agency and same with the council. So, thank you for listening to
1:43:16
us. Thank you. Okay, we'll take the midm morning agent. I still want to be back in this room at 10 11 please everybody.
1:43:24
Thank you.
1:56:52
Okay, it's just gone 10 11 so I'm going to resume uh this discussion into matter
1:56:58
11. Um we're on to uh the next item
1:57:04
on the agenda and it relates to my MIQ 11.2 two um
1:57:11
and it's the issue about I appreciate this is a strategic policy at part of a
1:57:16
strategic policy SP25 but whether the first part of the policy
1:57:23
is seeking developments to improve deficiencies in existing infrastructure provision uh and whether that would be
1:57:31
justified and consistent with national policy and briefly invite the council Please.
1:57:52
Yes, sir. We consider it would be justified and consistent with national policy. Um I think it's important to
1:58:00
point out that this would only be um the case where
1:58:10
the deficiency in existing policy in existing provision. Um the local plan needs to be read
1:58:18
comprehensively and it needs to be read across with policy 59
1:58:24
which states development will be expected to provide or contribute towards a provision of measures to
1:58:29
directly mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms.
1:58:36
So what we're invis envisaging is this will only be the case where
1:58:42
development exacerbates uh a deficiency in existing provision. We're not seeking to
1:58:49
uh expect developers to just mitigate existing deficiencies.
1:58:56
So I suppose um I think to get straight to your point, I think the expression
1:59:03
where appropriate is not necessarily uh aligning with the seal requirements
1:59:10
of necessity and reasonleness. So what Mr. Clifford said is correct.
1:59:17
So it will developers will be expected to deal with any deficiencies
1:59:25
in existing provision where it's necessary to do so to make the development acceptable.
1:59:33
So that that seal requirement is there whatever the policy says in any event.
1:59:38
So that that that is the bottom line. Um it will be possible of course to do a
1:59:44
slight modification to the policy to make that clear.
1:59:50
Thank you. I'm going to jump around the agenda which is not always the best thing but we seem to be in the same uh
1:59:57
area and it was item four on my agenda and I think various representations that were made in terms of policies SP 20 um
2:00:07
five and policy 59 sailing quite close to one another in what they were seeking to do and I think
2:00:13
the council for its statement is minded to look at this so whether what you're suggesting Mr. Shadow Arabian could be
2:00:22
brought into that as well.
2:00:30
I think it's Is it just a policy 59? There's no It's not a strategic
2:00:36
No. Yep.
2:01:07
in relation to policy 59 and its relationship to SP25. I think we
2:01:13
acknowledge that there's some overlap and that the two could potentially be integrated together. We'd be open to
2:01:20
that if that was something you felt was appropriate. Or the alternative, we take out or amend
2:01:27
policy 59 if it's repeating some of the strategic. I think there's a modification in there
2:01:33
somewhere.
2:01:44
Sorry, I've got two red lights. apologize to bring it in line with the silver rags
2:01:49
and to avoid any any uh confusion at development management stage
2:01:55
and also to make sure the two policies are consistent. So, uh, we will look at that,
2:02:02
Miss Egleston, please. I I was just wanted to pick up the point
2:02:07
which I think it's sort of just been made in that I I did see in the council statement that they were considering
2:02:13
perhaps reddrafting those two policies so that a they didn't necessarily overlap with each other but also whether
2:02:18
or not there is a point uh the point in in doing so to clarify the matter about
2:02:23
addressing existing deficiencies which in our view isn't consistent with national policy and particularly from a
2:02:29
transport basis then the test in terms of um severe impacts is obviously significantly ly higher than that of
2:02:34
addressing existing deficiencies. So um those two things seemed inconsistent and and I think in paragraph 59 it is worded
2:02:42
more clearly and and and seems to be more consistent with policy
2:02:48
councelor Korea um I just think um we need to exercise
2:02:54
caution in in that area in that around the existing deficiencies. So obviously
2:03:01
I'm going to relate that back to SP8. But whatever those deficiencies are or not, I would be really cautious around
2:03:09
what the expectation was from a local planning authority to or uh local
2:03:14
authority to put right. Um and then the top up being as a result of development.
2:03:21
I think we need to be really cautious as to what the expectation of the local authority is is likely to be and if they
2:03:28
can meet that.
2:03:43
Thank you. Uh Mr. Green,
2:03:49
sorry sir. Just to highlight the fact that you know with the existing transport deficiencies, it's actually
2:03:54
the housing development that's creating the the need to have them improved. That makes sense there. So, so yeah, so
2:04:02
they're responsible for it in the first place. So, it should be it should be included.
2:04:07
Okay. Thank you. I've noted the council's um statement and if that goes
2:04:12
forward as a main modification, then obviously people will have an opportunity um to comment on that in due
2:04:18
course. Um moving on in terms of the agenda, uh policy 50 then sits um
2:04:25
alongside or follows on from policy SP25. It's around social and community
2:04:30
um infrastructure. Uh and my question at MIQ 11.3 was whether this would provide
2:04:36
a justified uh and consist justified uh and effective uh approach in securing
2:04:44
that type of infrastructure over the plan period. Mr. Clifford.
2:04:54
Yes sir. We believe it will provide a justified and effective approach.
2:05:02
The IDP provides a resource for identifying needs. Uh for example, table 11 impact on plan
2:05:10
development on primary school places identifies the primary school places that will be required.
2:05:17
And this assists in providing the context for part parts one and two of the policy
2:05:24
which both refer to identified needs as set out in the supporting text of the
2:05:31
policy. Developers are also encouraged to work collaboratively with the council and other key state stakeholders
2:05:38
regarding the identification and meeting of the social and community infrastructure needs that may arise from
2:05:44
development. Parts two Roman italic one and part two
2:05:50
Roman italic two of the policy link to the spatial vision.
2:05:57
As referenced, the need for school places is been identified in the IDP.
