1:20
Okay, it's just gone 5 3 in a test of my ability to tell the time. Apologies for
1:26
that. I think I uh struggling with the uh the 24-hour
1:31
clock. Um we're now dealing with um the first of
1:37
three matters under or three issues under matter two and uh in a logic
1:43
probably only known to myself. We're going to do issue three first because I thought it kind of fitted with the time
1:49
frame um for this afternoon. Uh and it's the issue of the amount of employment
1:55
land that will be needed or required uh over the plan period um to 2040. I think
2:01
everybody in the room has been here for the first session um today. So I'll
2:07
dispense with the usual kind of um housekeeping. Hopefully you've remembered where fire exits are etc. Um
2:15
I don't know if it's helpful at this stage both to myself and to people who will be watching uh the uh the recording
2:23
of this session Mr. Shadow even whether the council just introduces I see there's new new people at the table
2:30
whether they can introduce themselves or you can introduce them for me please. Should I start with me? So I I'm Paul
2:37
Shederevian Casey acting for the council.
2:43
I'll just uh remind everyone I'm Matt Clifford uh senior planning policy
2:49
officer. Afternoon. Ross Leico, economics
2:55
director at Lichfields. Um I led on the production of the council's employment land review.
3:04
Kate Nichols, director of planning at Luc and I led on the sustainability appraisal.
3:11
Richard Fishwick from the business investment team at the council. I uh work with businesses in South Tide to
3:16
help them grow and try and attract new businesses into the burough.
3:22
Thank you. And then for other participants, I appreciate councelor Herbert, you're here really on behalf of
3:29
uh somebody else. But just again for the purpose of this session being recorded, councelor David Herbert for the South
3:36
Tide Green Party.
3:44
Thank you for that. So in terms of this afternoon's session um what we'll be
3:50
looking at uh and covering uh obviously tomorrow we'll be looking
3:56
at the kind of the plan period uh the housing numbers but obviously an important strand of the plan is also to
4:01
provide for employment needs uh over the plan period uh which is to 2040. Uh just
4:08
a reminder to uh people listening uh and speaking at this session that the
4:14
national planning policy framework requires that sufficient provision of employment land is a strategic matter.
4:20
Uh that planning system must create the conditions uh that are going to help businesses to invest, expand and adapt.
4:27
And that planning policies should set a clear economic vision and strategy uh to positively and proactively encourage um
4:34
sustainable economic growth. both needs that are anticipated but also to have
4:39
that degree of flexibility should you know things uh needs that are not anticipated in the plan um come forward
4:47
uh we're really probably at this stage looking at policy SP2 of the plan which sets a strategy for sustainable
4:54
development in the uh burough over the next sort of 15 years uh and this
4:59
session I really want to understand uh it's point four of the policy uh and the
5:04
figure 49.41 hectares whether that's soundly based um I think it's looking at
5:11
it from kind of two perspectives firstly is that going to be sufficient and reasonable to support the economic
5:16
potential uh over the of the burough over the plan period and secondly will
5:22
it support anticipated um jobs growth uh and demand hopefully in a way that's
5:27
going to align with uh the housing uh numbers that are are planned.
5:34
um we've touched upon briefly uh as part of the previous discussion. Obviously
5:40
there is a specific role for the IMP um that's uh sort of alongside and
5:46
outside of of this plan but clearly has an influence on what the local plan um
5:53
will be doing. uh and in particular the kind of evidence base I'm having in
5:58
regard to is the employment land review u which you'll find at document EMP1
6:05
uh and the helpful employment land technical paper at um EMP2 which really does kind of helpfully set out how the
6:12
council has gone about things. So I guess my first uh question or area for
6:19
the council um looking at item uh two uh of my agenda is whether the
6:26
kind of the general approach of the plan will support um sustainable economic
6:33
growth over the plan period. So has it kind of looked at what kind of sectors
6:38
uh are potentially growing in South Tinside? What areas are potentially contracting? Whether are kind of new
6:44
markets or expanding markets that the plan should be providing uh a portfolio
6:51
of of sites um to kind of uh to help meet. does that all kind of knit
6:56
together with kind of re local uh and kind of regional um strategies
7:03
for the economy um jobs and skills. I think it's really sort of pointing to my masters issues question 211.
7:10
Yeah, I'm going to ask Mr. Fishwick to give a broad overview of the uh
7:16
quantitative and qualitative um um profile of of economic development
7:24
and activity in the bar before moving on to deal specifically with the policy and the way in which it's evolved. That's
7:30
all right.
