15:53
Okay. Well, good morning everybody. It's now 10:00, so it's time to open uh this hearing session into the examination of
15:59
the South Tinside Local Plan. My name is David Spencer. I'm the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to
16:05
carry out the independent um examination. Can I just check? Can everybody in the room hear me? Okay.
16:11
Yeah. Thank you. Uh, can I please ask people to ensure that mobile phones are
16:17
switched off please or on their silent settings?
16:24
And can I for the final time ask the council to just take us through the general housekeeping matters for this
16:31
venue, please? Uh, yes. So, good morning everyone. Um,
16:36
we're not expecting any fire alarms today. So, if there is a fire alarm, could you please make your way to the
16:41
nearest fire exits, which are just on the outside of the room, and then make your way to the far side of the car
16:48
park, please, just over there. Um, the toilets are located in the corridor just
16:53
outside this room. And please note that there are cables taped to the floor around the room, so be careful when
16:58
you're moving around. And if you do have a car in the hotel car park, then please ensure that you've entered your registration number at the devices in
17:05
the hotel reception. Thanks. Thank you uh for that. Um is there
17:11
anybody here this morning from the local press? No. Um now these sessions are being
17:18
livereamed uh and the recordings are being um uploaded. Uh I'll ask at
17:23
various points whether people wish to make their own um further recordings. But as part of that process in terms of
17:30
uh these events being recorded and just to generally help people in the room, please use microphones when making um
17:37
contributions to the discussion. These are public meetings, but I'm only hearing from those who are seated around
17:43
the table at various points um uh in terms of those who've exercised their
17:49
right to be heard um linking back to their representations made on the plan
17:55
uh back in early 2024. We've got various items to get through
18:01
this morning. It's going to be sort of quite fragmented. We're going to be starting with the conclusion of the
18:07
discussion on matters relating to matter nine and climate change from Wednesday
18:12
last week. We're then going to have a probably a short break after that and
18:18
then the next matter is going to be the conclusion of matter 11 in relation to viability
18:25
uh monitoring and implementation. probably then have another short break
18:30
and I've got a final administrative session just with the council but that
18:35
is a public session and anybody else is welcome to stay and observe and that session will be recorded as well. Are
18:42
there any questions just procedural about how this morning is going to work? Any clarifications?
18:49
No. Uh as always I'm assisted in the examination process by Net Feny
18:54
independent program officer. I think most people now have spoken to Annette or had uh um reason to to uh leers with
19:03
Annette. So um Annette is here today whilst we're still in this venue after these hearings finish. Uh Annette's
19:10
details are on the website. So contact her through her email uh if there's anything that needs to be brought to my
19:16
attention or for the examination uh more generally. So that concludes what I wanted to say
19:23
by way of u my opening announcements for this morning. We are here for the first item on um conclusion of discussion on
19:32
matter nine uh on uh policies for climate change and more generally
19:37
policies relating to uh health healthy communities. Uh if I can understand or
19:44
bring in the council's team first to introduce themselves in terms of who I'm likely to hear from this morning please.
19:50
Sir, good morning. My name is Paul Shadow Revian, Casey, acting for the council.
19:56
Uh, yep. My name is Rian Lavick and I'm one of the planning policy officers at the council.
20:02
My name is Michael Basy. I work on the climate change team at the council.
20:08
Morning, sir. Chris Martin from Home Builders Federation. Good morning, sir. Jack Comroy from
20:13
Saviles representing Lick Hall Farm Limited and Durham Cathedral.
20:19
Good morning, councelor David Herbert for Southside Green Party.
20:24
Thank you. Now, my recollection from the discussion and where we'd got through in terms of the agenda for um climate
20:31
change is we reached item 2F on the agenda. So, we're still in policy five
20:38
uh in terms of reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions.
20:47
And the first matter or item I wanted to discuss this morning, it relates to my
20:52
MIQ 9.8 and it's the justification and effectiveness of seeking um
20:58
sustainability um statements as required um through the policy. Uh if I can first ask the
21:05
council who wishes to add anything further or bring anything to my attention in terms of what it's how it's
21:11
replied to my MIQ 9.8 please.
21:17
Um, I think I would just reiterate what was said last time in that the contents of a sustainability statement would
21:24
expected to be proportional to the scale of the development that's being proposed. Um, a sustainability statement
21:31
is something that's already part of our validation checklist. But this part of the policy is just seeking to clarify
21:37
how developers are planning to avoid increased vulnerability to the effects of climate change which is required by
21:44
MPPF paragraph 154. Um and it's just looking to steer those sustainability
21:50
statements so that they are more effective. Um and it is justified as it
21:56
will ensure that developers are actively considering sustainability throughout the design process particularly in
22:02
relation to those large-scale propo proposals which could deliver significant impacts towards achieving
22:08
sustainable development and progress towards the council's climate change ambitions.
22:16
Thank you. Thank you. And then in sort of follow up to that and I think I appreciate we touched upon this um last week but it's still an area I think I
22:23
need to sort of just get clear in my own mind. Obviously the policy directs developers this is just for major uh
22:30
applications or proposals to apply themselves to the five issues at part three of the policy. Um, and we
22:37
discussed this briefly last week, but I think I just want to pursue it a bit further. Obviously, the policy itself
22:44
doesn't set any standards. Um, but nonetheless, part four of the policy
22:49
seeks compliance with standards. Um, I'm still not clear what an applicant would
22:56
be expected to deliver or how they'd explain why they can't deliver it, whether this
23:03
is something that needs to be to be looked at further.
23:08
Um, so the word in standards is meant to
23:13
instead kind of refer to the parts of criterion three that we would expect to see within the sustainability statement.
23:19
So how they're adapting to climate change, how they're achieving carbon reduction,
23:26
the water management, how they're managing site waste management and the use of materials in a sustainable way.
23:32
And if they aren't able to do those things sustainably and to a satisfactory
23:38
level, then we would expect to see evidence as to why that isn't being achieved.
23:46
Thank you. And again, I think we we did briefly discussed this last week. If I felt the word standards was potentially
23:53
problematic, an alternative form of wording. Yeah, we would be happy to change that
23:58
word to make it clearer what it is referring to in the policy. Okay. But if a scheme comes forward and sort of
24:05
thinking there's various other um uh regimes particularly through building
24:11
regulations now in terms of overheating um energy efficiency which may well go
24:16
to future home standard in the not too distant future. Electrical vehicle charging uh points are now part of
24:24
building regulations. if a scheme comes forward and it's going to kind of effectively meet what's for
24:32
other legislation, other requirements met of it. Um,
24:40
and sort of says broadly that that's what we're going to do. Um, there may not be much we can do that can kind of
24:46
go beyond that. Will this policy I mean will the council effectively use this policy to refuse a development that
24:53
hasn't submitted a um
24:59
a particular quality of sustainability statements.
25:07
Mr. Shut. So, I'm just just thinking this through and I I can I can see what the issue is
25:13
in terms of and it stems from the use of the expression standards because um if
25:20
you go back to paragraph or part one of the policy um that's telling you what's expected.
25:27
um where there is no uh external measure or requirement then
25:35
one has to use one's planning judgment as to whether or not what's being done is appropriate or whether it could be
25:41
improved. where there is a standard an external standard
25:46
um which sets a minimum requirement either through legislation or
25:51
regulations made under legislation then um it's will be quite reasonable then to
25:57
expect a developer to meet those standards. So I think it could be clarified
26:03
to distinguish those two situations. Um and
26:09
um we will look at modifying paragraph 4
26:16
um so that developers will have a better understanding of what's expected of them in terms of
26:24
um meeting that challenge in relation to
26:30
the five matters set out above paragraph four.
26:35
So um
26:41
in terms of submitting the sustainability statement in my submission that should remain a
26:46
requirement irrespective of whether there is an external requirement through legislation to provide to make the
26:53
development meet certain standards then we will know whether or not it is.
27:03
Thank you. Um just check with other people in the room in terms of obviously
27:09
sounds like there's going to be a modification to this policy. Obviously the council's advising me this
27:15
is already something the principle of sustainability statements is obviously something already um a fact of life in
27:22
South Tide. Would clarifications to those sort of
27:28
two parts of the policy three and four address concerns? Is it the word
27:34
standards that we need to be cautious about?
27:42
Mr. Martin, thank you, sir. Uh, yes, I think it was and I think we touched on that last time that potentially the word
27:50
standards is a little bit unhelpful in that instance. It's it's it needs a different different type of wording. um
27:57
point that I raised last time was more about as well what the trigger is for doing a sustainability statement because
28:04
obviously aware of paragraph 44 of the MPPF saying you just you only need what's required for a planning
28:10
application to be determined and that needs to be slimmed down as much as possible but as I said major development
28:16
incorporates an awful lot some of which may not need a sustainability statement
28:23
um as I've mentioned before there might you know some section 73s for instance uh are major developments but they may
28:31
not warrant a sustainability statement. So I don't know whether that needs to be clarified a little bit more.
28:44
Thank you. Is it is it your submission Mr. asking that where there are those kind of section 73 or other scenarios
28:50
that they're kind of they're not caught by this policy because it would have already been addressed through the
28:56
original application. Yes, that's correct. Okay.
29:07
So, just while we're live on this issue, does council wish to come back on that that point, please?
29:13
Um so the validation checklist sets out where it would be applied and it
29:18
wouldn't be applied in instances like a section 73.
29:24
So the council I think what I can read from that from the council is you're not you're not suggesting a further change because it be dealt with through the
29:30
local list the validation list. Okay.
29:36
I'll reflect on those respective decisions. Yeah. Sir, if I may, um, is there not a
29:44
danger there then there's a little bit of an inconsistency between the validation list and what the policy is saying? Um, does it need changed for it
29:52
to be clarified? It goes back to my earlier point as to whether it's needed at all and whether having it in the
29:58
validation list is actually enough because when you submit your application, you'd look at validation
30:03
list and then you'd figure out at that point as to whether you need a sustainability statement or if you're going through a preapp process, which
30:10
I'd imagine the council encourage in most instances, you would talk to the officer then as to whether it's appropriate or not.
30:17
Uh no, it needs a policy foundation and um um bearing in mind this is a very
30:24
very important issue. Um what what the policy is trying to achieve is is absolutely correct. Um it should work in
30:32
tandem um with development management procedures.
30:39
Um, I I think the answer is in us looking again at the wording of
30:44
paragraphs three and four to make sure that they work effectively in tandem
30:49
with the validation checklist. Thank you. Um, councelor Herbert,
30:56
please. I think you've uh found that the wording
31:01
is very vague and needs clarification. Um, other councils have sent out
31:07
standards and supplementary planning documents which uh show the the uh
31:13
developers exactly what they want. And bearing in mind that South Tside has
31:18
pledged to be zero carbon by 2045 across a whole burough
31:25
even meeting some of the future homes planning uh documentation might or could
31:30
well not reach net zero by itself. So you require higher standards if you're
31:36
going to actually reach net zero standards across our side.
31:54
Thank you. And I recall that that that point discussion from last last week as well. So yeah, thank you.
32:02
I had nothing further I wanted to raise or questions on MIQ um 9.8. There any
32:09
final points people wish to raise in relation to just policy five before I move on to policy six?
32:17
No. In which case turning to my um MIQ 9.9 um sort of starting to look at this
32:24
policy in reverse. So, we're going to the final part first, but it's an area that's kind of attracted a number of uh
32:30
representations at regulation 19. Uh I just want to understand from the council whether it's justified
32:37
um in terms of uh looking for um developments where they do occur within
32:44
400 meters of an existing uh district heat network or an emerging identified
32:50
heat network to be kind of designed in a way that's kind of ready to connect into
32:55
that network please.
33:01
So policy six requires new development which is close to the existing or
33:07
proposed heat networks to explore whether they can be designed in such a way that they could be connected to
33:12
them. Um however we have included the caveat that if developers can
33:19
demonstrate why they may be unable to design their proposals to connect to the existing networks for example if there
33:25
was insufficient capacity an alternative would be more sustainable or it isn't physically possible for them to connect
33:32
that we would be you know considerate of that. However, we are quite actively encouraging the connection to these
33:38
district heat networks as they are a great way for us to provide clean lowcarbon heat from a renewable source.
33:45
So, it would help us achieve the the climate change ambitions at the council.
33:51
And in terms of the where these networks are, I think the council in its
33:57
statement has shown kind of various um maps. Um, now I'm assuming the network
34:07
is the red line. Yeah. Yeah, that's correct.
34:13
And in terms of the difference between the policy refers to um existing and
34:19
emerging. So all of those um schemes or network networks that are
34:25
shown in the council's maps and I think these are also shown in the plan as well. Are they do they exist? Are they
34:32
blend of things that exist and things that are potentially coming. So the first two thej
34:40
river source heat pump and the heban energy scheme air source heat pump are both existing. Then the third one the
34:46
west hallbborne renewable energy network is an emerging heat network.
35:04
And is there a kind of a reasonable prospect or sufficient certainty that
35:09
that West Hullburn network will come forward.
35:16
So Mr. Visey it is still in development and such
35:23
depending on funding can come forward but yeah it's been found to be viable in the um designs that have been put
35:28
forward. So it's there's kind of been a the
35:34
scheme has been designed presumably has it been sort of shown to be sort of technically
35:40
feasible and viable Mr. Vasy. Yeah, it's been found to be technically
35:45
feasible. Um it's currently put on hold due to changes to funding but um it's expected to go ahead at some point in
35:51
the future and it's still in the council plans. This is a a scheme or a network that
35:57
would be dependent on. So it's not something the burough council itself is necessarily going to wholly fund or
36:03
contribute to. It does rely on other funding sources. It's dependent upon funding that becomes
36:09
available in the future. Um at the moment it is it's not being cancelled by the council. We'll go ahead. Uh but
36:15
there's not currently funding available um at this moment in time.
36:34
Thank you. And as we sit here now, I appreciate this is the plan as as submitted.
36:40
Um we'll come on to to monitoring and implementation later this morning and
36:46
kind of potential plan review. Are these effect these effectively the three network or schemes
36:54
likely or obviously two exist but likely in um South Tines I'd say certainly over
37:00
the next sort of five to six years or other plans for yet for additional further networks
37:06
at this stage. Um at this point as there's obviously
37:13
work still undergoing on that third district heat network. I'm not aware of any further plans to introduce new ones.
37:31
Sorry. As well, there there are extensions to the first two that are being assessed currently. Um but they
37:38
haven't gone much further than that stage yet.
37:51
Okay, thank you for that. And then before I bring in it others,
37:57
um, so in terms of laying out the design, so the the policy itself requires the
38:03
schemes to be designed in such a way it doesn't compel them to necessarily
38:09
connect. No. So, it doesn't specifically require them to connect to the network, but it
38:16
should be designed in a way that it can be connected. Um, and we would obviously encourage that they are actually
38:23
connected, but that is dependent on capacity and other issues.