2:06:03
However, both for school places and other community needs, there may be some circumstances where it cannot be
2:06:09
predicted and that results in unforeseen needs. It's important therefore that the plan
2:06:15
provides the flexibility to require the provision of land and or the capital
2:06:21
cost of new facilities where the need arises from new development. And this provides the context to part two Roman
2:06:28
italic 3 of the policy.
2:06:35
So I think taken in the round. Um
2:06:40
it is a sound um policy. Um I would also
2:06:47
reference that the plan provides the flexibility to require the provision
2:06:56
So I think I've already referenced that. Um
2:07:05
yeah, I think that completes. Thank you. Uh thank you Mr. Hutchinson for the
2:07:14
uh East Balden Forum made representations I think on the you query the effectiveness of this this
2:07:20
policy. Yes, thank you sir. Um you perhaps won't be surprised to hear
2:07:27
that the forum considers that policy 50 is not sound um as it does not contain sufficient
2:07:34
detail about how appropriate social and community infrastructure will be provided to cater for the impact of the
2:07:41
new development on our community. Um the Eastbolan neighborhood plan has a
2:07:48
key policy on community services and facilities to support the provision of
2:07:53
new and enhancement of existing community facilities. The plan also has a community action um
2:08:02
about enhancing community services and facilities and the forum's been working proactively with the community
2:08:08
supporting the development of a sporting hub and other local facilities.
2:08:14
The forum considers that the neighborhood plan will have a key role in addressing the impact of a 26%
2:08:22
increase in households resulting from proposed new development in the village
2:08:27
on the health and well-being of the residents of East Balden. In recent years, there's been a loss of community
2:08:33
facilities in the village such as the closure the closure of the um United
2:08:39
Reform Church Hall and the Methodist Church Hall more recently. uh and schools and medical facilities
2:08:45
are already under extreme pressure. So we feel that policy 50 should include
2:08:51
an acknowledgement of the policies within the neighborhood plan. The council in its statement highlights
2:08:58
the supporting text which states that developers are encouraged to work collaborately with the council and with
2:09:04
other key stakeholders regarding the identification and meeting social and community infrastructure needs that may
2:09:11
arise from any development. Um the past experience of the forum is
2:09:17
that we haven't been uh sufficiently involved in this. the development at
2:09:23
Clean Lane being a good example of that. Um the forum is a clearly a key
2:09:30
stakeholder and that's why we would want the council to consider putting that text within the policy itself, the text
2:09:36
from the neighborhood plan. The council's statement in response to question uh 11.3
2:09:44
also focuses on the impact of plan development on primary school places. It
2:09:50
highlights the spatial vision for the local plan which states that residents will have a choice of schools and
2:09:56
nurseries, community and healthcare facilities. However, as we argued at the stage one
2:10:02
hearings, the IDP does not provide answers as to how these additional
2:10:07
places would be provided. In fact, we heard the council give evidence that the choice for parents may well lie outside
2:10:15
of East Balden, which is not a satisfactory situation. Um, secondary school pupils already have
2:10:23
to travel to Witburn, but for uh infant and primary school pupils to do the
2:10:29
same, I think would be very ownorous on the parents. Uh in summary, I'd just like to say in
2:10:36
conclusion that policy 50 should be amended to provide more detail about how the delivery of appropriate social and
2:10:43
community infrastructure will be achieved to mitigate the impact of this new development on local communities.
2:10:50
Thank you. Thank you for that. And I've obviously
2:10:55
got the neighborhood plan in front of me as an examination document. I understood from the council's position there's a
2:11:01
balance here in terms of flexibility in terms of what I've heard. Is there
2:11:08
any further points that the council wish to make in No, not really. um the the the point is
2:11:15
understood and I don't acknowledge um your concerns but um this
2:11:23
is a borrowed policy and and um the normal consultation
2:11:29
procedures will take place in relation to each application as it comes forward.
2:11:35
The policy is deliberately widely structured because you need that flexibility when it comes to consider
2:11:43
individual planning applications which um generate their own particular
2:11:50
needs in terms of community infrastructure. So it's not possible at this sort of
2:11:56
strategic level um to predict what needs will need to be
2:12:02
satisfied in relation to what development at what particular time and that includes the provision of primary
2:12:09
and secondary school places as well because things change over time. Um and
2:12:15
so but what the policy does admit and assuming that the consultation procedures will be carried out according
2:12:22
to the law um is that there is the basis here for
2:12:28
the local planning authority to insist upon obligations or
2:12:34
contributions that meet statutory test of reasonleness and necessity.
2:12:44
Thank you. Is there anything further? Mr. Herson, could I just come back on that? Yes. I mean, I take the point that you're
2:12:49
making there, but given that um there's probably a degree of certainty that a
2:12:56
lot of the schemes proposed in the local plan will come to fruition. It seems
2:13:01
shortsighted of the council not to provide some indication as to how those additional places will be provided. We
2:13:07
know how many houses are going to be built. Therefore, it's not a difficult task to predict how many new children
2:13:15
and school places will be required. So, I don't see that that is something which cannot be done as part of the local
2:13:22
plan. Um, school places and school provisions sir as you know is a very dynamic issue and changes over time
2:13:29
depending upon what's built where, population changes, demographic changes.
2:13:35
Um, and as the inspector made clear earlier on, some of these developments are coming on well into the future. It's
2:13:41
impossible to make those kinds of predictions at this stage.
2:13:48
Thank you. And I understand the respective positions and I'll reflect on um what you've advised me this morning,
2:13:55
Mr. Hutchinson. Going to hear briefly from I think it's
2:14:00
councelor Kilgar and then Mr. Green. Um, as I said, I want relatively concise
2:14:06
contributions because this morning is, I think, my only opportunity to hear from Mr. Mail in terms of transport evidence.
2:14:13
So, we need to get on to the the transport part of the discussion. So, but may I allow Mr. to go first? Okay.
2:14:21
Yes. In relation to uh, you know, policy SP26, new developments are sold on the
2:14:26
fact that they encourage and promote sustainable transport and travel. So what's sorry we're not at this part of the
2:14:31
agenda. Right. I do apologize we're going to come on we're going to come on to SP 26. All right.