38:29
And then finally from me to the council supplied a 400 meter buffer presumably
38:36
from those red lines that are shown on those those plans. Um how is the sort of the 400 meter
38:45
distance defined? Is that kind of the the efficiency of the network to kind of over that sort of distance?
38:52
Yeah. So obviously the the further away you are from the networks themselves, the more heat loss there is and the less
38:58
efficient that system becomes. So we deemed that 400 meters was a suitable enough distance that it would be viable
39:05
enough and efficient enough to be justified.
39:16
Thank you. If I can bring in others, I'll hear from Mr. Martin next on this point. Then councelor Herbert.
39:23
Thank you, sir. Um I think it's right that um there's a
39:30
method and there's encouragement to uh for development to hook up to district
39:35
heating networks. Obviously, they're low carbon, but they're low carbon in so far as they run off electricity, so it's
39:41
dependent on the decarbonization of the grid. Um, my concern with the policy is
39:47
it's a it's a little bit too stringent because this isn't the only way you can
39:52
decarbonize a development and work towards net zero. There's several other ways and appreciate there's the um the
39:59
part in the policy about utilizing a different energy supply that would be more sustainable. Does it need to be
40:04
more sustainable? Can it be as sustainable? Um
40:09
there's many advantages with having district and heat networks, but there are distinct disadvantages. One of which
40:16
that um our members have always um relate to us is is once you're connected up to them, it's a lack of consumer
40:23
choice um in terms of how you get your energy and heat and things like price
40:28
protections and things for energy is you you don't necessarily benefit from that if you're on a district um heating
40:36
district network. Um so I do think it shouldn't preclude you uh developers
40:42
being able to look at other ways to be able to meet sustainability targets. And my view is that the policy at the moment
40:49
is a little bit too stringent in terms of looking to prioritize almost that
40:55
district heat network solution when others might be more suitable or more desirable. There's also we take bear in
41:02
mind that the plan has a plan period. there'll be innovation over the plan period in terms of various products that
41:09
will help us get towards net zero and I wouldn't want this policy there to potentially again styy sort of
41:15
innovation when we look at how we can make houses uh more sort of uh resilient
41:22
to climate change. Thank you.
41:31
Thank you councelor Herbert please. There's huge scope in South Tside to
41:36
develop district heat networks because it overlies disused mine workings right
41:42
across the area and they have a proven technology now to use mine water which
41:48
is warmed because it's underground. there's a constant temperature all through the year because of that get
41:57
very efficient use of that heat through uh water source heat pumps and we've had
42:04
missed opportunities in the past the crown shaft estate is built around crown
42:10
shaft uh western crown shaft uh mine and it's used for pumping so it's it is open
42:17
to pump the water to the surface anyway it's a huge scope there for using the district heating there but because I
42:23
don't we didn't have this sort of requirement to make it able to convert easily to district
42:31
heating it it's going to cost a lot more now in retrospectively to utilize that
42:36
heat so I think anywhere in county Durham uh sorry in south tside could uh
42:42
be eligible for this type of heating and it's very efficient and very sustainable
42:54
Thank you. Is there anything further the council wish to come back on in terms of
42:59
um I guess it's ultimately it's the justification for the policy I think
43:05
particularly the pointless put to me in terms of you know there should perhaps be further flexibility.
43:11
Mr. shadowing. This isn't the forum in which to discuss the relative merits of different
43:17
technologies. What we do have here is the opportunity to um promote a move towards uh
43:26
neutrality by utilizing district heating systems.
43:32
Two of which are in place, another one of which hopefully will emerge. There is
43:38
no compulsion on the part of developers actually to connect
43:43
But in order to um make uh these systems effective and to make the contribution
43:49
we expect them to make, there needs to be a policy foundation in this form
43:55
um to require developers at least if they are within the 400 meters to make
44:01
those developments capable of connecting to that network.
44:06
whatever might transpire in the future uh in terms of alternatives.
44:12
Um and on that basis I suggest that the policy is entirely justified
44:19
and that in this form um it is also effective
44:24
without needing any further modification.
44:29
Thank you. Can I just final question for the council and just obviously this polic looking at this policy and
44:36
thinking about where these networks are or could be thinking about where it relates to the plan strategy where
44:43
potential sites coming forward but obviously the policy has written its development. So if somebody wants to
44:49
come forward with a single windfall scheme, single dwelling, it's it's all
44:56
developments within 400 mters uh of the network. For those smaller schemes, individual
45:03
schemes, what technically does it look like in terms of making a say someone
45:09
wants to build a single property? um the layout or design capable of
45:15
connecting just has to have in mind what what sort of evidence
45:20
it would be seeking.
45:29
Um I think that would then sort of be when the caveat that's included that if
45:35
it is sort of not feasible or if it's more sustainable for for another method
45:41
to be implemented to make the development more sustainable that we would then be opening to listening to
45:46
that. So if it if it is unreasonable to expect one single dwelling to connect to
45:53
the district heat network or be designed with the ability to connect to the district heat network that that is something that will be determined at the
45:59
planning application stage. So, excuse
46:05
I'm gonna reag on saying that was my final question, but just um just to help
46:10
the uh the uninitiated on um district heat networks
46:23
just to so just to assist me in terms of just the layout kind of consideration. So presuming there's insulated
46:30
pipe network needs to be provided. Is there any kind of other infrastructure that a housing development would have to
46:36
kind of consider or or accommodate within the layout? So the kind of smaller kind of pumping
46:44
stations or uh power issues um what's
46:52
within the house itself it would be largely the same heating system except for the boiler itself would be replaced
46:57
with um something called heat exchanger. So very similar sort of white box if you like somewhere in the house. Um this
47:04
would have um electric electrically very similar um consumption for the homeowner
47:10
and the network itself would also require a physical connection from the house to the piping outside which as you
47:16
say would be insulated. Um but almost all the infrastructure would be at the energy center which tends to be um a
47:23
single building such as the venge network which is located just off the tine. Um there can sometimes be uh
47:29
additional energy centers. So for example on the edge of a large housing development might be an additional pumping station. Um but in terms of the
47:36
network itself the house wouldn't require too much retrofit. That would be simply the piping and the exchanger and
47:42
the network itself would be typically a sing singular energy center is the point of point source of heat and additional
47:49
um pumping stations perhaps on the edge of development. Thank you.
47:55
Thank you. There any further points on part six of the policy before I come to other parts of um policy six? Nope.
48:03
Okay. Um so yes, my MIQ um 9 uh 10. So more just
48:14
more generally. So the council's going through an an approach of identifying areas that are suitable for renewable
48:20
energy um sources. Um just in terms of just
48:28
context before we come on specifically to MIQ 9.10 um
48:34
the basis for this this part of the policy looking at part um
48:40
part three in terms of wind energy developments. Is this is the council responding to an issue because there is
48:46
a a demand for this type of development or is this something that the council's
48:52
potentially seeking to encourage subject to the usual criteria it being acceptable
48:59
in all other respects? Um, so it isn't actually included in our
49:06
response to the MIQ, but through the statement of common ground with Historic England, which sits within the duty to
49:12
cooperate statement, there was a modification proposed to remove map 15
49:17
from the plan and alter the wording of the policy as well to provide a bit more clarity on this matter. Um, it's
49:24
proposed that map 15 would be deleted as a result of the ministerial statement that came out on the 8th of July 2024
49:31
and the opening sentence to part three of policy 6 and paragraph 7.29 would be
49:37
amended accordingly as well. Um policy six at part one I does clarify
49:44
that renewable and lowcarbon energy development in appropriate locations would be supported and that is something
49:50
that we do encourage to come forward. Um but that is where it can be demonstrated
49:55
that there's no unacceptable adverse impacts which can't be satisfactorily mitigated against as well.
50:14
Okay, thank you. That's probably something on my part that's just fallen through the cracks. So, in terms of that
50:20
modification, the map 15 and part three, that's in the statement of common ground with Historic England.
50:31
I will double check outside of this session, but that sounds instinctively like a main uh modification. So that
50:37
will be um subject to consultation. Are there any further points or comments
50:42
people wish to make in relation to part three of the policy on wind energy um
50:48
development?
50:55
No. So in which case I'm going to move on to uh further uh issues remaining
51:02
under matter nine which
51:12
I don't think I've discussed yet. Um
51:17
and that's the healthy promoting healthy communities in the air quality policy. I don't know if other people the council's
51:23
going to be a sort of change of change of seats.
52:21
Thank you. Can I ask the new people who've joined the table just to briefly introduce themselves? So I understand
52:26
who is going to be assisting for this item please.
52:32
I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the operations manager for the spatial planning team at South Tai Council.
52:43
Good morning. Mary Fairfield, public health practitioner. Good morning. Christina Hardy, senior
52:49
advanced public health practitioner. Good morning. Samantha Jobson, environmental protection operations
52:54
manager at Southside Council. Thank you for that. So, uh my first uh
53:01
item under this part of the discussion is relating to the policies for promoting healthy communities. Um I
53:08
appreciate I've had specific discussion uh for for uh particular sites, but this
53:16
is the buroughwide policy. It's a policy um excuse me
53:22
is it policy one
53:31
in terms of promoting um healthy communities. particular issue which been drawn out
53:37
through my mass issues and questions is really the justification for seeking health impact assessments and in
53:44
particular had this discussion at other sessions around what's a larger development or
53:50
major developments but in this instance the council's identified specifically uh
53:55
looking at schemes uh over uh one is it scheme residential schemes of one 100
54:02
dwellings or more or non-residential schemes of one hector It's probably the residential threshold that's kind of
54:08
generated particular comments. So, we invite the council to just uh briefly explain
54:15
uh why it's seeking health impact assessments through the the local plan policy and how you've arrived at 100
54:21
dwellings or more being the kind of the threshold seeking that information.
54:27
Yes. So, policy one is our sort of overarching um health and well-being policy within the plan. Um it's widely
54:33
been informed by the council's um vision um to improve um healthy communities
54:39
within South Tinside and also informed by the the health and well-being strategy as well. Um we've identified
54:46
the need for for health impact assessments as we consider that to be an efficient tool in terms of um assessing
54:53
the health impacts of new developments coming forward. um it's sort of set out in our MIQ response as um that you know
55:00
there are quite significant health inequalities within serving side and we consider this um policy to be a step
55:07
towards trying to to improve that through the development management process. Um so in terms of the threshold
55:14
around the um residential schemes so we have identified a threshold of 100 um
55:20
dwellings um where a hia would be required. Um basically the overall
55:25
approach has been to um to find a balance which uh best achieves um results in terms of um health impacts
55:33
and also a scale of schemes which also can generate health um impacts as well.
55:39
So it's to try and you know strike a balance in terms of you know where the
55:45
the the planning process can help to mitigate those impacts from development
55:50
at a relative scale um without adding an extra burden in terms um of developments
55:56
coming forward particularly to smaller schemes. Um also to note that the the
56:01
threshold of 100 um units is also consistent with the um south the tin
56:06
side validation checklist. Um and it's a approach that's also um undertaken by
56:13
Newcastle Northside and Gate Councils as well.
56:30
Thank you. So obviously it will apply to having in mind certain sites proposed
56:36
allocations that are going to be more than 100 dwellings. There may be some unanticipated large windfall sites that
56:43
would also uh be subject to um to this policy. I think one of the points that's been sort
56:49
of made through submissions is obviously how impacts on health have been considered as part of plan making. is
56:55
one of the objectives within sustainability appraisal. So sites have been assessed strategically through
57:01
through plan making in terms of just wider um considerations of health. So it's
57:08
kind of a question of if it's been a judged through that process and through sustainability appraisal there's not going to be an adverse or potentially
57:14
not an adverse impact on sort of health objectives. Again, is it is it necessary uh or
57:22
justified to sort of further require kind of health impact assessments on on
57:27
sites which at a a higher level have kind of sort of passed through
57:33
uh a test of you know these are sustainable options that are unlikely to generate significant health issues.
57:41
I think there is still merit in including the requirement for health impact assessments as it picks up the
57:46
sort of the finer grain um sort of impacts which at strategic level um may not be sort of identified until you're
57:53
at the plan application stage and you've got the the detail in terms of the plan application. Um I'm sure our colleagues
57:58
in the public health team will probably want to talk a bit more about the the sort of those sort of impacts and a bit
58:04
more detail. Thank you. Um I think nationally the the
58:10
policy and the evidence around HAS is growing stronger all the time. Um we
58:15
know that if used correctly it really is a process. Um and it's around allowing
58:22
those early conversations with developers with communities to really influence the the space. Um we know that
58:32
80 to 90% of health is the the wider determinance the social determinants of
58:37
health not the actual health care. So to have the opportunities to talk about that place around not just housing but
58:45
transport play reduce crime there is a whole raft of health preventative work
58:53
we can bring in if we have those conversations on the right developments at the right time.
59:01
sort of a practical level in terms of implementing this policy. Um, is it
59:07
clear to developers what they'll they'll be required to submit? Does the council
59:13
have its own kind of guidelines or guidance on health impact assessments? Was the national
59:19
kind of guidance um on that? We're in the process of developing HIA guidance
59:26
which will give um give developers the opportunity to work through all the different headings that sit within that
59:33
data observatory. So we can have those as we said have those conversations early and really understand the finer
59:40
detail that we need to get to a an acceptable position and really drive those changes in health.
59:53
Thank you. And then sort of second sort of practical issue once health impact assessments are submitted,
59:59
how does the council um process that in kind of resource? Is
1:00:04
it through um public health colleagues? Will they kind of advise planners in terms of the the adequacy or
1:00:12
uh the acceptability of what's been what's been put forward? Thank you. Part of that HII guidance
1:00:19
will be outline that process right from those early conversations through to the evaluation of the proposals that come
1:00:26
through um and the followup beyond
1:00:49
Thank you. before just before I bring in others and just find in terms of health impact assessments to assist me on this. I mean are they
1:00:56
potentially monitored in terms of their effectiveness or is it really at the early stage kind of shaping
1:01:03
what the development will look like in terms of if you do this then the chances
1:01:08
are you know we'll see you know positive out health outcomes or are there other ways we can sort of monitor the
1:01:15
effectiveness of the policy? They will be monitored. Um it's really important that if we go through that
1:01:22
process collectively um that we monitor the outcome.
1:01:28
Thank you. I'll bring in others. So Mr. Martin first and then councelor Herbert.
1:01:34
Thank you sir. Um I think you've picked up quite a few of the queries that we raised in our representations. Um so
1:01:42
thank you for that. My main outstanding query I have is is if you go back to
1:01:48
what the PPG says about health impact assessments says they're a useful tool.