2:14:38
Go on. Thank you sir. I think as we've been talking about um school places and I do
2:14:44
accept that it is very fluid um and and the ownership and a different policy
2:14:49
with regards to providing additional places with developers. I think that's really important to note. um
2:14:57
by way of school places. I'm not convinced that I I'm a chair of governors at St. Joseph's Catholic
2:15:04
Academy in Heburn and I'm not convinced that the data around the availability of
2:15:09
places there has been considered and I know that from a governor perspective rather than from a a plan perspective.
2:15:16
Um you know this particular year we are currently massively overs subscribed. So
2:15:22
I think it is something that we do need to look at in order that our children
2:15:27
don't have to travel um as as uh Mr. Hutchinson has said I think it's really
2:15:32
important but I think the provision of those spaces is really relevant and when
2:15:37
we're talking about local infrastructure we're also talking about the road off
2:15:43
onto Durham Drive from SP8. So I think that's all to be kind of considered in
2:15:50
there if I if I can refer to that correctly. Thank you.
2:15:57
Thank you. I don't necessarily want to hear from I heard earlier from Mr. Clifford about your engagement with the
2:16:02
schools places manager. So,
2:16:09
okay. Just finally on policy 50
2:16:16
um and uh various issues that have been raised in relation to the policy. It's my MIQ 11.4. I think this came from the
2:16:24
NHS um operational or um
2:16:31
uh certainly from a a division somewhere within the NHS in terms of a specific
2:16:37
issue around policy 50. I think this comes to when there's issues around disposal of their estate and I think the
2:16:44
council has suggested a main or suggested a modification
2:16:49
to policy 50 in relation to that not specifically for the NHS but the wider point I think where surplus public
2:16:58
sector buildings estate comes forward.
2:17:03
Yes sir that's correct. uh we we don't see the logic in making it specific to the NHS considering the the point that
2:17:10
was made in the representation we think is equally uh applicable to other uh key
2:17:17
public service providers. So we've broadened it out in our proposed
2:17:22
modification. Thank you. And that will be um subject
2:17:28
to consultation if it goes forward. Councelor Kilg briefly. So just just very quickly I think um referring back
2:17:36
to the NHS there. So in SP8 there is the um kind of you know option put forward
2:17:42
of of um a GP practice. Um I I think that is all in the mix as well. I think
2:17:48
we need to really consider about deliverability on that about that um
2:17:53
that resource um how deliverable is it and that that is really really important.
2:18:00
Thank you. Um that concludes everything I want to raise under matter 11 issue
2:18:06
one on the infra borrowwide infrastructure policies. We're now going to move on to issue two which is the
2:18:12
borrowwide policies around promoting um sustainable um transport.
2:18:20
My first point and issue I wanted to raise um just check
2:18:31
is in relation to S policy SP26. So I'll come to you shortly Mr. Green on this
2:18:36
but first I think I turn to whether it will be Mr. May or somebody else within the council Mr. Clifford in terms of
2:18:43
obviously policy. SP26 is a uh strategic policy in terms of delivering um
2:18:50
sustainable transport. Um obviously sets out a number of um policy objectives
2:18:56
around active travel, public transport, all the things you perhaps expect to see in terms of um
2:19:03
uh managing the demand for um additional um carbased travel. But one consistent
2:19:10
theme I think that arisen in in the in various representations was around the
2:19:16
justification that new homes, new commercial development is located no more than 400
2:19:22
meters uh from a bus stop and I think just raised practical questions in terms of
2:19:28
what that would mean uh on the ground and I think the council's helpfully
2:19:34
set that out in its matter 11 statement. Um,
2:19:39
if I can just ask the council briefly. Um,
2:19:46
just explain where that 400 meter distance came from
2:19:52
and what it kind of practicably means. Just looking at the map of the burough, it seems that most most parts
2:19:59
of the burough would be within 400 meters. Yes, sir. I'm happy to come in on that
2:20:05
point. Um I think from a from a local authority perspective we have to resort to to set standards and criteria and
2:20:11
we've utilized the sustrans who are now renamed as wheeled walking and often
2:20:17
forget the other acronym but um I think from our perspective when when it comes
2:20:22
to sort of assessing plan applications and and future sites we have to conform to standards and this is an appropriate
2:20:28
standard that is also used by Nexus as in the Tania passenger transport executive Um from our perspective uh we
2:20:36
recognize as part of our submissions that in terms of applying this logic there will be parts of the borough that
2:20:44
don't conform to that standard but I think as we discussed yesterday there is a standing requirement uh that was
2:20:50
discussed that in terms of any future sites coming forward uh where they don't meet that standard it would be expected
2:20:57
that a provision of a regular bus service alongside that of the infrastructure would would support that
2:21:04
and would improve the situation. Sir, thank you. Thank you. So, where there are kind of
2:21:10
gaps on the map that's provided in the statement, if a new development came forward and provided a new bus stop to a
2:21:18
standard acceptable to the transport authority that would overcome or address that that particular aspect. Yeah.
2:21:25
Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. And then in terms of um policy SP
2:21:31
26 uh and um my MIQ 11.7,
2:21:39
I'm going to go back to the statement of common ground with National Highways.
2:21:45
Um I think they were seeking an an
2:21:52
amendment to uh three part three of the policy subp
2:21:58
part three I think removing the final part of that text
2:22:05
I think the council has agreed to this so that would be a modification. Yes,
2:22:10
sir. That's correct.
2:22:22
Thank you, Miss Egleston, please.
2:22:27
Um, we have made representations on the 400 meter bus stop and and um so that
2:22:33
that's that's set out in our note. Um but it was just to pick up on that second point on the the text in the
2:22:38
statement of common ground. Um we're supportive of the the change to the
2:22:44
paragraph 3 part three change where it was removing the the the part about the cumulative impact um in carb based
2:22:52
trips. Um but I also note in the statement of common ground that um
2:22:58
national highways have asked that some new text is added to paragraph 1414 underneath that um which seeks to
2:23:05
replicate part of um footnote 21 which is from circular one um 22
2:23:13
um but it only part replicates it and in our representations then then we had
2:23:19
noted that um we didn't feel that that was necessary because that that remit is already covered within the circular per
2:23:26
se and also if it was going to be included within the policy that it should be included in full. Um because
2:23:33
within the circular it does place a distinction about how the assessment should be carried out if a devel
2:23:39
development proposal is in accordance with an up-to-ate plan and where one isn't. um whereas the part replication
2:23:46
within the policy only dealt with um the scenario where which in effect would be
2:23:51
if a development isn't in accordance with the plan then you have to take account of all developments within the plan. So I think it's important that if
2:23:58
text is going to be replicated within the policy it shouldn't be replicated in full or um or else it shouldn't be
2:24:05
included in which case it is already picked up within the circular and so that would be a requirement that national highways would have that um you
2:24:11
know that that ability to require that um in any case in in any discussions on
2:24:16
the scope of any assessment undertaken. Thank you. Thank you. I think my recollection from the statement of
2:24:22
common ground is there's the proposed change to that part of the policy and I
2:24:28
think the additional text if memory serves was not suggested as a main
2:24:34
modification as something that was necessary for soundness but as a what's commonly referred to as a minor
2:24:41
um modification and whether there's an is which if I came to that view would
2:24:46
obviously not be within my remit. It would be something that could be added to the plan, but if there's an issue about it's
2:24:54
not the council wants to take that away in terms of the fullness of what's Yeah, I think we'll take that away because it's an issue which has arisen
2:25:01
in relation to other national particularly green belt and matters like that. We'll take it away and see how
2:25:07
best to deal with it. I mean there are two options. Um actually on reflection I think anything any modification to a
2:25:14
policy which alters the sense of that policy is a main mod not not not minor.
2:25:19
So that that's the first observation I make. So I think we're probably wrong to suggest to suggest it's just minor.
2:25:26
I'm not suggesting the change to policy SP26 part 3 sub3 is a right
2:25:34
that would be that would be a main modification if I supporting text which I think is where
2:25:40
Miss Egleston was coming from that seeks to kind of draw on DFT circular 122 I think the
2:25:48
statement of common ground was suggested we don't need to do this for soundness but we will so yeah I misunderstood what
2:25:56
you were saying. Sorry. So, in relation to that point, um, we we it will probably be best if we're going to
2:26:02
include it to include a reference to the to the whole thing so it's not misleading.
2:26:10
Thank you. Are there any further points people wish to make on policy SP26? Mr.
2:26:15
Green. Yes. So, I was just to say I'll repeat myself again with this. Sorry before. uh
2:26:21
new developments are sold on the fact that encourage and promote sustainable transport and travel. So what what
2:26:26
difference would this make? Uh isn't give priority pedestrians referring to a bus user. Uh so I I agree that I agree
2:26:34
with policy SP26.
2:26:39
Councelor Kar. Thanks sir. Um I'm I'm just a little bit um confused around what needs to go and
2:26:46
come out. Um I I do think it's major. I think when I'm reading um point three
2:26:52
there to contribute towards by by way of developer contribution what what again
2:26:59
I'm I'm going to raise concerns around the proportionality in relation to SP8
2:27:05
um that that will have and I'm not quite sure I I I don't want it diluted as to
2:27:11
the responsibility that the developer would have there and whether there's a circular or not I think our policy needs
2:27:17
to stipulate that. Thank you. Thank you. Just before I move off, um
2:27:26
policy SP26, we've had various kind of discussions at
2:27:31
this examination around visionled um transport planning. It's what's
2:27:36
picked up in the circular whilst I have the benefit of Mr. Male in the room.
2:27:41
just generally I mean the um apologies I've asked this at the stage one um
2:27:46
hearing sessions but I'll I'll ask ask again if there's any kind of emerging kind of local either to the burough or
2:27:54
uh through the combined authority about what kind of vision-led approach might
2:27:59
look like whether there are things that are likely to be prioritized
2:28:04
as as part of that approach I know some authorities are starting to think about
2:28:10
through local transport plans etc. This is what v a vision led approach would mean for our particular area and I just
2:28:16
curious as to thank you sir. I I think it's appropriate to to reference from a combine authority perspective we've
2:28:23
recently just had our regional transport plan endorsed. That said the council is currently refreshing its local and
2:28:30
cycling walking infrastructure plan. Um this plan was adopted by the council in
2:28:35
2021 running for 5 years. So it's appropriate that we are refreshing this
2:28:40
document and by all means taking heed of the the results of this week we can certainly embed the visionled approach
2:28:47
into that refresh of the of the document. Um I think it's appropriate at this point to say that in terms of
2:28:53
sustainability our first onset is to try to ensure that sustainable modes can be accessible whether that's through
2:28:59
walking through cycling through using public transport before we even resort to what carb based trips are going to
2:29:06
result from the network. Um and that isn't just for SPD SP8. It's for across
2:29:12
the whole of the local plan that's in front of you as part of this examination. Thank you, sir.
2:29:18
Thank you. Okay, I'll move on uh in terms of the agenda. We'll move on to policy 51 of the plan. Again, borrow
2:29:25
policy that sets out a number of um uh criteria requirements in relation to
2:29:32
improvements to the road um network. Um and my question at MIQ 11.8 whether
2:29:39
those were justified in terms of the various um schemes that are identified. They're separated out by the strategic
2:29:47
road networks schemes that um relate to national highways and then specific
2:29:53
local highway network projects that um are at the more local level at the burough um level. whether those projects
2:30:02
schemes are identified and whether anything needs to further change in light of all the discussion we've had
2:30:08
around white mar pool and other factors. So I don't know who's going to first
2:30:14
take me through the response to MIQ 11.8.
2:30:19
Thank you sir. Uh you're quite correct that there do does
2:30:25
need to be some changes to policy 51. Those changes are set out in the
2:30:33
council's response to MIQ 11.8.