1:01:54
It says they're a useful tool where um impacts are are envisaged to be
1:02:00
significant. My issue that I have with this is
1:02:06
there's no evidence to suggest that health impacts become all of a sudden become significance once you get to 100
1:02:13
dwellings and I'm still not clear as to how that threshold has been got to. Um
1:02:21
you know it should be justified in my my view. What where I've seen this work
1:02:26
more effectively in other authorities in North Thland up here is one of them is
1:02:33
when you get to a certain dwelling requirement. It doesn't automatically trip you into doing hi that there's a
1:02:39
sort of screening uh system that that you do beforehand that would determine
1:02:45
well you've reached that 100 threshold or 150 dwelling or whatever it is threshold. do a screening and from that
1:02:52
you can ascertain well is it likely to have the significant effect which is the
1:02:58
PPG test. Uh you know if it does then yes um proceed with a health impact
1:03:04
assessment. If no you you don't have to. Um it just it's more sensible. It's more
1:03:10
pragmatic in my view because you get away from this assumption that anything over 100 dwellings is going to have a
1:03:16
significant impact on health when it may not be the case.
1:03:25
Thank you. Can I come back to the council on that point whether there's an alter whether it would be necessary for
1:03:31
soundness to kind of have an alternative approach of and being invited by the HBF
1:03:36
to kind of have you know first an initial kind of screening kind of process to see if you need to go
1:03:42
through the health impact assessment. Uh and is it through these assessments?
1:03:51
Is it about responding to potential health impact health impacts or adverse
1:03:58
impacts or is it more about generating kind of future
1:04:03
benefits? Mr. It's not it's not just about identifying potential issues
1:04:09
um and and designing development in a way that can deal with those
1:04:15
issues. For example, if there's a prevailing issue in the area, how the how the development is going to respond
1:04:21
to that um um to inform decisions by identifying health impacts early in that
1:04:27
way. That's one that's one of the issues that might need to be dealt with. It's
1:04:32
also about shaping development to encourage healthy lifestyles which is
1:04:37
really really important. Now I think the MPPPG
1:04:45
deals with those issues as well. Uh there is nothing uh wrong with the
1:04:50
approach of this local authority in relation to the requirement it makes in order to help shape developments early
1:04:57
on. Um the only issue is is with the um
1:05:02
the threshold of 100 um and whether or not actually that
1:05:08
threshold shouldn't be there at all, whether we should be requiring it for developments of less than 100. I can I
1:05:14
can see a criticism there. Um but I can't see the 100 um um being a
1:05:20
criticism uh on the basis that it's too low a figure.
1:05:27
um understand actually that there there
1:05:33
should be any problem with this policy as worded. What we need to do however I think in the supporting text is refer to
1:05:39
the emerging guidance which is coming out so that developers know that there
1:05:45
will be guidance available to them.
1:06:10
told it's there. Now, if we're dealing with developments um of such a scale that they are accompanied by an
1:06:17
environmental assessment in any event, then that integrated health assessment can be part of that process.
1:06:24
Doesn't need to be standalone.
1:06:36
Thank you. I mean, as often occurs at sort of plan examinations, I'm sort of referred to what other authorities are doing. Obviously, I'm mindful I'm
1:06:42
looking at South Tinyside based on the evidence for South Tyside, but just nonetheless, um I've been referred to I think Mlam
1:06:50
you've other authorities similarly seek a health impact assessment. Is South Tinside
1:06:56
in lock step with this 100 dwellings? You able to advise in terms of Newcastle, Gates Head,
1:07:04
other authorities? Uh yes. So it is referenced like you said in the validation checklist uh what
1:07:10
their requirements are and they are also 100 dwellings.
1:07:16
Thank you. I just wanted to understand whether Southside were out of kilter but
1:07:21
um I'll give Mr. Martin the opportunity to come in and I will we'll come to councelor Herbert.
1:07:26
Thank you sir. Um it's just to clarify I don't disagree what Mr. Shadowavian says
1:07:32
about wider health but when you're talking specifically about health impact assessment the PPG is very specific
1:07:39
about that and it talks about that to be used where the expected I've got it here
1:07:44
useful tool to use where they're expected to be significant impacts. Um
1:07:49
that is the benchmark against which a point health impact assessment would be
1:07:54
a useful tool.
1:08:00
Noted. Thank you. M uh councelor Herbert please. As been stated these health impact
1:08:07
assessments are very important to ensure that the people living in these dwellings are have a healthy uh
1:08:13
existence there. And really some other councils have
1:08:19
have a threshold of 10 or 50. But 10 households with a poor health impact on
1:08:26
the residents is 10 too many. But if it's a place where there's very little
1:08:32
health impact on the actual area, the health impact assessment should be very simple and not very honorous, but it's
1:08:38
worth doing to ensure that all uh dwellings in South Tide are fit and
1:08:45
healthy to live in.
1:08:53
Thank you. I had no further questions on policy one. Um so I'm going to move on
1:08:59
to uh very briefly policy two. This is air quality within the burough. We obviously
1:09:06
had the benefit of Mr. Male last week who's did a bit of sort of scene setting when we're looking at the issue
1:09:14
uh at various points. Um, we obviously got the council's latest air quality status report for 2025,
1:09:22
excuse me. There's obviously concern about this issue. I'm not going to be revisiting the discussion that we had in
1:09:28
relation to specific sites, but just generally obviously policy two applies
1:09:33
to the whole of the burough. Uh I just invite the councils in response to my MIQ 920 whether policy two of the plan
1:09:42
would be justified and effective in ensuring across the burough uh development does not exacerbate any
1:09:48
existing air quality issues or potentially generate new air quality
1:09:53
problems. Obviously we need to avoid consistent with national planning policy.
1:09:59
Yes. So like you mentioned Mr. Mill set the sort of the scene um last week in terms of um air quality and serve time
1:10:07
side um and say there's no um particular issues and that have been identified
1:10:12
across the burough. So policy 2 is sort of a sort of a general policy in terms
1:10:18
of um how air quality assessed um at the point of plan applications coming forward. um the um the policy links in
1:10:26
the supporting text to the again to the validation checklist which will identify when uh quality assessments would be
1:10:32
required. Um I think the the policy as a whole um it sort of links to the wider
1:10:38
sort of ambitions of the plan in terms of um MPPF and um opportunities to to
1:10:45
reduce air quality within South Tside through um to through other policies which will also help to to have impact
1:10:53
on reducing air quality and um travel by public um sorry private vehicles. Um
1:10:58
particular policies which also sort of contribute to this are policy SP26 um delivering sustainable transport um
1:11:06
policy 22 in terms of green and blue infrastructure as well and again um policy one that we've just talked about
1:11:12
in terms of um really sort of pushing those sort of health aspects um through development um proposals in the burough.
1:11:21
Thank you. I had no further questions on policy two so that's helpful. Thank you.
1:11:27
Um, say we had I'm see Mr. M was kind of very much has
1:11:33
a sort of a a transport hat on. Um, I'm mindful of the people are with us this
1:11:39
morning. Is there any other sort of I mean I must I have no further sort of questions having read the air quality uh
1:11:45
the latest air quality status report uh in terms of specific issues but obviously give the council there's
1:11:51
anything further from an air quality. I think that was adequately covered by Trevor last week.
1:11:57
Okay. Thank you. Councelor Herbert, is this on air
1:12:03
quality? Thank you. Yes. Council seem to maintain that air
1:12:10
quality is no problem simply because they think there's no air quality management areas.
1:12:15
But DER have said that air pollution today remains the single biggest environmental threat to health in the
1:12:21
UK. Now, South Tinside uh has a lower life
1:12:26
expectancy than the national average. The uh constructive sorry chronic
1:12:32
obstructive pulmonary disease emergency admission rates are about 50% higher
1:12:37
than the national average. Hospital admissions for asthma and children from no from birth to 9 years
1:12:45
old are 75% more than national average.
1:12:51
Across the country, poor air quality is linked to around 40,000 early deaths a year and some of them will be in South
1:12:57
Tide. The World Health Organization says it's particularly dangerous to the very
1:13:04
young, the very old, as well as people with long-term health conditions like asthma and pregnant women.
1:13:12
The current air quality limits used to assess air quality in planning applications were set in 2005.
1:13:20
Now medical science has moved on and in 2021 uh recognizing that air pollution is far
1:13:27
more dangerous than previously thought the new World Health Organization recommended levels were significantly
1:13:33
reduced those used in planning applications. So for planning applications
1:13:40
at the World Health Organization levels in 2005 recommended 40 for nitrogen
1:13:47
dioxide that's 40 micrograms per cubic meter.
1:13:52
That's now down to 10 for the World Health Organization recommendations. So
1:13:57
that's 20 25% of the original recommendation
1:14:03
for PM particulates which are found to be extremely dangerous.
1:14:10
It's now 5 mg sorry micrograms per cubic meter rather
1:14:15
than 10. So that's a 50% reduction. So
1:14:23
so scientists stressed when they set these levels uh for the World Health Organization
1:14:29
that these limits should not be considered safe as they appear to be no levels at which
1:14:35
pollutants stop causing damage. They said reducing pollution would boost
1:14:40
health even in nations with relatively clean air. In 2019, a review concluded that air
1:14:47
pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, causing heart, lung disease,
1:14:53
diabetes, dementia, and reducing intelligence in the general population.
1:15:05
While PM2.5 is not currently part of the local air quality management framework, the government still expects all local
1:15:11
authorities to effectively use their powers to reduce these levels of PM2.5
1:15:18
from sources which they are which are within their control. I would say influence as well.
1:15:25
We have set they have set legally binding targets of 10 micrograms per
1:15:31
meter cube by 2040 with an interim target of 12 by January 2028
1:15:40
recently and I haven't been privy to the 2025 air quality assessment. It's not in the
1:15:47
website. So I I'm working off a 2023
1:15:54
figures. Well, if it assists councelor Herbert, it is on the examination website. It's
1:16:00
document post sub50. Right. Well, be aware of that. So, okay.
1:16:07
It should really be on the council website. The residents of South Tide should know what the air quality is
1:16:12
before this examination in my my view.
1:16:18
So from the last air quality assessment said that air quality was getting worse
1:16:25
although slightly but getting worse in terms of NO2 levels.
1:16:30
Now a local plan will bring and uh this actually was with a stagnant population
1:16:36
but car ownership has been on the rise in South Tide which probably accounts for the fact
1:16:44
now the local plan will bring more cars along with air pollution especially in villages village developments such uh as
1:16:51
clean east Ben around the bokea lane area in the center of clean village where pollution levels are already bad
1:16:58
and will be mur will be made worse. At the moment, that's three times over
1:17:03
three times the recommended World Health Organization levels.
1:17:09
There's a human cost to this and a study in Bradford showed that the condition of
1:17:14
up up to 35% of patients with respiratory problems seeking their GP
1:17:20
help were due to area times when air
1:17:25
pollution was higher. and 45 49% of those attending A&E were linked to days
1:17:32
with excessive air pollution. So it's putting a strain on the NHS and
1:17:37
costing a lot of money as well as people being absent from work and being unable to enjoy their life. One of the state
1:17:44
aims of South Ty side local plan is to make people happy and healthy. They
1:17:50
can't be happy and healthy if they're breathing polluted air. Now people have
1:17:55
obesity and they don't take enough exercise
1:18:01
because of their own actions. But people can't avoid breathing. It's a fundamental right to clean air. So if
1:18:08
you can't avoid the breathing, it's it's up to the uh government and the local authorities to provide that clean air.
1:18:17
And these these actual events of excess uh extra attendance for medical help
1:18:24
occurred when the World Health Organization levels as is now were exceeded. So really uh it shows that how
1:18:32
lower level it has an impact on health.
1:18:38
Also uh the impacts what people look at of just traffic
1:18:44
when they do assessments but also a source that is overlooked often is gas boilers. And in urban areas then can
1:18:51
contribute up to 12% of air pollution. They're burning fossil fuels. They're
1:18:57
burning gas. They're putting out particulates. They're putting out nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide
1:19:07
and paragraph uh I really got confused with the uh NPPF and which versions we
1:19:14
were looking at and this paragraph seems to jump about. I had 186 but you sorry
1:19:19
192 but you have 186 I believe I believe it's the same. Planning policies and
1:19:25
decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for
1:19:30
pollutants taking into account the presence of air quality management area and clean air
1:19:36
zones and the cumitive impacts from individual sites on local areas.
1:19:42
Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified
1:19:47
such as through traffic and travel management and green infrastructure provision and enhancement.
1:19:54
So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan making stage to ensure strategic approach is ma
1:20:02
is is held and the limit and it limits the need for issues to be reconsidered
1:20:08
when determining individual applications. Planning decision should ensure that any
1:20:13
new development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan. So the plan the plan should
1:20:22
be looking at air quality now rather than wait to individual planning
1:20:29
applications and looking for ways to improve that air quality.
1:20:36
It's really seen as too late at the planning application stage.
1:20:46
So looking at the local plan policy one promoting healthy communities and two says ensure that pollutants including
1:20:53
noise and air pollution and hazards detrimental to public health and residential immunity are addressed prior
1:21:00
to development. So then how is this achieved is really
1:21:05
the question. So again might come back this thing of
1:21:10
standards and how that is achieved and seven require new major developments
1:21:17
to contribute to improving health and reducing health inequalities by requiring a health impact assessment of
1:21:23
covered which will form a good a report on air quality
1:21:29
anticipated in new developments and strategically cumulatively across the whole of South China
1:21:38
based on the local plan proposals.
1:21:45
So the health of time in 6.4 uh it it points out that uh on page 62
1:21:52
it says the the health of South China side residents is generally worse than the local and national average. So, it's
1:21:57
already recognizing we've got a problem. Not and I believe the opening of the the
1:22:05
air quality strategy says we shouldn't be complacent. Well, this document looks a bit complacent to me.
1:22:16
It says the South Tide Alliance has several health priorities that they have made to and have made a
1:22:22
commitment through our South Tside vision 2022 to ensure residents live
1:22:28
happy, healthy and fulfilled lives. Very difficult if you're breathing polluted
1:22:33
air and suffering ill health as a result of it.
1:22:39
Creating healthy places for residents to live is what the stated gal and should
1:22:48
should ensure good mental health, social connectivity and create financial security. Now the uh studies have been
1:22:56
done which show that people with pre-existing health conditions asthma COPD
1:23:02
when deers if you have high pollution don't go out the house. How will that in
1:23:09
create a connect social connectivity be isolated so that it has effect on
1:23:15
their mental health and 6.8 says new developments can
1:23:21
generate potential risks to human health recognizes it through increased exposure
1:23:26
to air pollution. These issues should be adequately addressed and assessed in
1:23:31
accordance with the relevant policies in this plan. As housing has an essential role to play
1:23:38
in good health and well-being across all life stages, home remains a major cause of ill health
1:23:44
for many. It is important that these risks are minimized and prevented.
1:23:51
I would like to point out a witch report which recently came out uh on air
1:23:57
pollution inside the house itself. Before before you get there, Mr. Sorry, councelor Herberts. Um, I really
1:24:05
appreciate concise contributions to this. It's a right to be heard and I will hear from people and I hope people
1:24:12
have understood. I've been generous in hearing from people. I I do want to kind of get to the point of for the bottom
1:24:18
line of what needs to change in relation to the plan. I think it's very
1:24:23
articulate in terms of what you're saying in terms of there's an issue. we need to understand the the sort of the
1:24:28
the extent of that issue and then you know in terms of what's already in the
1:24:34
plan I think what you're telling me is it's not going to be effective in addressing the air quality issue um in
1:24:41
relation to um South Tinside we've got to be aware of there are uh other
1:24:48
measurements uh of how how air quality um is looked at and I think you're also
1:24:53
saying to me that the plan itself should be subject it to its own sort of individual its own air quality
1:25:00
assessment rather than wait to the planning application stage. I'm I don't like cutting across people. I want to
1:25:05
hear from people but got to be mindful that other people want to be heard. Yeah. Well, can I just mention pin a lot
1:25:12
of hopes on the what was the action plan which wasn't the last one that I had to
1:25:18
and uh it uh
1:25:26
so they said it would ensure air quality is consist considered when planning act processes has allowed effective use of
1:25:33
planning conditions well incl clean lane just to say that the air quality was forecast to get worse. Now, I don't
1:25:39
believe I've seen any planning conditions that would mitigate that, not even street trees. So, I think they
1:25:47
don't follow through with their uh
1:25:52
sorry, lost my train of thought because of your intervention. Can I just have a quick
1:25:58
read through this? What I'm going to suggest councelor Herbert while you're looking at that I'm
1:26:03
going to invite the council to come back on some of the point I'd like to hear from the council on some of the points that you have raised
1:26:10
and then I'll I'll come back to you right that's fine okay so can I turn to the council please
1:26:15
just very briefly on some of the points that have been raised obviously I'm mindful that policy 2 is dealing with uh
1:26:21
the land use planning system what can be controlled through the development um management process
1:26:28
Um, I say I've got the air quality status report and I would imagine the council
1:26:35
has also undertaking wider actions in terms of just more generally improving
1:26:41
or seeking to improve the air quality situation in the burough more generally
1:26:47
and the the remit of the plan is solely related to where development proposals are coming forward. The point is not
1:26:53
lost on me. the um you've hit the nail on the head and if it helps councelor
1:26:59
Herbert in order to move things on, we are very sensitive to the issues which
1:27:05
he is raising and how important those issues are to residents of the burough.
1:27:12
The policy which we're considering here and which is the subject of this
1:27:18
particular bit of the examination is in relation to um air quality issues
1:27:25
associated with development which comes forward under the umbrella of the plan
1:27:31
and and uh the criteria here um we believe is appropriate
1:27:39
um to deal with that as a particular brief you want touched upon with the council being referred to other uh
1:27:46
measurements world health organization the policy itself refers to the national objectives for air quality doesn't
1:27:54
specify what those are so if something does change in light of you know evidence going forward is that part of
1:28:01
the policy suitably flexible to pick that up um I must admit I some
1:28:08
of the figures I've heard in terms of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matters I thought would have been set through
1:28:13
DERA in terms of understanding how air quality management areas are
1:28:18
established. Yeah, they are set through DERA. So, it's it's statutoily mandated um the
1:28:25
concentration levels that would be 40 for nitrogen dioxide and and particulate matter. We are obviously mindful that
1:28:31
the World Health Organization is looking to reduce that, you know, because there's no technical safe limit. That's
1:28:38
what what they're stating. But we would stick to those statutory limit values of 40 from particular matter and nitrogen
1:28:46
dioxide. Thank you. As I say, if the national
1:28:51
objectives change, the policy still would allow would
1:28:58
would not sort of conflict with that. And then finally, just in terms of plan making, uh I will go back and look at
1:29:04
the sustainability appraisal. Was air quality one of the factors or objectives as part of that process, Mrs. Lamb?
1:29:12
Yes, it was. It forms part of the um objectives within sustainability objective three. Um so um within the
1:29:19
sight specific um essay assessments, every site has been considered in terms of their impact on air quality um
1:29:26
through a qualitative measure of distance from air quality management areas which has helped inform that process. also through the um the wider
1:29:34
appraisals of policies themselves. I say that sub sustainability objective three covers that remit. So every site and
1:29:41
every policy that has been considered through the plan meeting process has been um subject to that air quality
1:29:47
consideration through that. Thank you. Briefly, councelor Herbert
1:29:52
are any further final? I'll try and keep it brief. Just look at the action plan. uh it said that in 14
1:29:59
it would undertake a buroughwide air quality and traffic modeling exercise based on proposed developments in the
1:30:05
local plan to have a better understanding of the effects of future development upon air quality. Work will
1:30:10
commence once a local plan has been finalized. Well, that's too far down the line. and
1:30:16
should be doing it before the local plan's finalized. Looking at what effects could have would ensure that new
1:30:22
developments have adequate travel plans and are contining continuously reviewed and updated. But how effective are
1:30:28
these? They've been going for quite a while. Car ownership's going up. You just have to look at the roads around
1:30:34
South Tide. Public transport's getting worse. So, it's not really meeting uh
1:30:40
those needs. and uh we set it we set up an air quality steering group
1:30:47
uh and that hasn't happened. So hopefully that might come in the future.
1:30:53
So really it's a bit like whack-a-ole using these air quality management areas and wait till it gets really bad and do
1:30:59
something like change the road network and then it's okay for a while then it'll be another area that'll pop up.
1:31:05
It's a bit worse. So we'll have a go at that rather than a strategic look at all areas to see how we reduce air quality
1:31:13
uh air pollution improve air quality. Thank you.
1:31:18
Okay. I've got nothing further I wanted to raise on policy two. So that brings matter nine discussion to its
1:31:24
conclusion. It's now4 11. What I'm going to suggest is we take a midm morninging adjournment back in this room for half
1:31:30
11. And I think we've got other people joining us for viability and the
1:31:35
monitoring implementation discussion. So people can be back in this room please
1:31:41
for half 11. Thank you.
1:47:09
Okay. Good morning again everybody. It's now half past 11. So we're now moving on to uh the agenda items for the remaining
1:47:16
parts of matter 11. Um we've already discussed certain parts of this matter,
1:47:22
but we're now uh looking through at issue three on planwide viability.
1:47:29
Uh then further uh just very briefly with the council I think only on minerals and waste and then uh
1:47:35
concluding on implementation and monitoring. Um I'm going to dispense with the usual introductions and
1:47:42
arrangements because I think everybody Mr. screen. You've been here before. So, um, everybody knows the the format, but
1:47:49
I think for the purpose of the recording, it'd be helpful for other people to, uh, introduce themelves
1:47:55
around the table. So, I'll start with Mr. Mr. Newm again for the council.
1:48:01
Thank you. Morning everyone. David Newm from CP Viability. We undertook the viability testing on the instruction of
1:48:06
the council. Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy officer at South Tai Council. Sorry.
1:48:16
Good morning. Matt Clifford, senior planning policy officer. Good morning, sir. Uh Dave Green, CE of
1:48:23
the Fate Green Bell working group. Everybody. So, working through then um
1:48:28
the agenda. I've got a first couple of questions I think for the council and then it's to plan viability. I'm
1:48:35
anticipating to hear from Mr. New again. Uh I did think there'd be more other people around the table from the
1:48:43
development sector on viability but no we are where we are. I appreciate we've have discussed it at other particular
1:48:49
parts of it as other other sessions but I wanted to just have a a check on the holistic kind of picture. Um so I'm
1:48:57
going to turn to the council first in relation to just uh we'll look just very briefly at policy 60 which is the policy
1:49:04
in the plan on developer contributions funding and viability
1:49:11
uh and I ask at my MIQ um 11.10 10. Um
1:49:17
it's a specific issue that's been raised in the uh representations. It's part three of the policy where the council
1:49:24
says that there may be circumstances where developer contributions uh could be secured retrospectively
1:49:31
where something has been forward funded. uh and I expect the development
1:49:36
industry's concerns when they made the original regulation 19 representations whether that's going
1:49:44
to necessarily meet lawful tests but I'll give the council I appreciate this
1:49:49
has answered my question 11.10 10 further it wishes to kind of just draw
1:49:55
from that or bring to my attention in terms of things that are likely to be forward funded.
1:50:05
Thank you sir. It's sometimes necessary to forward fund
1:50:12
projects in advance to anticipate pressure on capacity.
1:50:19
So what the policy does is it provides the flexibility for the council to
1:50:24
forward fund infrastructure but then
1:50:30
seek retrospectively but it would clearly need to be agreed in advance with the with the de uh
1:50:39
for funding. Um so what we're trying to do is take into account developers cash
1:50:46
flow situations. So sometimes it can assist developers in
1:50:52
terms of their um cash flow situation
1:50:58
if the funding in a in a phase development if there is public sector funding um
1:51:05
upfront so to speak. Um but the developer then subsequently when the
1:51:12
cash flow for the development enables that wants to know what infrastructure
1:51:18
is like well an example might be um school or
1:51:26
transport infrastructure um it would obviously vary on a case-by case basis I mean this would I think
1:51:33
very much be the exception to the rule but it's having the flexibility in the policy to enable that
1:51:43
council's response to that MIQ. There's nothing at the moment that's identified in the infrastructure delivery plan
1:51:49
that's going to require forward funding, but this policy or this part of the policy would cover a scenario as Mr.
1:51:57
Clifford's outlined should it arise. That's that's absolutely correct. So um
1:52:04
this this type of provision in policy is not uncommon
1:52:10
and it's been particularly prevalent over the past 10 years in my experience um because of the need to provide
1:52:17
infrastructure to allow development to proceed. Now the difficulty we have and this is
1:52:24
the point you're going to allude to I expect is the the effect of the seal regulations on such a requirement
1:52:29
because if infrastructure is in place and you come along with your development
1:52:35
then that that connection of necessity is no longer there because there is
1:52:41
capacity you're not causing any harm that needs to be remeded that that that
1:52:47
is potentially an issue but by the same token If we know and we know through the
1:52:53
infrastructure delivery plan and I'll talk about that in a little bit bit more
1:52:58
in a minute um that the infrastructure required to meet planled development is
1:53:06
what it is and is agreed to be what it is um then it's possible to aortion
1:53:15
um cost to development and um there there's a mechanism to do
1:53:22
that. Um and the infrastructure delivery plan can
1:53:28
identify the proportionate
1:53:33
um impacts of development which require mitigation and let's take for example
1:53:39
highways. Um so that's what it's intended to do
1:53:46
and there there is a need for a provision like this because it provides
1:53:52
a basis upon which to negotiate section 106 obligations from the outset. So a
1:53:57
developer will will be told right this is what the IDP shows your development requires to make it acceptable in
1:54:04
planning terms. Let's say we are going to actually forward fund it but we want you to enter
1:54:12
into an agreement with us to say that you will make this contribution at such
1:54:17
such a stage of development. So it's very good in facilitating
1:54:23
that without without the provision it could lead to a lot of friction in the future. So that's
1:54:30
that's the justification for it. The um paragraph three might be altered um
1:54:37
modified to say forward fund infrastructure not development. It
1:54:43
depends how you interpret it. But developer contributions may be secured retrospectively where it has been necessary to forward fund
1:54:50
infrastructure. Infrastructure necessary
1:54:56
to facilitate that future development.
1:55:07
And it might as well also uh include uh the expression proportionate developer
1:55:15
contributions
1:55:23
to bring it in line with the seal regulations.
1:55:30
So um we can consider um making those modifications and providing you with with those suggestions for your cons
1:55:36
further consideration. Thank you that that would be appreciated. Just further point on um I
1:55:44
have made a note of that. So thank you for that. So further point just very briefly on policy
1:55:50
60 and it was my MIQ 1111. There's a reference in the final part of the policy to supplementary planning
1:55:56
document on planning obligations. again a well recognized approach. Most authorities have S SPD on on planning
1:56:04
obligations. I think there's a reference in some of the representations to sort of the age of the uh the existing um uh
1:56:13
supplementary planning documents. So does the council intend or have in hand a view to kind of
1:56:19
update its SPD in terms of implementing this policy?
1:56:25
Mr. Clifford. So, we do have a firm intention to update the SPD, but I don't
1:56:30
believe it's actually timetabled yet.
1:56:39
Thank you. I've got no further questions on on policy um 60. You may be pleased to hear. So, I'm going to go into
1:56:45
viability. So, looking at Mr. Mr. New and I'll I'll bring in others. Sorry,
1:56:50
just on this on policy 60 developer contributions, Mr. Green. Yes. Yes sir. Just uh the fact that the
1:56:58
council is willing to forward funding I I I think I mean if I want of a better phrase the money has to be in the pot
1:57:04
before any work started from the developers as well because it's going to be profitable for for them. Uh and I'm
1:57:11
just thinking of some examples in in relation to this. There's there's a lot of infrastructure required before 2030.
1:57:17
So if you know the policy what I'm associate with obviously it's it's policy SP8. I mean it's massive. You've
1:57:24
got a junction onto Dunan Drive which is S106 and a 278. Uh you've got the Victoria Road Middleane junction which
1:57:30
is half a million. You've got the White Maple interim costs before 2030. That's not yet funded but again originally if I
1:57:38
recall back in stage one it was going to be upon me the church commissioners who are going to fund that main road up from
1:57:44
Milane up to White Mool that was taken out in stage two last week and I believe councelor Kilgar picked up on that.
1:57:51
She's actually got the transcript of it. And then you've got Mil Lane which is1 million pound section 106 external
1:57:57
funding. Uh that's critical. And you've got Abigan way which is the other side of Felgate because there's going to be
1:58:02
traffic flows going right through. That's 250K which has got to be done very quickly. Uh now most of this is
1:58:10
desirable uh and essential. Some isn't critical but I believe we discussed earlier in the week that because of the
1:58:16
new traffic figures it's now become critical. It could be now critical. Uh
1:58:21
and that's it. I I sincerely think that that the money has got to be there because a development could be started.
1:58:27
You could give in in our situation the farmer 3 months notice is off the farm.
1:58:33
It's started the houses have started and the infrastructure doesn't go with it
1:58:38
and it yeah it needs to be clarified. Thank you Green and I understand the
1:58:43
situation. I mean I'll come back to the council I think and a point for the council. Correct me
1:58:49
if I'm wrong. From my understanding of the infrastructure delivery plan, there was as we sit here now, there were no
1:58:54
projects that are identified as requiring forward funding. Um, at this
1:59:00
moment in time, obviously the the IDP is a live document. It will be reviewed and updated over time. What we're talking
1:59:07
now here is in a buroughwide policy that kind of valve or mechanism should it
1:59:13
arise that forward funding is needed there's a sort of a policy basis for
1:59:19
that. Yeah. Yes sir. I can confirm that's correct. could also just come back on what I said
1:59:24
previously and just to clarify that where there is forward funding of infrastructure which the council is
1:59:30
involved in um it would not be other than the case where it's been agreed
1:59:36
with obligations that the developer would subsequently um make that contribution to
1:59:44
refund so as to speak. Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms
1:59:50
of the the agenda. So for viability um
1:59:56
and the the work that's um been undertaken um to date before I get to my
2:00:03
sort of first um MIQ 1112 on this um obviously I think Mr. New has set out at
2:00:08
previous discussions. We've been looking in large part at the 2023 update report,
2:00:14
but as you pointed out last week, there's previously the 2021 report and there's been the subsequent kind of
2:00:20
further addendum that's looked at first homes and um hab uh habitat mitigation
2:00:27
uh financial contributions. Just to set the scene as a a sort of a a
2:00:33
pre prelude to some of my other questions in terms of the people who've undertaken the plan wide viability are
2:00:39
you suitably qualified in terms of either being you know members of the Royal Charters
2:00:44
in members of the Royal Charter Institute of Chartered Surve Surveyors Emmericks.