2:30:38
The justification is set out in full in uh table two. So I won't go right
2:30:44
through the the justification unless you wish me to. Um
2:30:50
so the changes are uh policy
2:30:57
uh criterion one Roman italic one we're proposing to delete where it says
2:31:03
junction improvements A19 stroke A185 stroke tine tunnel
2:31:11
uh the evidence no longer supports that as uh a requirement
2:31:17
Policy one, Roman Italic 2. Um,
2:31:22
we're proposing to delete A19 lane gain lane drop scheme. Uh, I
2:31:29
think we've already set out in our response to your action point 12 that we consider that's no longer required and
2:31:36
National Highways uh, support that. And then moving on to policy criterion
2:31:44
two, Roman italic 2. Um A18, it's really a clarification matter.
2:31:51
A185 improvements between we uh suggest inserting gates head
2:31:59
boundary A185 and deleting A194
2:32:05
and after a and A19 adding tine tunnels. So I think it's just making something a
2:32:11
bit clearer than it previously was. Thank you.
2:32:18
Thank you. And just looking excuse me at that uh second part of the list. So the A194 corridor between Lindesan and White
2:32:27
White Mayor Paul remains in there. This is a clarification on that first first
2:32:32
point. So just coming back to the strategic highway network projects. Well, it will be a singular project white pool
2:32:41
as part of that that policy. The other two elements will go and national
2:32:46
highways were seeking through the statement of common ground that they want this identified on the policies
2:32:52
map. I think there's a a plan with a kind of like a star symbol on Whiteare
2:32:58
Paul. Um, if that's the case, I think uh under
2:33:03
part one of the policy, it' be strategic highway network project as shown on the
2:33:09
policies map and then it'll be clear where that relates to. And then when we
2:33:15
get to main modifications, there'll be a a further schedule that would show where that the policy map
2:33:22
change that that that would relate to.
2:33:28
in terms of um I understand the clarification um to the uh I'll call it
2:33:36
the local highway network just to assist me on point two of that. So the A194
2:33:42
corridor between Lindesf and White may pool is there a kind of a scheme a program or will this encompass
2:33:51
things like the mill the Mil Lane roundabout improvements?
2:33:57
Yes sir. I'm happy to come in there. I I think for our perspective it's it's trying to adopt a corridor based approach. So obviously the 185 runs from
2:34:04
sort of the Bill Key area into the Heban area commencing at the first junction in
2:34:10
Sergeon which you've identified at mil lane uh 185. It's a residential baron
2:34:15
carriageway but that said it provides a good connection into the new time the the time tunnels as well. Um, so I think
2:34:21
it's it's just recognizing that we will appraise that level of of of context in
2:34:26
a in a corridor based format. Uh, there's a range of strategic points across the corridor where modifications
2:34:33
can be made to traffic signal timings and so forth to to ensure uh better transition of traffic. But hopefully
2:34:39
that that addresses that point, sir. Thanks. Sorry, just so I'm clear. So that's the A194.
2:34:45
So it's the A185. Sorry, sir. So it's the it's the I don't know what it's
2:34:50
Victoria Road. It's it's got various names throughout the corridor, but it's basically from the the 185 through to
2:34:56
the the time tunnels. 194 is a separate matter that's considered across the the range of junctions that are identified.
2:35:03
And that's probably where I want wanted to go to is because it's in it's in the policy at policy 51. It's part two. It
2:35:09
talks about the A194 corridor. That's obviously been the subject of a lot of debate and um
2:35:16
is it a similar similar approach to the 104? Yeah, certainly.
2:35:25
Thank you. So policy 51 um improving capacity on the road network. I think
2:35:31
people have followed that discussion. So several projects will come two of the projects come out of the strategic
2:35:37
highway um part of the policy in relation to what I heard uh yesterday. I appreciate
2:35:46
people might not agree with that. So I want to understand that and then it will sets out a sort of a menu of projects
2:35:52
for the local kind of road network uh which council seeking to clarify the
2:35:57
first um bullet point. So um do you want me to hear from Mr. green first or
2:36:03
councelor Kilgar. Yes sir. Thanks sir. Residents know the the
2:36:09
pressure that's currently on the current road infrastructure. Sir I mean in relation to what Mr. Wheels just said
2:36:15
the A185 in Victoria West 7 station road. It's going to have a housing development which is uh Brockhurst I
2:36:22
think it's 166 next to the old college site. Uh that's a plan with Gates, but
2:36:27
there's also a new housing development going on the new college site which we've just discussed that is exiting
2:36:32
onto the A185. You've got a brand new development which appeared on Victoria Road, you know, a couple of years ago
2:36:39
which is putting pressure on the A185. You've got the Hawthorne and Leslie site which is create which is putting 466 new
2:36:46
homes and the primary access route from that development is going to be directly onto the 8185 heading down the T tunnel.
2:36:54
Now you know the the new I what they're trying to put in is they're trying to take out the the infrastructure that's
2:37:01
required at the time to tunnel. Now the A185 comes down to the time tunnel and
2:37:06
heads into South Shields and the the infrastructure that's there is must
2:37:11
stay. Uh I totally disagree with taking any of this out because none of it's funded. It's a vision approach as they
2:37:19
say, but the fact remains that the current pressure on on all of these road networks is severe. I mean the one on uh
2:37:26
the one on your A185 on Victoria Road is critical sir and it's section 106
2:37:32
funding and external funding and that's meant to be done by 2030. I believe it's
2:37:38
to do with the section 106 from the Hawthorne and Leslie development. Now the Hawthorne and Leslie development is
2:37:44
also got a section 106 for the improvements that are to be made off the
2:37:49
the B1306 which is mil lane which comes onto the A185. I believe they've got
2:37:54
£200,000 which from from the conversation yesterday may now go into the putting
2:38:01
money towards White May Pool roundabouts, you know, could be taken away from the local network and put into
2:38:07
a you know the White Pool roundabout and I'm just concerned that if if all this
2:38:12
is taken out, you know, money that's being put aside for for local project is
2:38:17
going to go into the major infrastructure which is the White Mool roundabout. And we did discuss that
2:38:22
yesterday. I did mention actually in a calf meeting uh to do with Trevor Mill
2:38:27
uh you know a number of weeks ago which I haven't got the minutes for yet. Just can I just pick up that point Mr. M
2:38:34
in terms of the first project that's um taken out sorry taken out from part one
2:38:40
of the policy the junction improvements A19 A185 time tunnel is that very was
2:38:46
that intended to be very specific and localized to the time tunnel end of the A1
2:38:51
I think it's important to raise that the change between one one and two
2:38:59
one is basically it's it's defi it's the same we're not taking anything out there still probably a need at that respective
2:39:05
junction to make improvements at the time tunnel. As to what Mr. Green's just said, what we're trying to say is the
2:39:11
A185 adopting a premise of a corridor based approach. If junctions are triggered through the the sight specific
2:39:18
transport assessments and it demonstrates that the junctions oversaturated, we will negotiate through
2:39:24
the planning process what needs to happen at there. Mr. Green's right. The £200,000 for the Hawthorn Lesley site
2:39:30
has been secured and we've got a range of improvements planned at that respective junction as and when the
2:39:36
application comes forward. So again, it I I think without dwelling too much on
2:39:41
on the issues, this this isn't for seeing as taking things out. It's just a change on the wording, sir. Thank you.