2:00:50
Yeah, I'll give a very brief overview of my company. So, so I originally um so I'm a I'm a chartered surveyor. I'm an
2:00:57
Emir member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Um I started out as
2:01:02
a as a general practice surveyor but moved to the District Value of Service in 2013 where I started doing viability
2:01:08
testing. So I've been doing that for 13 years always just for local authorities. Don't don't act for the private sector
2:01:14
only local authorities. Set up my own company in 2016 CP viability doing
2:01:20
viability testing only for local authorities. And we do two two strands of of work. We do local plan viability
2:01:27
testing such as this, but we also do planning application stage viability testing. Um, and in terms of regional
2:01:34
experience here, I've undertaken the the Durham County Council local plan viability testing. I've done the
2:01:40
Northland County Council local plan viability testing. I've done the Newcastle and Gates local plan viability
2:01:47
testing. So, I've got a good understanding of of the region of the of the Northeast. Um, for what it's worth,
2:01:53
I'm about to be instructed again on Newcastle and Gates Head because they're doing an update as are Durham. So, yeah, absolutely, we're qualified.
2:02:01
Thank you. And then just generally as a kind of scene setter um obviously the first 2021 report sorry the first report
2:02:08
was undertaken in 2021 kind of get various kind of plan examinations you know just a check of there's obviously
2:02:14
been changes since then uh on sort of perhaps two um sort of um strategic or kind of
2:02:22
global fronts. One is energy prices feeding through in terms of construction
2:02:28
costs and the cost of making kind of construction materials. Uh well understood fiscal events in this
2:02:35
country in 2022 that have had implications in terms of borrowing interest rates and obviously an issue
2:02:43
around inflation for some some sort of period of time without necessarily being counterbalanced by any kind of def
2:02:49
deflation. So price rises are kind of being baked in and then further um
2:02:55
affected by sort of inflation going going forward. Um as a general approach
2:03:00
has your viability work kind of taken account of those kind of bigger picture
2:03:07
factors or do you take a view that there's sufficient kind of flexibility and kind of buffering within your work
2:03:13
that can pick up some of those issu those issues? J just two two things then on that. So, so
2:03:19
in terms of costs, construction costs, for example, where we did see a big spike in in inflation for a period of
2:03:25
time and it's cooled down now, but for a period. So, the costs that we rely on are from the the build cost information
2:03:32
service. They are the plot construction costs and that implicitly allows for inflation. So, that that's it's live
2:03:39
data in that sense. It it's there, it's available. You click on a button and it says these are the costs as of today.
2:03:45
Now there's some debate about, you know, whether the inflation that's factored into the BCIS is appropriate or not. You
2:03:52
know, certain parties think it's underplayed, certain parties think it's overplayed, such as the nature of valuing things. In that light, it's
2:04:00
absolutely appropriate when doing local plan viability testing to try and build in some buffers into the modeling, which
2:04:06
is exactly what we've done. So we we've tried to use up-to-date data that is
2:04:12
implicit of inflation, but we've also built in buffers to to stress test. And then just picking up on the um the
2:04:19
mention about energy um and energy efficiency, we touched upon this last week um in the context of the future
2:04:26
home standard. Just to very quickly summarize the the rationale that that of
2:04:32
our model. Um we have factored in a cost into the into the testing of £5,000 per
2:04:38
dwelling which is over and above the BCIS plot cost that I've just referred
2:04:44
to. So that is an additional cost in the modeling. We think that's quite generous. Um we discussed last week um
2:04:52
whether it was appropriate to have another layer of cost on top of that for future home standards and I was firmly
2:04:57
of the view that no it's not necessary. The reason it's not necessary is because
2:05:03
um well one of the reasons was because when we're looking at the actual cost of
2:05:08
future home standards we made it very clear it's not just a cost it also has a knock-on effect on value. So the values
2:05:16
that are currently re reflected in the in the viability testing are non future home standard because it hasn't been
2:05:22
introduced yet. So there has to be that balance. But also when we dived a little deeper into it and we looked at the um
2:05:29
the future homes impact assessment which the government did in 2023 um they used a base house as the
2:05:37
starting position for for a standard and said that was based on a on a a gas boiler and solar panels and they
2:05:43
estimated that it would cost just over £4,000 above that standard to to meet the
2:05:50
future home standard which is going to come in at some point in the future. So with our £5,000 per developing, we we've
2:05:56
in effect already covered that. Thank you for that. And the planning
2:06:02
practice guidance on viability and call them kind of recognized practice
2:06:07
documents for local plan viability. Talk about engagement with the development sector or the people that are going to
2:06:12
be responsible or have a a significant kind of responsibility and kind of bringing the plan forward in terms of
2:06:18
development sector land owners. in terms of your work, how have you gone about sort of engaging
2:06:25
um with th those people and how in your view how effective was that in terms of
2:06:31
informing or shaping your work? Yeah. So there was two effective rounds of stakeholder engagement as as we call
2:06:37
it. So for the for the 2021 assessment which is P25
2:06:43
um we undertook the first round of stakeholder engagement and that was twofold in itself. There was a
2:06:48
questionnaire where we set out this is what our thinking is on on on you know
2:06:53
starter for 10 viability assumptions. What do you think? Um and that was circulated to to uh parties that the
2:07:00
council put forward and that included a variety of of um of parties. Um and we
2:07:06
also had a workshop as well, a stakeholder workshop where we we we sat in a room and we talked about what our
2:07:13
thinking was, what the view was from the from the industry or from from general stakeholders. So that was done for 2021
2:07:20
and we did the same exercise for for 2023. Um it's a difficult one. Um doing the
2:07:26
questionnaires I find to be really useful in terms of getting an insight into where people are thinking. The
2:07:32
responses were were okay. we we got I think seven responses to the questionnaires that were relatively
2:07:38
detailed and worthwhile. Um and it did affect some of our adjustments. So for
2:07:43
example in the typologies which I think we might come on to shortly. We initially had a view on what those
2:07:49
typologies should be and the feedback was quite strong from some parties that actually we need to have an additional
2:07:55
typology of 250 units and then further furthermore further stakeholder
2:08:01
engagement someone else suggested 500. So we changed our typologies to suit that. Um it's not just a case of of
2:08:09
changing everything that everyone says. We have to obviously weigh it up and consider it against evidence but it's a useful exercise and it's one we we've
2:08:15
undertaken here. Thank you. Just while we're talking
2:08:20
about sort of general this kind of general approach to viability, Mr. Green, is a a point you want to raise on
2:08:26
this? Yes. Uh you hit the nail on the head. Costs have seriously risen. And I mean,
2:08:32
you know, viability, you know, could to me the the local plan, can it be achieved with the money that's
2:08:38
available? You know, it's in short, I believe the answer is no, it can't it. And now we off thinking that it can. uh
2:08:45
these hearings have proven that there's very little funding available and much of it relates to section 106
2:08:51
contributions and external funding expect expectations which I think it's
2:08:56
we've picked up here national highways aren't going to pay anything uh and the vi it it puts the cost of the viability
2:09:03
uh the viability of the local planet has decreased actually you know the cost things have gone up uh it's went you
2:09:10
know it's affected on a daily basis and this has been picked up in the stage one and stage two this It's in font 16. So
2:09:17
it's yeah h and as I say the funding's not there. The local plan as it stands totally inviable and therefore is deeply
2:09:23
flawed. Uh how do they make it appear more val v val v val v val v val v val v val v val v val v val v valuable? They just water down the requirements uh you
2:09:29
know of the costings they remove some cost requirements regardless of the effect it will cause in years to come.
2:09:36
Uh they cannot be allowed to do this. Uh ana another example is the infrastructure delivery plan where where
2:09:42
the projects were watered down from 40 million to you know that's you know it was watered down to I believe the
2:09:49
developers have got it down now to 6.5 million uh and yet the new figures you mentioned it sir that you know you need
2:09:56
current upto-ate evidence in this question the current upto-ate evidence was provided in the hearings this week
2:10:02
and uh you know figures that the the made viability studies on there weren't
2:10:07
over Robust. Uh, and if I'm not mistaken, I mean, I've got one of the the the stuff now
2:10:15
getting left out. I've got one of the f the it's the Felgate sustainable growth area viability appraisal, and it appears
2:10:23
to be missing in the in the viability. I mean, the profits there, you know, it's something like 50 million, but uh the
2:10:30
shop and the health center seem to have disappeared from it. So, if you put them in, that then brings the viability of it down because they've got to pay for
2:10:36
them. Now, as I say, unless I'm mistaken, it's it's online there. It's not included in it. It's got the it's
2:10:43
got the education, but it hasn't got a shop that they were going to put on, and it hasn't got the health center that
2:10:48
they were going to put on. Uh, and again, that costs money. They're promising things there, and they're not
2:10:53
coming up with it. Thank you, Mr. Green. Are you refer I'm mindful this the the work Mr. New done
2:11:00
did in these the 2023 uh viability update was had appendices
2:11:06
in terms of then looking at is that in those appendices in terms of the individual
2:11:12
okay I'm not reading right I only read this last night I only read this last night but uh the cost things just don't add up
2:11:20
and that that's my that's my problem uh that that same things are going to be there so they do away with you know the
2:11:26
farm to start to build the houses and the council till midweek says if they don't then come up with the money
2:11:31
required for the infrastructure, they'll not let anybody move into the houses. But can you really see that happening?
2:11:36
You got a 100 houses there, the infrastructure isn't there. Will the council prevent people moving into them houses? I I cannot see it. It it's Yeah.
2:11:45
Thanks, sir. I'm going to go through sort of the the the general approach to viability and
2:11:51
then I'll I'll reflect on whether I want to kind of pick up anything um specific. And I think when we go through the
2:11:56
general approach, it'll probably pick up some of the issues that Mr. Green um has raised.
2:12:02
So going through some of the key kind of components or inputs of planwide
2:12:07
viability work asked at my MIQ 11.12 around some of the sort of general
2:12:14
policy costs. I'm not anticipating going through all of them through the answer to my MIQ. has signposted me to kind of
2:12:20
the relevant parts of the the evidence base, but I'd like to just pull out of
2:12:25
some some specific um issues. Um appreciate a number have been raised
2:12:32
whilst you've been here, Mr. Newan, but others haven't. So, I welcome your your view on views on those. I'd like to
2:12:40
start with the issue around the accessible and adaptable homes. My
2:12:45
recollection or understanding of the evidence is that there has been a um an overestimation
2:12:52
in terms of the requirement and cost of the wheelchair accessible homes in terms
2:12:57
of what's required um in your viability work.
2:13:02
The flip side of that is um is the issue of whether on the uh M42
2:13:11
uh accessible homes 100% was something that was not tested it was test was it tested at a lower
2:13:17
level and if it was would that have any kind of significant bearing or impact on sort of the wider
2:13:24
viability picture or would would the two kind of potentially balance themselves Well,
2:13:31
and hopefully a very quick response. So, just to clarify on M M42, which is the
2:13:37
sort of lower standard if you like, that was applied to 100% of the houses in the testing and that figure was 1,500 per
2:13:44
dwelling and that originated from a study by MHLG
2:13:50
in September 2020, but was up was increased to reflect inflation since
2:13:55
then. Um and then M43 yes that was applied to 13% of the
2:14:02
dwellings in the modeling and the policy is obviously reduced to 5% from from memory. Um and also the cost of that
2:14:10
standard that M43 standard um again relates back to a study by EC Harris
2:14:16
which where where they did a cost impact and again we made an an assumption to to allow for some inflation in there. So as
2:14:22
far as I'm concerned it we've over over prescribed if you like the costs of that of that standard in the modeling.
2:14:30
Thank you. I don't think you hear yesterday but we were talking about biodiversity net gain. Now the viability
2:14:36
appraisal does make an allowance for this. I think it's 30,000 per hectare
2:14:41
um gross um and whether that's a reasonable um allowance to make Mr. New. So again
2:14:50
I'll try and answer very quickly. Um so there's two elements to this. Biodiversity net gain is a fixed cost.
2:14:56
So it works in the viability modeling effectively as an abnormal cost or a sight specific infrastructure cost. So
2:15:02
whatever factor or whatever level you put in it has to then have a reduction on the benchmark land value. It's not
2:15:10
pound for pound, but it would change would it ch it would change the benchmark land value and that would
2:15:15
offset some or all of the impact of if you if we increased. So we made an assumption to give some context. Um the
2:15:23
30,000 per hectare it was originally in the 2021 testing around 20,000 per
2:15:29
hectare because that was based on a study um that was undertaken for the lead city council plan examination at
2:15:35
that time. um BNG biodiversity net game was was um a new thing if you like at
2:15:42
that point. So it was kind of you know coming out of the woodwork so to speak.
2:15:48
Um we took a view at 30,000 that that was reasonable. It was an assumption but
2:15:54
as I say even if that was to uplift we would have to reduce the benchmark land value. The other thing to stress though
2:16:00
that's not the only allowance in the modeling. The other element is to do with the gross to net ratio that we've
2:16:06
allowed for because the biodiversity net gain starting point is an on-site
2:16:12
delivery. That's the, you know, the initial requirement. Um, we went to the
2:16:17
stakeholder engagement with our gross to net assumptions and we talked about this issue. There were a couple of parties
2:16:24
that said um they thought the gross to net ratios we'd allowed weren't appropriate in the context of BNG. I
2:16:30
think it was three out of the seven, but four out of the seven said they thought we got it right. So, um, we took the
2:16:37
view that our allowances were were suitable and appropriate and and to be honest, I didn't actually see any
2:16:43
evidence put to me to show why why we were wrong. So, from our perspective
2:16:48
again, why we were wrong. So, from our perspective again, we we've covered off those costs.
2:16:54
You refer there, Mr. N, to kind of the the potential impacts on benchmark land value. I mean obviously biodiversity net
2:17:00
gain is not unique to South Tiny side. is now a lawful requirement for qualifying um developments
2:17:08
in terms of some of the theory. Is that coming through in terms of affecting bench benchmark land value in terms of
2:17:15
you know there are additional I call them just more widely policy costs
2:17:22
potentially tempering expectations as to what land is is worth or should be released out or is is that just not
2:17:29
trickling through in your experience? My own experience is it is absolutely
2:17:36
trickling through and it's been very slow because benchmark land value is quite a controversial concept and always
2:17:42
has been because land owners say well you shouldn't dictate to us what we should accept as a price for the land.
2:17:49
However, going back in my experience since 2013, yes, benchmark land values
2:17:54
are definitely coming down in and in terms of the expectation from land owners in viability testing and and in
2:18:01
my experience that is starting to filter through to to land transactions. It's not anywhere near what the government
2:18:08
were talking about in their um consultation going back a year or two ago where they said, "Well, potentially
2:18:14
we'll go down to compulsory purchase order levels of two times uh existing
2:18:19
use values and things of that nature." It's not that. But just to give you some context, when I first started out on
2:18:25
viability, you'd have a a green field site that might be worth, say, 10 grand an acre. Um, and the expectation from
2:18:32
land owners was that you might get 30 times that sum for a benchmark land
2:18:37
value. Well, appeal decisions, which I refer to in my in in my studies, um, have narrowed that down to 10 to 15
2:18:45
times the existing use value, um, I think there's two appeal decisions I refer to, Walbertton Lane in Trafford
2:18:52
and and Halton Heights in Lancaster. and they're really useful because it solidifies this concept that bench the
2:18:59
level of benchmark land value is linked to abnormal costs as well. It's a really important principle. So yeah, it is
2:19:04
starting to have an impact in in my experience.
2:19:18
Thank you. And we also discussed um yesterday that has the uh mitigation for
2:19:25
the coastal habitats required for the habitat regulation assessments. It's gone up quite significantly on a per
2:19:30
dwelling basis. You have looked at this I think as part of the further update
2:19:36
this year. Does that again I think your overall conclusion is things remain viable.
2:19:44
Yeah. Correct. So, so that an allowance of £730 per dwelling is factored into the latest modeling which is the post um
2:19:53
sub46 document. I'll be extremely cowardly and say that that's a figure that was given to me by the council as
2:20:00
an estimate from from their experience because they they know this policy better than than myself. Um but it is in
2:20:07
the modeling at that level.
2:20:14
Thank you. And just a further opportunity, Mr. New, it was put to me, I think we were looking at the affordable housing policy last week that
2:20:22
there are now these kind of various pieces of evidence that you've prepared over a period of four four or so years.
2:20:30
Um, particularly in relation to kind of the potential impacts around sort of some of the policy costs, not least, you
2:20:36
know, the move away from kind of first homes. uh and the sort of the issue well is now the time to effectively rerun the
2:20:45
viability work to allow for that. I I appreciate you said at the time you know this is an iterative
2:20:51
kind of process. Well well two two things really from my perspective. Would it change anything um
2:20:58
in terms of the outcomes? No. Um I'm not against doing the exercise if you think it would help your considerations but in
2:21:05
terms of will it change my recommendations it won't. Um, and then the second side to to this, and again,
2:21:13
apologies. Um, there's a cost to it. We, you know, I'm I'm well aware that I'm I
2:21:18
I charge my time to to a public body. Uh, I I didn't want to overe the pudding, so to speak. Um, but we can
2:21:26
certainly look at that if you think it's going to help.
2:21:31
Thank you. And I heard earlier from Mr. Green, I appreciate Mr. screen speaks from a specific site kind of
2:21:38
perspective, but the more sort of general point about whether you particular uh policy costs have perhaps been
2:21:44
emitted or left off. How's just in general terms how's the viability
2:21:49
appraisal looked at against typologies things like infrastructure costs
2:21:55
transport costs social infrastructure
2:22:02
the there are allowances in the in the modeling for that um so just to be clear
2:22:07
and using Felgate as an example just because I've I've pulled up the the appraisal so there's an open space um
2:22:14
provision in there there's a transport allowance as a section 106 contribution. There's education provision, there's M42
2:22:21
and there's M43. I think Mr. Green mentioned about health. Um that isn't a
2:22:27
cost which is explicitly factored in. Um it was that was just the at that point
2:22:33
in time that was the basis that the modeling was undertaken. Um I'm not aware of other policy
2:22:41
asks um that should have been reflected. I mean, again, just just flicking through the list, we've got EV charges
2:22:47
in there. We've got our allowance of £5,000 for the uh building regulations.
2:22:53
Um, so no, there's there's there's not there's as far as I'm I'm concerned,
2:23:00
there's been a raft of policies that have been factored into the modeling.
2:23:24
Is it on this point you want to come back in on Mr. Green? It is it's just a a general clarification on the on the biodiversity
2:23:30
net gain. Sir, uh am I correct in assuming you've got on-site costs? If it's provided onsite, then you go up the
2:23:37
offsite cost and then you have credits which I think I picked up from yesterday would severely decrease the
2:23:42
profitability of the site because it's uh I believe one of the offsite credits goes to 42 to 50,000
2:23:49
and also s in relation to to what Mr. News just says policy SP8 clearly states
2:23:55
that there's going to be a health center uh and there's going to be a shop and
2:24:00
it's not again it's not funded in there and it should be funded because it reduces the viability of the the
2:24:06
profitability of the site. Thank you.
2:24:13
Just just on the bio biodiversity net I appreciate you kind of talked about the ratio
2:24:19
issue. Um there's Obviously, if it can't be provided on site, there's probably a
2:24:25
likelihood there'll be more development on site. Appreciating credits could be
2:24:30
more more expensive. But presumably in those scenarios, if something's going to be particularly different to what you've
2:24:36
modeled, that might be the trigger for a further sight specific viability assessment.
2:24:42
Correct. And that's why to have the policy as it's worded is really important because um something such as
2:24:49
biodiversity net gain can can fluctuate quite significantly in terms of cost. So it's important that that flexibility is
2:24:55
there. Um so yeah obviously just want to be clear on pol I
2:25:02
don't want to get too sort of into policy SP8 because we've had that discussion at various other sessions.
2:25:07
just on the generalities just based on the policy as it's currently presented to me at the moment. It's got the
2:25:14
primary school provision, health care provision, so it's relatively uh broad
2:25:20
brush um and then local retail facilities just from your that being
2:25:26
sort of too sight specific just from your uh professional advice Mr. in terms
2:25:31
of health care provision and retail does that have a particular cost for a development or are those commercial
2:25:39
decisions that in in a way could could potentially add value and aid the
2:25:44
viability of the development. So just using SP8 as an example that the reason it's not explicitly shown in
2:25:51
there is because it's considered to be costneutral. So that there is a shot that's going to be delivered but it's
2:25:57
not going to make any money for the scheme is effectively what's what's been assumed. Um so yes from my perspective
2:26:04
there's you know there'd be no change if we put a shop in that generates 500 grand of revenue in the model because
2:26:10
it'll cost 500,000 to deliver. Um in terms of the health
2:26:16
it's a tricky one with with the councils I work with. It varies hugely um in
2:26:21
terms of the potential cost. It can depend on local need. Um it can be quite
2:26:28
modest sums, you know, £50 per per dwelling or it can be more significant. It can run into a few thousand pounds
2:26:35
per per dwelling. Um but again, you know, from my perspective, having that flexibility in the policy allows that to
2:26:42
be a consideration um from the from for viability.
2:26:48
Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms of some of the other viability issues and if there's time we'll come back to
2:26:53
to any of this if we need to. Just in terms of um my second point was around sort of general construction costs. I
2:26:59
think you've explained um Mr. New you've used the building cost information um
2:27:04
service inputs. Um presumably they are regionalized in terms of reflecting um
2:27:11
the circumstances in terms of where we are. Correct. you can rebase the figures to
2:27:18
the south tin side specifically. Okay. And there are other costs associated with development. Uh I've
2:27:24
seen things like servicing finance uh for development and I don't know remind
2:27:31
me in terms of whether your work kind of made some kind of contingency um allowance you know should some of
2:27:37
these kind of cost components kind of flux.
2:27:43
Correct. contingencies an explicit cost in the modeling because that's what the planning practice
2:27:49
guidance says. Um it says it it recognizes there should be an allowance for it. There's a debate to say that it
2:27:55
shouldn't be in there because a contingency is a cost which may never be realized in which case it just becomes e
2:28:01
extra profit for the developer but there is an allowance in there and it gives us that extra buffer. Um yes finance costs
2:28:07
are factored in there. We've run um what are called Argus appraisals for for
2:28:12
every single typology. So that's a a develop it's a development appraisal
2:28:18
toolkit where we put in all of our assumptions. We make assumptions about cash flow um and it and it spits out the
2:28:25
the debit interest the finance costs for that development. So yeah all all the
2:28:30
normal viability assumptions that I would be doing at a planning application stage are absolutely replicated in the
2:28:36
modeling that's been undertaken. And as we discussed last week, obviously
2:28:42
this has to be a sort of proportionate evidence base for plan making. It can't drill down to every particular scenario.
2:28:49
So you've obviously looked at typologies, types of development that are likely or
2:28:55
going to reflect what is needed to kind of deliver uh the South Tside local plan and it's done at that kind of that
2:29:01
level. Um I think you mentioned a moment ago, Mr. when you kind of tested that with the
2:29:07
kind of development sector, I think additional typologies
2:29:12
or an additional typology was identified, but are you satisfied that your work has considered all kind of
2:29:19
relevant typologies? Correct. Yes, I'm I'm comfortable that
2:29:24
we've got a good suite and spread of different types of um schemes that are likely to come forward. And just to
2:29:31
spell it out, um the latest modeling it had 10 units, 30, 80, 125. Um and we
2:29:38
went to the stakeholder engagement on that basis and the feedback was well actually you need to go a little bit higher than that. Um so we did a 250
2:29:46
typology and we then got a further further feedback to say well actually fancy doing 500 so we did 500. So we
2:29:53
have tried to you know accommodate where appropriate but um I don't think there's
2:29:58
I don't think having a scheme at 15 dwellings for example would change anything likewise you know having
2:30:04
something at 60 for example we feel we've covered the relevant bases.
2:30:12
Thank you Mr. Green. Yes sir. Ju just very quickly uh I couldn't disagree more. I mean you know
2:30:17
Mr. is professionally qualified and everything but on the ground uh I think it does rely too much on section 106 and
2:30:24
external funding and I believe viability of the local plan can it be established and I think a new as you it's been
2:30:31
suggested I believe a new viability appraisal is is required urgently before any of this can go ahead
2:30:38
thank you just going to go through some of the other um component factors so
2:30:44
sales so we looked at a number of kind of on the the cost side of the um the
2:30:49
spreadsheet. On the other side, the sales, the revenue that's going to come in. It was my MIQ114.
2:30:56
Um just to understand how that's um that information has been collected or
2:31:02
received. I have got some representations from the development industry. I think unsurprisingly
2:31:08
um feeling that sales values have perhaps been over over inflated. But what data have you
2:31:15
looked at, Mr. New? Why should that be considered robust? We've looked at a lot of data is the
2:31:21
short answer. So just to go through it and and again iterative process starting in 2020 for the 2021 assessment. So we
2:31:28
started out with and I think we mentioned this when we were talking about the different affordable housing zones. Um we started out with looking at
2:31:36
average values across the district in terms of how they fluctuate from settlement to settlement. So so Zupla do
2:31:42
a really useful average value for different settlements. So you can drill down to Jarro or South Shield or
2:31:48
whatever. So that's a starting point. We then did this beacon approach which involves looking at transactions of
2:31:55
specific dwelling types and seeing how they change across the district. And the
2:32:01
reason we do that is because values fluctuate from property to property for a variety of reasons. You know, nature
2:32:09
of the of the dwellings, size, all the rest of it. So by trying to get a specific dwelling type, a three bed semi
2:32:15
of 85 square meters for example, we we're trying to distill the reasons as
2:32:20
to why values fluctuate just to location. So we did that exercise with a
2:32:25
couple of different beacon types and it gave us a good sense of how values fluctuate. So that was that gave us a
2:32:31
good basis. We then looked specifically at new build sales in the district since
2:32:37
2018. So this is land registry evidence. this is taken directly from there. What
2:32:44
we do as well to assist the valuation and make it more robust is we um
2:32:49
supplement that with looking at the EPC register. So the energy performance certificate register because that gives
2:32:55
the dwelling size for every unit. So when we cross reference the two we get
2:33:00
to a rate per square meter or per square foot in old money and that's really important from valuing houses because it
2:33:07
because the value of a 100 square meter detached house will be very different on a per square meter basis to a 200 square
2:33:15
meter detached house. So it's really important we understand the size of the evidence we're looking at. So we did that exercise. Um we also looked at
2:33:24
modern resales. So we tried to look at houses that had been built in the last
2:33:29
few years by you know volume house builders or or modern house builders um
2:33:36
so pimmons and Taylor wimpies and local developers and that again that just gave us a good sense of how values were
2:33:45
being being driven in the marketplace. Um and then the other source of evidence is new build asking prices. Um, this is
2:33:52
within the uh hierarchy of evidence that the RAS recommends. It says you can use new build asking prices. You've got to
2:33:59
be a bit careful because obviously a developer will obviously ask for as much as they can to try and get as much as
2:34:05
they can and often incentives can be used to drive sales as well. So you might have a headline figure of 250
2:34:11
grand but there might be 10 grand worth of incentives. Can you carpets whatever whatever it may be. So in those
2:34:17
instances we tried to use the net figure which in that case would be 240,000.
2:34:23
So we we've been quite indepth with this with this assessment and we also presented the evidence to the
2:34:28
stakeholders and yes we had some parties that said I think this is a little too high or this is this is too low. So we
2:34:35
had both sides of the argument put to us. Um and overall we think we're about
2:34:40
right. We're never going to agree 100% because value valuing is a an art and a science. It's not just a black and white
2:34:47
answer, but we feel we've got this right.
2:34:52
And then finally, benchmark land values critical part of the um viability
2:34:58
equation. obviously looking at existing use values and then the sort of the premium or what's needed to kind of
2:35:04
incentivize a site to be released to the market and I appreciate is a complex area
2:35:11
particularly looking at um existing uses in commercial use may
2:35:17
uh theoretically be more straightforward on green field sites but um others might
2:35:22
have a different view on that obviously it's somewhere that requires a degree of a degree of judgement it's not
2:35:28
necessarily a formulaic exercise, but how have you gone about that process
2:35:35
and what's kind of been the feedback when you've engaged um with others?
2:35:43
Okay, I'll I'll try and be succinct and this is a very complex area with lots to it, but I'll try and be quick just to
2:35:49
give an overview of what we've done. So when we do benchmark land values the principal approach under the PPG the
2:35:55
planning practice guidance is existing use value plus premium. So existing use values are not particularly
2:36:02
controversial. So and there's the only thing is that existing use values can fluctuate from a green field site to
2:36:09
brownfield site. So they are they have to be treated separately. So just taking green field sites um very roughly we we
2:36:17
made an assumption of of£10,000 per acre in old money 25 um thousand per per
2:36:23
hectare for gross hector in um in new money um present that's based on our own
2:36:30
experience of doing this across the region and the country but also we presented that to stakeholders and I
2:36:36
think generally people were comfortable that's appropriate so no particular issues there so then we get on to the
2:36:42
tricky bit which is the premium uplift. So the planning practice guidance says
2:36:47
that the level of premium uplift should take into account sight specific
2:36:52
infrastructure costs, planning policies and abnormal costs and professional fees. So in other words, if all of those
2:36:59
costs go up, the premium uplift should come down because what it's trying to say is that the burden of those costs as
2:37:06
a starting point should fall on the land owner. Okay. So within that context
2:37:12
in 2021 we looked at some evidence. We looked at the North Tinesside capita study um
2:37:18
which was for their sill assessment. We also looked at Sunderland's um local
2:37:24
plan examination HDH study. Again this is in my 2021 PR 25. It's all in there.