2:39:48
Councelor Kilgar, please. Thank you, sir. Um I strongly would oppose um any amendment there. Certainly
2:39:56
to point to um very clearly what what is happening is that um in relation to SP8
2:40:03
the provision for the uh lane gain and lane drop is being taken out of policy
2:40:09
which means that there's no um policy requirement of the developer or anyone
2:40:15
else to um afford the residents that I represent and the rest of the residents
2:40:20
in the burough the same as that that was afforded to Testos and and that over um
2:40:26
on the north side through the tine tunnel and the lane drop lane gain um at
2:40:32
the silver link as well. So so we are um in effect being treated in my opinion as
2:40:38
secondass citizens. We are being expected to not only lose our green belt, which we absolutely uh will rail
2:40:46
against doing forever more, um but to also facilitate a policy that does not
2:40:53
support us at all with that new development and with the figures that Mr. Green has mentioned this morning, a
2:40:59
vision-led approach and a continual. This is we're looking to adopt a plan now, sir. As you know, we know that it's
2:41:06
historic. We know that it's gone on many years um and certainly within the last two years particularly but at the point
2:41:13
of adoption we know that these figures that that Mr. Green has cited are
2:41:19
absolutely correct. They come from the data source that has been used in the
2:41:24
robust figures and in the visionled figures. I would not please I would urge
2:41:30
you not to um remove that requirement because that frees up um with respect
2:41:37
the developer to not pay any you know uh
2:41:42
credit to the residents that will be affected by that. um as well tests when
2:41:48
it was developed we heard yesterday and we heard from from Trevor as well today
2:41:54
around there was no um residential accommodation around Testos there isn't
2:42:00
it's all highway infrastructure so what we're looking at here is is a highly
2:42:06
populated area potentially greater populated moving forward all of the
2:42:12
additional population of heben leading into the the network that Mr. Green's just talked about yet they want to drop
2:42:19
out of the policy the lane gain and the lane drop absolutely not sir you
2:42:26
thank you I want to move on to other people so Mr. Hutcherson next please.
2:42:35
Yes, thank you sir. Our comments are specifically on um
2:42:40
policy. Where are we now? Bear with me. Uh we should be on
2:42:46
51. 51. Yeah. Roman numeral 7. Um
2:42:52
your question relates to that and it states that uh working with network rail
2:42:59
to assess the implications of a full barrier operation at tile shed and bold and level crossings.
2:43:06
In our quite detailed submission to the examiner in response to question 118, in
2:43:13
the absence of any current assessment by the council, we set out in detail the likely implications for traffic flows
2:43:20
resulting from the development of new housing in and around East Balden, including a detailed appendix um showing
2:43:28
the impact of proposed developments on all of the main junctions, including the tile sheds and station road crossings.
2:43:36
These junctions are already currently most um overs subscribed. So if all
2:43:43
proposed new development does take place, the situation will become unsustainable for the village which has
2:43:50
as we've said in previous submissions um Victorian infrastructure and very little
2:43:56
scope for improvement to the junctions in question. I don't intend to restate the large
2:44:02
amount of detail that we did include in our submission, but we showed that um if the current draft local plan is
2:44:09
approved, 1,396 new dwellings will be built over the
2:44:16
next seven or eight years in the vicinity of East Balden, which are likely to have a significant impact on
2:44:22
the traffic flows on both of those level crossings. in particular 263 dwellings
2:44:29
at North Farm, 259 at West Farm in Cleon,
2:44:36
190 at Shooter Reed, and 202 are very likely to be approved shortly
2:44:42
for Cleon Lane. They they will themselves add significantly to the existing numbers using the crossings. I
2:44:50
think it's also worth noting that um the council's the council commissioned uh an
2:44:57
assessment of the impact on the junctions from Cyra and the impact from the clean lane development wasn't
2:45:03
included in that because at the time it wasn't part of the housing allocation. So we've obviously got those additional
2:45:09
202 houses um from Cleon Lane on top of the sister assessment.
2:45:16
As everybody will know, traffic already backs up significantly at these crossings at peak times and the extra
2:45:23
journeys resulting from these new developments will very quickly make the position unsustainable.
2:45:30
Um, on top of all of the new development, I believe it's also the
2:45:36
case that the frequency of metro journeys is likely to improve in the near future. Um I believe that Nexus are
2:45:45
proposing to increase the frequency from the current 12 minutes to 10 minutes.
2:45:51
Um which would obviously make the situation at the crossings even worse.
2:45:56
In the absence of any current council assessment, we provided the inspector with a detailed analysis of the likely
2:46:02
impact of both a flyover, which is the subject of one of your questions, sir,
2:46:08
and the double barrier system at THED's crossing. In summary, we believe that in its
2:46:14
submission to the inspector, the council appears to exempt itself from responsibility for dealing with this
2:46:20
issue and puts the onus fully onto network rail. Surely, the council is accountable and must take responsibility
2:46:27
for ensuring that appropriate infrastructure is in place to deal with the impact of new housing that it's
2:46:33
included in its local plan. Thank you.
2:46:38
Thank you. We kind of it is related to policy 51 but we kind of moved on to MIQ
2:46:44
11.8. Is there anything appreciate I heard from Mr. Male in relations earlier
2:46:50
this week at the shoot to Eid sites but similar issue here. Thank you sir. I think as I stated
2:46:57
earlier in the week uh we very much foresee the the level crossings as an asset of network rail which is the case.
2:47:04
uh network rail are a key consulty both in the local plan terms but then also as
2:47:09
part of any respective sight specific plan application that come forward I think it's important to raise that in
2:47:15
terms of the recent care home application uh this was submitted uh to
2:47:20
our planning committee network rail made responses their response at the time was that they did not object to the
2:47:27
application that said they wanted a reflection to state they would like to know the impact of both bald and level
2:47:33
crossing which is on Benton Road to that of also a tile sheds which has been the case. Um and and I think from our
2:47:42
perspective what we try and do alongside that of National Highways, we we try and have quarterly meetings with Network
2:47:47
Rail, which is in our written statements. Um if indeed network rail foresee a need to improve the level
2:47:53
crossings it would be at their discretion and we would therefore determine as a result of that
2:47:59
implication or potential infrastructure the likely traffic impact of that. I
2:48:04
think at this moment in time we do not yet know what network rail want to do with the level crossings. So it would be
2:48:10
wrongful of us to foresee whether full barriers andor any alternative means to
2:48:15
close the level crossings would come forward. So that is our position sir. Thanks.
2:48:34
Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. Yes. Can I come back on that? Just in relation to um childhoods crossing, I
2:48:41
believe that Nexus have stated that they are looking at the uh introduction of full barrier crossings
2:48:47
rather than the half barrier. Is that not still the case?
2:48:53
I'm slightly confused because I thought this network rail is network. Yes, it's network rail, but I think it'd
2:48:59
be wrongful of me to to navigate that point on behalf of network rail. Obviously there there is a range of
2:49:05
infrastructure options available to Network Rail. Uh sometimes they do indeed close level crossings with the
2:49:12
introduction of a flyover, but as it stands it it would be wrongful of the council to respond on behalf of Network
2:49:18
Rail. I think from the the forum's perspective, Mr. Hutchinson, obviously the policy, excuse me, policy 51 refers
2:49:26
to the council working with Network Rail uh to assess the full implications of
2:49:32
these crossings. the forum's position there needs to be more in the policy. There needs to be more kind of detail.
2:49:38
That's that's not going to be effective. Yes, I I think so. I mean, we've uh in previous comments this morning, we've
2:49:45
talked about the the the need to provide more certainty in the local plan as to
2:49:50
how the implications of all the new developments uh will be dealt with. And
2:49:55
you know the council's saying that they'll work with network rail to assess the implications of full barrier
2:50:01
operation at the crossings. Um the council surely will have to deal with
2:50:07
any traffic issues that stem from that and as Trevor will be acutely aware
2:50:13
we've already have significant tailbacks at the at the station road crossing next
2:50:19
to the metro station. And if we do have full barrier crossings at tile sheds, then the same problem will occur there,
2:50:27
um things are bad enough already, but as I've outlined with the impact of all the new housing developments, that's only
2:50:33
likely to get significantly worse. Thank you. I wonder if I might just deal with some
2:50:39
misconceptions about what this policy is intended to do. It's not in any way meant to dilute the
2:50:47
u duty of this local authority to make a proper assessment of highway conditions
2:50:52
and capacity having regard to any changes network rail might cause to its
2:50:58
own network including the crossings. We will work with them to understand
2:51:04
what it is they're going to do and to understand the implications of what they're going to do. That's the first
2:51:09
point. Second point is this policy merely sets out the local planning
2:51:16
authorities's intention to improve capacity on the road network and
2:51:21
specifically in relation to these particular junctions where it's necessary. These are
2:51:28
identified as necessary improvements. There will be other matters arising
2:51:34
other improvements identified at development management stage. So when a proposal comes forward it will be
2:51:40
assessed and if other improvements on the local highway network are required
2:51:46
then they will be required. So this policy is is looking at
2:51:54
major improvements overall and what the council intends to do about those. So
2:51:59
and on that basis um the junction improvements to the tine tunnel that is
2:52:07
uh criterion small one of paragraph one is being deleted because it's no longer
2:52:13
seen as being necessary.
2:52:21
Thank you. Before I move on to policy 52, Mr. Green briefly. Yeah, ju just
2:52:28
very briefly. So I I disagree with that because if it's taken out, surely it will take it out of the local plan.
2:52:34
Unless I'm misreading this, if they take that out, it's no longer the policy that's then related to the
2:52:41
local plan. Unless I'm getting confused, but it hasn't been, you know, you know, the traffic the traffic data is
2:52:47
indicating which is which was even put through at REG 19 is indicating that that is needed. you can just take it out
2:52:55
and if the wording's taken out then it disappears. Thank you. I think I understood and then
2:53:01
I'll give the council an opportunity to correct me if I've I'm got the wrong end of the wrong stick. The the scheme that
2:53:07
was identified for the strategic road network is no longer necessary. But notwithstanding that, the second
2:53:14
part of the policy in terms of the the the local highway network includes the A158
2:53:20
A185 corridor through Heaven, excuse me, through Heaven Jarro through to the the the time
2:53:28
tunnel A19. Yes, sir. It leads on the Tunnel. Yeah. Goes right through from Hu right through the Tunnel
2:53:35
and on to South Shields. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to move on to policy 52,
2:53:42
please. This is um safeguarding land for metro and rail um development. I've
2:53:47
asked a couple of MIQs um around this. Sorry, just one one MIQ um on this which
2:53:56
is whether um what's being shown or what's being sought through the policy
2:54:02
is appropriately shown on the policies map. So the policy seeks to um safeguard land
2:54:10
for a new metro station at Mill Lane in Heban and then further um land for a new
2:54:18
metro station at Fingbury. And I think looking at the council's statement I think there are a couple of mapping
2:54:25
changes that have now proposed helpful to me to just understand what those are.