2:37:31
And then we looked at um my own assessments for Durham, Newcastle Gates
2:37:36
Head and Northland. and that gave us an idea of the level of premium uplifts that we thought were appropriate. When
2:37:43
it came to 2023, there's a couple of things had changed. Um, a couple of important appeal
2:37:50
decisions which I've already mentioned. The Wbertton Lane Trafford appeal which talked about a premium uplift of 10
2:37:56
times the existing use value within the context of around a million pounds per gross hectare in abnormals. So that gave
2:38:03
us a useful guide if you like. as you say, it's not a formulaic thing, but it
2:38:09
does give you a good a good insight. Um, and then the other appeal decision was Halton Heights in Lancaster, and that
2:38:16
said you can use 15 times the existing use value, but but in the context of lower abnormals around 400,000 per gross
2:38:24
hectare, sorry, per net per net hectare. Um, so again, that helps narrow our view
2:38:30
in terms of the the premium uplift that was being applied. The other thing just to stress as well is that looking at the
2:38:37
other studies that we did, there tended to be a range of premium uplifts dependent on the area with the general
2:38:44
view being if your land is in a higher value area, a land owner is more likely
2:38:49
to, you know, stick to their guns and want a higher price um which as a principle I didn't have any particular
2:38:56
um disagreement with and I think that was supported through the stakeholder engagement. They felt that was appropriate as well. So yeah, so so
2:39:03
green fields and then the the uplift range just for your context um ended up
2:39:08
being 12 to 32 times the existing use value. But the reason it's at the upper
2:39:16
end at 32 is to do with the level of abnormal costs assumed in the modeling
2:39:22
um and also the higher value nature of those areas. And at the bottom end of the scale again that was reflective of
2:39:28
the abnormal costs and the locationational factors. Brownfield
2:39:34
um again tricky in terms of um uh coming up with an end figure on this one.
2:39:40
Interestingly it's the other way round. So so the premium uplift is I think everyone's fairly comfortable. We we had
2:39:46
it rather than it being a multiplier of a of a whole number, it was a percentage and we adopted 20% uplift of the
2:39:54
existing use value which is consistent with what we see across the country. The difference is that the existing use
2:40:01
value can fluctuate quite a bit on brownfield land. So the range we had was 360,000 per net hectare in the lower
2:40:08
value areas up to 600,000 per net hectare in the higher value areas. And again having undertaken the study having
2:40:16
bas based on our experience as well we felt that was appropriate.
2:40:22
Thank you for a move off uh viability Mr. Green. Yes. Yes. Very quickly I'm just reading
2:40:29
MIQ 1114 where it it says to together with a reasonable premium necessary to
2:40:34
incentivize the release of sites. I just think throughout South Tide there's that many modifications that are going to
2:40:40
need to be made to many developments, you know, many developments that are being that are going to be uh built on.
2:40:47
I I cannot see how it can be viable both to the developers or to how the council
2:40:53
can prove uh that that it is viable. There's too many modifications and again
2:40:58
I I it mean I'm not professionally qualified but it's flawed. It's seriously flawed.
2:41:06
Thank you.
2:41:16
I'm just thinking through the kind of various modifications as we've been going through. I think
2:41:23
my initial instinct is the first homes affordable housing
2:41:31
which is a potential policy was would be a policy modification has already been reflected in Mr. New's work in the
2:41:39
summer of this year. Um,
2:41:44
it's probably something I will want to just reflect on just make sure that there are no other sort of policy cost
2:41:50
implications if I felt there was and I wanted an additional piece of work to provide assurance on
2:41:57
that. I would obviously let the council know, but just trying to go through the various
2:42:02
modifications. I'm not nothing's kind of immediately striking me, but I want to probably see the whole the whole
2:42:07
picture. Thank you. Thank you Mr. New for assisting me on
2:42:13
the on the viability um issues. That was very very helpful. I'm going to now move
2:42:18
on and conclude the matter 11 um items. So my fourth issue was around minerals
2:42:25
and waste. Appreciate um these are matters that the plan will need to to
2:42:31
deal with. I've not raised any specific questions on waste um uh the waste
2:42:37
policy. Um I think by and large waste is largely processed outside of South
2:42:43
Tinside. So yep, but there are some questions in relation to the plan's
2:42:49
approach to um minerals. Um I just wanted to check with the council what is
2:42:55
the latest um sort of aggregates assessment that um will inform kind of
2:43:01
minerals planning and for for the policies in the plan.
2:43:06
So we have the 2023 local aggregates assessment within the examination
2:43:12
library and know we are due the 2025 version sort of imminently.
2:43:29
Thank you. and and and just in terms of the general situation uh in terms of the
2:43:36
demand for minerals uh and waste from what I'm looking at in terms of the evidence t and wear itself
2:43:43
can't meet that need but when you look more widely and encompass
2:43:49
county Durham and northland for things like crushed rock sand and gravel
2:43:55
there is the the capacity or the availability of materials to support any
2:44:00
particular big projects that will need will need aggregates. Yeah, that's correct. And obviously we
2:44:06
continue to work regionally with the the aggregates work and party. Um probably
2:44:12
relevant to that is we recently had a scope and opinion for an extension of
2:44:17
the operations at Marsden Quarry. Um so that's potential sort of additional reserves at that quarry.
2:44:32
Okay, thank you. So, in terms of the um mass issues and questions, I think this
2:44:38
reflected representation from the minerals product association about potentially kind of splitting
2:44:44
uh is it policy 56
2:44:50
into kind of two separate policies. appreciate the council's answered that question. Is there anything further you
2:44:55
wish to add to what the council's previously provided? Um, obviously we haven't proposed that
2:45:02
as a modification at this point, but this it would sort of wouldn't make a material difference to the actual
2:45:07
working of the policy. So, splitting it into two is not something we'd necessarily be for or against.
2:45:21
Thank you. And then in terms of um the application of the policy so
2:45:29
mineral safeguarding areas are they shown on the policies map
2:45:37
in sort of essentially it covers the whole burough. So there's a little sort of footnote on the um legend of the
2:45:42
policies map that states that
2:46:08
Um but in terms of I was just trying to sort of track through uh on the policies
2:46:14
map. So is there something specifically in relation to the my note is it's the
2:46:22
red barn red barns quarry on mil lane. So that does have a particular treatment
2:46:28
on the policies map. Yeah. So both Red Barnes quarry and Marsden Quarry are highlighted on the
2:46:34
policies map um under policy 56 which safeguards existing minerals uh
2:46:40
infrastructure and from reading the evidence supporting
2:46:47
the plan my sort of picture I was getting was that the Marsden Quarry was sort of coming close to its in terms of
2:46:54
current activities was kind of coming close to sort of its end and Um
2:47:00
but I think from what you're saying, Miss Cooper, there's potential that there could be further activity at that
2:47:05
site. Yeah. So the current permission on that site is sort of expires in 2027, so next
2:47:12
year. Um but the scope and opinion was to extend operations for additional 5
2:47:17
years at that site.
2:47:28
Thank you. Are you able to recall is that within the site itself or is it an extension or
2:47:33
That's within the existing site.
2:47:42
We we'll just double check that. Okay. Just wonder whether it may generate a further
2:47:50
well I'm sort of mindful of the plan reflects the evidence at the time of plan making but
2:47:56
if something's potentially changing
2:48:04
perhaps if the council can clarify or advise and I'll I'll think on that um further I mean I had no further
2:48:10
questions on minerals and waste it seems to been a relatively uncontrovers controversial matter not unsurprisingly
2:48:17
for a sort of a main sort of urban predominantly urban area and um I haven't got any questions on um the
2:48:23
jarro warf I appreciate that's in the employment section but there seems to be a lot of support for the retention of that um facility
2:48:33
and presumably when the policies map and the policy refers to minerals infrastructure
2:48:38
is is that pretty much is that gyro war potentially other things that the plan would be seeking to safeguard.
2:48:47
So it's essentially the the warf and the existing quaries.
2:49:05
Thank you. Don't recall Mr. Green anything on minerals and waste from say Felgate.
2:49:14
Is that
2:49:22
I mean it's it's on the policies map. It's identified. Yes. Yeah. And I've seen this I've seen the
2:49:28
site. So yeah, I just move on then finally to issue five implementation and moni monitoring.
2:49:36
Um we touched upon this uh in an earlier um discussion. I think
2:49:42
only I think it was only at the beginning of last week, but it feels a lot longer ago. The policy the plan
2:49:49
itself obviously has a number of Oh, that's right. We were talking about it in relation to policy SP16 and specifically around housing, but the
2:49:55
policy is the plan itself has wider policies in relation to implementation and monitoring particularly at policy um
2:50:02
58. I think it's a similar sort of point or question whether any modification or
2:50:08
clarification is needed um in relation to policy 58 in terms of um
2:50:15
monitoring and implementation whether things are now given the potential
2:50:21
landscape with the new planning system that will in effect serve as the key
2:50:27
driver for sort of any further plan review or new local plan.
2:50:35
Yes, I think you're right. Um, obviously the the plan does set out monine monitoring and implementation measures
2:50:42
particularly in um between policy uh 58 and appendix 3, but um I think there's a
2:50:48
a broader shift in terms of of plan making which um sort of pulls the strings somewhat in terms of um how
2:50:55
things will progress with the the plan review and the next local plan preparation.
2:51:01
But presumably the council will still want to retain policy 58. There will still be ongoing monitoring to see how
2:51:10
these policies are performing with an eye on I appreciate it might be a very kind of short window but with an eye on
2:51:17
well will we need those kind of policies or need to look at those policies again as part of a new plan.
2:51:22
Yes, you're right. Um obviously um we have to produce an authorities monitoring report which looks at how
2:51:27
policies perform um on an annual basis. Um I think we've sort of mentioned over the last week or so that our policies
2:51:34
where monitoring is a key factor in terms of informing plan reviews particularly um the HMO policy and and
2:51:40
seeing how things play out there. So we do still feel there is a need to retain this policy and the the appendix 3 um
2:51:46
just to help obviously help inform plan preparation as we move forward.
2:51:52
I think I may have alluded to this on the first day of these stage two hearings. We are due new regulations on
2:52:00
plan making supposedly any day now. I'm not privy to them. Um but just wonder if
2:52:08
if they do say something about timing of plan reviews or the timing of the
2:52:14
implementation of the new system. Sorry. I think that will probably be something where if that does materialize and it is
2:52:20
in the regulations that will be a matter where I will go to come to the council
2:52:25
through the program officer seek your your view on whether that has any implications
2:52:32
for policy 58. So just we we'll see what kind of been eagerly looking every day
2:52:39
to see if you know regulations are here but u I just flag that now as something
2:52:44
we may need to pick up. I've got nothing further I want to raise on policy 58. So
2:52:50
thank you for that. Um that concludes all the formal kind of hearing sessions.
2:52:58
Do now want to have a an infor an administrative session with the council.
2:53:03
Um time now is just coming up to 20 to 12.
2:53:10
Can we reconvene back in this room at quarter to 1 in just over 5 minutes? It will just be with the count excuse me
2:53:17
this final session will just be with the council but people are very welcome to stay in the room and observe and follow
2:53:24
the discussion and obviously it'll be recorded for posterity. Okay. So we'll be back here at quarter
2:53:30
to one. Thank you.
3:02:06
Okay, it's just gone quarter to one, so I'm going to start this administrative session. It's all gone ominously quiet.
3:02:12
Um, but this is should be a relatively informal kind of discussion. It's with myself and just the council. Uh it's my
3:02:19
opportunity I think just to kind of reflect on a few things whilst we're in the room together um and can kind of
3:02:27
have the have the conversation at this point after which obviously I I leave
3:02:32
this building and all communication will be through through a net. So this probably just helped to kind of speed
3:02:38
things up. So we obviously now concluded uh the stage two hearings. I'm not
3:02:44
anticipating the need to hold um further hearings and I set out at the start of the um stage two um discussions.
3:02:54
We're moving forward. I think in terms of think it's been very much kind of additional evidence or actions that been
3:03:00
required. we're very much in kind of the the realms of looking at what would be the main modifications
3:03:06
necessary um to ensure or a sound plan or I feel I need to recommend uh for a
3:03:12
sound plan um to be in place and I've kind of indicated at the start of this session um the kind of the pace that's
3:03:21
that's anticipated or that I'm looking to kind of work to I think just to be
3:03:26
transparent with everyone that's to some extent I'm reflecting on the ministerial
3:03:32
correspondence to pins. I think also just from a personal perspective for me
3:03:37
will make for a more efficient process uh in terms of from these hearings getting to main modifications and
3:03:44
reporting um will will um yeah bigger
3:03:49
breaks are just uh just just affect the overall kind of efficiency of the process. So there's no other agenda or
3:03:56
anything that's that's going on. And I think we're just at a point where we need to move forward um as quickly as is
3:04:03
kind of practicably possible. And I think this discussion will just maybe highlight or just clarify whether any
3:04:09
kind of things we need to kind of bear in mind. So whether there's realism to the the madness of my timetable, whether
3:04:16
we need to kind of um just reflect a bit bit further on that. I thought I'd just
3:04:22
start with um in terms of the first item on my agenda for this discussion
3:04:28
um was just just clarifying obviously there are various types of modifications. I'm only going to be in a
3:04:34
position I'm only required to recommend main modifications those that are necessary for plan soundness.
3:04:42
Um, as we've been going along, there are clearly other changes that the council
3:04:47
would like to make or has agreed that it would make. May on further proof reading or checking of the plan identify other
3:04:54
things. It may think, well, we could phrase that differently or that that factually needs to be updated.
3:05:01
A lot of those kind of smaller changes which are often referred to as minor modifications but technically referred
3:05:08
to as additional modifications are obviously for a local authority to make of its own fition. They're not for me to
3:05:15
recommend. Um and they should be the the scope of changes as I say that don't
3:05:21
materially affect how policies are work or implemented.
3:05:27
I'm very happy to kind of look at a a composite schedule of modifications and
3:05:33
provide direction of whether there are some things in there that are not main modifications and need to be kind of
3:05:39
moved into a separate schedule. Conversely, if there changes the council
3:05:44
think well we think this is relatively minor but I think hang on a minute this needs to be consulted on I can provide a
3:05:51
a steer or a guidance on that. I think uh also linked to that as we've been
3:06:00
discussing will also be potential changes to the policies map. Those are things I can't technically recommend
3:06:07
because it's not within my remit. There's often an overlap between a modifi a main modification and a
3:06:14
corresponding change to the policies map. So we'll be looking for a schedule of policy map changes.