2:54:34
Thank you sir. Firstly, in relation to
2:54:43
the following speed lane,
2:54:50
the changes are shown in the council's response to MIQ 11.9
2:54:59
and basically it's seeking to
2:55:06
identify very clearly the land which is safeguarded for the
2:55:12
provision of the new metro mail state uh rail station.
2:55:19
And in terms of why that's required, there's
2:55:24
the whole context around the uh lean side line. Um it's been a longstanding
2:55:32
ambition to reopen the mothball leside lane line
2:55:38
and that has cross party support and it's reopening is also supported by the
2:55:44
northeast transport plan and the mayor's announced funding to support delivery
2:55:52
in terms of the um change to
2:56:00
provision of a new metro station at Mil Lane Heban.
2:56:08
The uh modification to that really just
2:56:14
reflects evidence to make it clearer as to precisely what is going to be
2:56:20
required to be safeguarded. Um so previously
2:56:25
um it wasn't as clear as it um as it now is. Um and that reflects
2:56:33
um work that has been undertaken
2:56:39
um looking at the deliverability of the metro um of a station uh in that location. So
2:56:47
we have evidence to support that.
2:56:54
Thank you. Can I just take the Mill Lane proposed changes first because I'm afraid I don't I don't quite follow
2:57:01
them. So I just perhaps help understand what's what areas being safeguarded. Is it the or is it the large sort of
2:57:09
uh hexagon broadly sort of hexagonal shaped Yeah. orange brown area?
2:57:14
It's that plain it it's designated as a a grass grass area. So um alongside that
2:57:20
of the fire station which the council already holds in it.
2:57:26
So we're pointing to it now. Yeah. So it's the two orange. Yeah, the two orange segments. Yeah,
2:57:33
three orange segments. So sorry. So just to be clear, sir, it's these
2:57:40
three orange segments.
2:57:45
Is that a is that a reflection of kind of optionering that could be any sort of a combination of those three?
2:57:52
Yeah. Yes, sir. uh early early work has proceeded alongside that of with with Nexus just to see what can be delivered
2:57:58
on on the site. They're obviously subject to securing appropriate funding. Um it's in the very fairly early stages
2:58:05
of option development, but it gives an indication largely as to what land space
2:58:10
would be required if indeed a metro station was ever to come to fruition. Thank you.
2:58:19
Thank you. And then just finally in relation to the Fingsbury site and safeguarding the land there. Um just a
2:58:27
thought that crossed my mind probably too late in the day. Is this going to require a green belt alteration?
2:58:44
Well, the land is currently designated as part of the green belt. So
2:58:51
in that sense, yes, it would require a green belt alteration.
2:58:58
So I'll need to conclude whether exceptional circumstances exist.
2:59:14
I would like to reflect on that over the weekend and um perhaps we can come back to it very shortly next week.
2:59:24
So in terms of safeguarding metro my recollection from stage one is there was
2:59:29
some discussion about whether milane was going to be was going to come
2:59:35
forward. But is that still an ambition? Yes sir, that's correct. It's a it's an
2:59:41
ambition of the council. Um and we will explore external funding opportunities through the transport facility regions
2:59:47
uh with the northeast combine authority sir. Thanks. Thank you. Is it Mr. Green first or
2:59:54
councelor? Yes sir. It's just I don't know whether I misheard Mr. Clifford saying that the funding has been granted for this by the
3:00:00
way. I don't believe it has. Uh, no. It could be me here on is the funding for
3:00:07
the million the new metro station. No, no, no funding has been secured yet, sir. So, yeah. And the where it is actually going
3:00:14
to go, sir. That's where I mentioned before the £200,000 from Hawthorne is to develop that whole uh junction where the
3:00:21
where the they're trying to safeguard the land. But it's pointless developing the whole junction if there's a new
3:00:27
metro station going in. Uh, and it it's just all hickled pickley. It's it's it's
3:00:32
all over the place if I want of a better expression.
3:00:38
Thank you, Councelor Kura, please. Thank you, sir. I' I'd just like to
3:00:44
understand a little more around the Mill Lane uh metro station, please. and and
3:00:50
if Trevor could confirm the funding that's come through for the metro stations or that that has been granted
3:00:58
um in relation to this please that's fine sir obviously the council
3:01:04
has got a role and responsibility to investigate um major projects and so
3:01:09
forth so whilst no funding has been secured from the northeast combine authority we are still exploring future
3:01:16
projects as it stands within the strategic transport support department. So to answer the question, no funding
3:01:22
has been awarded from an external perspective, but as we see fit, we will investigate schemes subject to securing
3:01:29
internal funding. So thanks. If I may say just just come back to
3:01:35
that, I think that's the point. I think we are very aspirational as a burough. Um unfortunately, aspirations have to
3:01:42
have to exist and and they absolutely do. Um but from from my perspective I
3:01:47
think we've just been awarded a significant amount of funding from from meinness and I think you know we have to
3:01:53
be realistic around what is likely to come forward I know there's other ex you know external um streams if you like but
3:02:01
reality um at this moment in time particularly for the decision at this plan time um you know and and where you
3:02:08
would support another removal from the green belt on on a a possible um it may
3:02:16
not be exceptional. Thank you. Thank you. Any further points around
3:02:22
policy 52 safeguarding? No. In which case I had no further
3:02:28
questions in relation to transport at this stage. So I'm going to bring um
3:02:34
today's um session to its conclusion. uh made various notes I think of
3:02:40
modifications that have been discussed potential things that will be followed up before I close are there any further
3:02:48
points people wish to raise on the transport policies for the burough wide burough wide transport there's been a
3:02:54
reasonable opportunity to discuss that so I'm going to close uh now I think
3:03:00
we're back in this room looking at Annette um at 10:00 on Tuesday next week
3:03:08
when we're picking up further matters. So, have a good weekend everybody and I'll see some of you next week.