3:06:20
You okay? Yeah. um schedule of policy map changes aware of possible signposting within the
3:06:28
schedule of main modifications that there is a corresponding this has a ram a bearing or a
3:06:34
ramification on the policies map. So you may also want to look at that as well before you respond to the main
3:06:39
modification. Authorities do it differently. I don't
3:06:45
think there's any kind of prescriptive approach. I prefer to see the schedule of additional modifications made
3:06:52
available at the same time as main modifications so that people can see a whole complete picture because they
3:06:59
might say well you know we thought there was this change and it was going to be necessary for soundness but they can see
3:07:04
actually it will be essentially you know it's it's something the council will make. So just wanted at the first item
3:07:11
just clarify that I'm looking for three schedules at the end of the day. Um and
3:07:16
I will work with the council on if required where where things might
3:07:23
sit within certainly those main modification or additional modification schedules.
3:07:29
Mr. Shadow Raven. Um,
3:07:36
you said you wanted to deal with it in a composite way and you would make a decision whether or not the change was
3:07:43
one you should recommend or one we were entitled to do because it didn't change
3:07:48
the sense of policy etc. Um, do do you want us to make an attempt to
3:07:54
differentiate them or should we just just do it in in one plain color?
3:08:01
Good point. I would prefer an attempt to differentiate. Okay. Some some authorities will just present
3:08:06
you here's a whole list of all the modifications. I think great and then we do the differentiation. But if the
3:08:12
council's applied itself and I appreciate you have been thinking about yes through the statements of common ground
3:08:18
and other sources is it main mod if that can be done that would be extremely helpful. My own practice in
3:08:24
the past has been to treat anything that other than typographical
3:08:31
changes um or grammatical changes which have no
3:08:36
effect to treat any change to a policy
3:08:41
as material as a main mod. um and
3:08:48
ditto with respect to supporting text where it could have a bearing on
3:08:54
interpretation of the policy. Um so or or contextualize
3:09:02
issues in a way that affects one's approach to the application of policy. So um so we'll do it on that basis if
3:09:10
that's all right. Okay.
3:09:16
In terms of item two of my agenda and potential sources of likely main modifications, I think the council has
3:09:23
been keeping a a note in a schedule um of those and I think it's helpfully
3:09:30
sign helpfully having the reference as to where where they've come from. So, it's a statement of common ground
3:09:37
um or um another source. Obviously, as we've been going through these hearings, I think others not that many, but some
3:09:44
other additional main modifications have been either identified or are going to be offered on further reflection.
3:09:52
So, that's another source um that I'm anticipating, but I don't think other than that
3:09:58
uh yeah, I don't I don't think there are any other significant sources of main
3:10:05
modifications. There are a couple of areas I am reflecting on in terms of the evidence I've heard that will be set out
3:10:11
in my post stage two hearings letter. Um but it won't to reassure the council. It
3:10:17
won't be a bolt out of the blue. It will be a reflection of what I've heard. Yep.
3:10:23
Thank you. Um and then in terms of just item three, if we move forward to um
3:10:29
proposed main modifications, I'm sure the council's aware that will need to be accompanied by uh an addendum to
3:10:34
sustainability appraisal habitat regulation assessment. Council's also indicated that it would update its
3:10:41
infrastructure delivery plan in light particularly in light of discussions with national um highways. Um
3:10:47
so on the IDP um we're going to put a schedule on there which identifies the
3:10:52
proportionate contribution of developments to major infrastructure in
3:10:59
relation to is it the the is it just the one
3:11:04
just just the highway works yes I'm mindful that the council has engaged
3:11:11
I think it's LU on the sustainability appraisal and footprint ecology on the habitat regulation assessment. I
3:11:17
appreciate it's difficult sitting here now what their capacity or availability is like.
3:11:24
Okay, you're ahead of ahead of me there. Thank you. Yes. So, we have had some initial
3:11:29
discussions around sort of their capacity undertaking um this work going forward. Um I've had positive feedback
3:11:35
from um LU in terms of sustainability appraisal um footprint um uh tasks are
3:11:42
tight. So we're still um engaging with them to see if we can get confirmation as to they can do the work at a speedy
3:11:48
pace. I mean just to make clear in these scenarios I mean what's invisends
3:11:54
you know it's not going to be a wholesale rerun of the uh the original
3:11:59
reports. Yeah. So linking that through then to item
3:12:08
four then the process and likely timetable for a proposed main modifications consultation. Obviously
3:12:13
this would be a six-w week exercise. It goes out to everybody irrespective of
3:12:19
whether you've made whether they've made representations at regulation 19. So it's going back out more widely to
3:12:25
everybody on your your database. Um,
3:12:30
I'm just thinking through as we sit here now towards the mid end of of January.
3:12:36
Um, I think it's probably fair to say my post stage two hearings letter I'd hope to get to the council by the end of this
3:12:41
month or very early in February. So then obviously a period of
3:12:48
um shaping that that schedule. Um, and I don't know if the council at
3:12:54
this stage has given any thought to kind of potentially how long it might need together with
3:13:01
engaging LUC in um footprint.
3:13:07
I mean OB obviously a number of the main modifications are have kind of been recorded. They're in
3:13:14
statements of common ground. We've been through the stage one hearings. Yes, there are some bits and pieces coming
3:13:19
out of stage two. Mr. Inch. Yeah. I mean, I think as you say that
3:13:26
there's not necessarily anything that at this stage that um those consultants
3:13:31
couldn't be made aware of and and make early progress on on looking at those. Um it's simply a case of drawing that
3:13:37
work together into those addendums and sometime scales associated with that. Um and and as as Mrs. Lam said, we've had
3:13:44
those early discussions with with both those consultants and and their ability to turn that work around fairly quickly
3:13:51
um to allow that consultation to then take place.
3:14:14
Um, we're hoping to be able to put the schedule of mods together by the end of next week.
3:14:20
Obviously, that would be minus anything I concluded on, but yeah. Yeah. Okay.
3:14:26
I mean, but being practical about, you know, the degree of sort of back and forth checking. I think the last thing I
3:14:33
want is for a main mod to kind of potentially be missed off because we'll have to do the whole, you know, have to
3:14:39
rerun the six week consultations. We do need to be don't want to rush into this um too quickly, but I was thinking and
3:14:47
I'm not going to hold the council to this, but you know getting to kind of main modifications at consultation at
3:14:53
some point in March whether that feels realistic or is the blood draining from
3:15:01
the council's team to think you know that is that fe that feasible. I say I'm not I mean March is a is a long month 31
3:15:08
days um but that sort of broad broad
3:15:13
sort of time frame. Yeah I don't think in terms of the work
3:15:19
that would be required to enable that to go ahead that wouldn't be an unrealistic timetable. I think as you note on your
3:15:25
agenda at item four um the matter that we just need to give some consideration to relates to those local elections
3:15:31
taking place in May and the pre-election period uh for 6 weeks in advance of those elections which would um come in
3:15:38
at the very end of March. Does that have a bearing in terms of that's something you've got to kind of
3:15:44
avoid or that this process can continue during that period in terms of
3:15:49
consultation? Um I think we you know we understand in
3:15:55
terms of the the nature of this examination and and the direction um that that we're under and the need to
3:16:01
continue to make progress. Um we don't think at this stage that the
3:16:07
pre-election period necessarily precludes that consultation from taking place.
3:16:33
Thank you. It's a subject to kind of precise timing as to kind of when the the six weeks um would start. So that
3:16:40
would if it started at some point in March, it's going to take us through probably to
3:16:45
early May. Early mid May, mid May. Midm May. Okay.
3:16:54
Okay. These are just indicative at this stage. I understand things could come out of the woodwork, could change, but I
3:17:00
think just that's that's that's helpful. Is there any further points just on the
3:17:06
timetabling? We kind of touched on the local election issue. I'm not aware
3:17:12
there's any other note I mean from from my perspective in terms of you know
3:17:18
assisting that process I'm available you know I've got no kind of significant kind of commitments that
3:17:25
are going to hold hold things up or potentially uh throw a spanner in the work so
3:17:32
hopefully if we can move forward quickly are there any sort of Other
3:17:39
final comments or process questions from the council? No sir, but I would on behalf of the
3:17:45
council like to thank Mrs. Feny for her ever efficient running of the
3:17:51
examination and her great kindness and also extend our sincere thanks to you uh
3:17:58
for the manner in which you've conducted these this examination for which we are grateful.
3:18:06
Thank you for that. So I'm going to do some closing remarks and this will bring the whole hearing process um to its
3:18:13
conclusion. So just just for the record I think firstly can I thank everybody
3:18:18
who has participated and attended the hearing sessions for their contributions. Participants have been
3:18:23
helpful in the way that they've presented their submissions. It's clear to me that people have worked very hard
3:18:30
over a long period of time, not just at these examinations, but in the in the the years before them to prepare the
3:18:36
paperwork and present their case for their area. I think just like say specifically, I think Mr. Gre in Mr.
3:18:43
Green and Councelor Kilgore, the residents of Felgate have had dedicated
3:18:48
and committed representation at these hearings. I would also like to place on record uh
3:18:55
the quality of the submissions to the examination from East Balden. Uh I know they're not here now, but I thought Mr.
3:19:01
Hutcherson, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Butler uh articulated themselves well at the
3:19:06
hearings. They were clear, considered, concise, and constructive in what they
3:19:12
were seeking. I may not necessarily agree with everything that they're they're looking for, but I thought that it's exactly what examiners look for in
3:19:19
terms of how people should um conduct themselves. So again, they've served their community proud. I'd like to thank
3:19:27
the council's team on on two fronts. Firstly, the organization and support to the examination as a whole. Um from the
3:19:35
very start of this examination um process, there's been a website. It's been a very really good resource. It's
3:19:42
clearly set out and I've appreciated that when documents have needed to be kind of added to it, it's been done
3:19:48
quickly. Uh and yeah, it's say a really good uh uh resource for the the whole
3:19:55
examination process. Also want to just recognize that the examination hearings
3:20:00
have not followed the timetable that I think the council originally anticipated. So we had the stage one
3:20:05
hearings slightly earlier than I think your project plan anticipated and stage two have happened slightly later but
3:20:12
nonetheless I think really appreciate that the council has positively accommodated that that changing program
3:20:19
that's arranged for this venue which I think has worked really well for these hearings. Um, and just the hospitality
3:20:26
that the council's extended not just to myself and Annette, but obviously for people who've been coming to attend the sessions, uh, has been really
3:20:33
appreciated. So, thank you for that. And secondly, from the council's team, I'd
3:20:38
just like it noted that I've recognized the hard work that's gone in um to the examination in the terms of the
3:20:44
comprehensive statements, the response in response to my MIQs, the way that
3:20:49
you've responded to requests and actions, key evidence has been updated, um and you've kind of helped uh produce
3:20:57
helpful um topic papers has been going along. I would like to thank the council's team for their professionalism
3:21:03
at these examination hearings in explaining why the plan should be considered sound, but also considering
3:21:09
and being prepared to discuss where potential changes might be necessary for soundness. I think it's been
3:21:16
particularly positive for me to hear from the various members of the local plan team. So that's Deborah Lamb,
3:21:22
Rachel Cooper, Matt Clifford, Rian Lavick, and Lucy Routlage. Um obviously
3:21:29
also had the helpful legal input from Mr. Shadow Ravian uh and the support from Trevor Male who's not here on all
3:21:36
things transport uh and from Jeff Horseman on life at the development management coldface. Um I'm
3:21:43
also mindful that Mr. Lynch has been here throughout and obviously you're obviously supporting the team and the
3:21:48
examination process um more generally. Uh so I appreciate also that the council
3:21:54
has enabled me to hear from those who've prepared technical evidence um that has informed the plan making and
3:22:00
again that's been very uh helpful uh and informative um to me. I appreciate this
3:22:06
examination. It's been referred to as occurring under particular circumstances, but from the council's
3:22:13
officers perspective, what I've needed is honesty, integrity, professional competence, independent,
3:22:20
professional judgment. That's what's required of our code of conduct and I've seen that. So, uh, I appreciate that's
3:22:28
how you've engaged um, in the examination. I'd particularly like to thank the program officer, Annette Feny.
3:22:35
Um, I've not worked with Annette before um but I knew she was held in high regard by the inspectorate and I've seen
3:22:42
that firsthand and I know why I now know why that's um the case. So, thank you Annette um for everything you've done to
3:22:50
help make sure the examinations run smoothly. A lot of it happens behind the scenes. You know, Annette is really good
3:22:56
at speaking to people and kind of helping and explaining the whole process. uh and making sure that we're all on
3:23:02
track. So again, I'm grateful to the council that you found Annette and engaged her her services. I said I think
3:23:10
I said at the end of stage one, having a professional program officer makes a real difference to inspectors. So I'm um
3:23:16
I'm grateful for that and I'm hoping the arrangements are in place that the net is here as program officer till my
3:23:22
report is delivered because obviously I'll need that independent kind of line of lines of communication
3:23:29
other than sort of um there's a very small number of I think action points generally offered by the council. I'm
3:23:36
not expecting or anticipating any further evidence now uh in terms of for this examination. Obviously the
3:23:42
examination website will need to be updated as we go along if there are things that need to be added. So I would
3:23:48
encourage those who are interested in the examination process to just keep looking at the websites for updates and
3:23:54
when uh material uh has been added. I generally consider that I now have
3:24:00
sufficient evidence and information to assess the soundness of the South Tinside local plan. I shall be
3:24:06
considering carefully all the points that have been put forward to me before coming to my conclusions. including
3:24:12
submissions that are made on the proposed main um modifications. As I say, I'll be shortly writing to the
3:24:17
council with my post stage two thoughts, including headline uh headline thoughts
3:24:24
on required main uh modifications.
3:24:29
the office in Bristol um will be in touch with the council at the earliest opportunity to think to confirm when
3:24:36
you're likely to expect likely to expect to receive my report. Um and that will
3:24:42
be for a fact check uh in the first instance. I think as we sit here today and following the discussion that we've
3:24:48
just had, I think it's my ambition or objective to deliver the report by the
3:24:54
end of May, possibly into the first week of June, subject to sticking to that
3:24:59
that timetable. Rest assured, I'm aiming to have the report with the council as soon as I I
3:25:06
can deliver it. It's perhaps worth stressing, as I'm sure the council's aware, it is just a it will be a fact
3:25:13
check report. So, it's not an opportunity to reopen um points of
3:25:18
discussion. Um but obviously just ensure that what's in there is accurate, particularly when I'm cross referring um
3:25:25
to proposed changes. And I think I've got it now that it is the Leslie the
3:25:30
Hawthorne. No, I haven't got it. The Hawthorne Leslie shipyard. Not there
3:25:36
wasn't somebody called Leslie Hawthorne. Two two people. So things things like that. I'm just Yeah. So that concludes
3:25:45
uh my concluding my my closing remarks. There's nothing further I need to say now or here. So I'm going to formally
3:25:50
close the hearings. Thank you very much.