7:37
Yes. So sorry the um you asked me to contribute in terms of the the range of
7:42
sort of sites and sectors that we're working with here. Um so the key sectors
7:49
in terms of growth that we're seeing in South Tinside is around sort of advanced manufacturing. Uh that's related to the
7:56
automotive sector and uh the offshore sectors. So we work closely with um key
8:02
stakeholders. um we can't manage key companies within the borough um and land
8:08
owners uh within South Tinside who have appropriate sites uh and try and sort of marry the the two uh two up. So they're
8:16
sort of key areas larger sort of industrial um units typically that that
8:22
occupiers are looking for. Um okay I in terms of those
8:30
u particular sectors so just picking up first the advanced manufacturing
8:35
I mean is that businesses or um aspects of that sector that wouldn't go on the
8:43
IMP or wouldn't be directed to the IMP are they businesses that are kind of affiliated and would support what is
8:52
happening in the automotive sector Yes, we see I am is for sort of very
8:57
large uh investments if you like whereas the sort of land supplier in South T side that we typically deal with is for
9:02
sort of maybe tier two tier three suppliers you don't need such large requirements so I'm aware that has a
9:08
sort of minimum requirement you need to have a certain size building to go on the AMP we see a sort of market is sort
9:14
of accommodating other uses so um existing companies looking to grow um a
9:19
new sort of supply also uh that yeah it's green energy So we're seeing sort of investment on the port of
9:24
Tai. They have a lot of the sites that are available um for investment. So we've seen the likes of Equinor or SES across the Tai not just on the south
9:31
bank but the north bank also. So we're promoting the whole the T as a whole as a location um for investment but yeah um
9:38
certainly green energy offshore. Thank you. and you sort of outline those as kind of key um sectors. Um
9:51
as I sort of go around the country doing various plan examinations I haven't yet
9:56
been to an authority this could be the first but most authorities tell me logistics and distribution is a big
10:03
sector for them or something they want to see and attract. Is that the same in South Todd or is it for you is actually
10:10
no it's we're really focusing in on advanced manufacturing and and offshore. I think in terms of economic development
10:17
uh we see the sites that we've got sort of getting the most jobs onto them and sometimes that's more manufacturing
10:22
logistics. Having said that we do attract uh logistics companies as well. Um we've got some linked to the
10:29
automotive and offshore um supply chain located in in South Tide. Uh there's an investment in JAR um taking a large unit
10:37
DHL um 100,000 square foot unit there. So logistics are an important part of that supply chain to the manufacturing
10:45
um sector. But as I say from from my point of view, economic development is trying to get the most jobs into South
10:50
Tide and often to get the most jobs manufacturing units sort of employ more
10:57
than logistics companies within South Tide.
11:05
Thank you. Um before ask further questions. Councelor Herbert,
11:10
I just like to ask about the port of Ty and the importation of wood pellets for tracks. Um the I believe the parliament
11:19
was going to renew the the contract for that for about five years. But given
11:25
it's totally unsustainable uh to produce electricity that way and produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide. I can't see
11:32
that being renewed after the five years. Is there any plans for reusing that
11:37
employment land that surely will become available in maybe five years time?
11:42
Okay, we can just detach the DRA issue because I with all due respect council her I can't recall reading that in your
11:49
represent in councelor Ford's representations.
11:55
Well, we can have Yeah, I think we can have sort of the generalities of employment land. I think the way I'd
12:02
like to pick it up if I may from what you're saying is what's happening in in terms of the port of Tine land because
12:08
from what I read I mean that's I think the way the employment land workers has
12:13
looked at that that's kind of been sort of separated out as a specific or particular kind of land use requirement
12:22
in terms of the port of time activities etc. Is that how the council's looked at
12:28
things or have I got the wrong end of the wrong stick?
12:38
Um so in terms of the employment alarm review, the the sort of the forecasting
12:43
and the demand analysis looks at the economy in the round. Um albeit some of
12:50
the supply side assessment that was undertaken by Lambert Smith who were the commercial agents um does begin to
12:59
separate out from a supply perspective the general employment from the port and river related uses.
13:06
That's more for sort of information and to understand the sort of the broader
13:12
context of provision rather than it necessarily being the case that there's a need to plan for the port and related
13:18
uses as being separate from general employment in the round.
13:36
So just uh perhaps I sort of just get my my head around that a bit more. So where
13:42
land is identified as kind of port related or port of tine related that
13:47
will be land that the port of T has control over or it's part of their wider
13:55
estate and they'll determine what happens there and it could be port or river related but it could also
14:02
fulfill a general employment land requirement if I could describe it in those terms.
14:12
Um, sorry. I think that's a a fair assessment. Um,
14:17
we want to provide the opportunity for port and river related but with an
14:23
element of flexibility built in as well. Um, that's what the portion wants. Um
14:32
so we have a separate allocation policy for
14:37
port and river related um but with an element of flexibility built into
15:02
[Music] Thank you. Um just to kind of help me complete my
15:08
picture. Um uh Mr. Fishick. So there's some sort of positive uh sides of the equation from
15:16
um the employment um perspective or from your your perspective on the employment in terms of those
15:22
sectors that are either growing or you want to see sort of continue to kind of grow and flourish um within uh within
15:29
the burough. When looking at sort of plan making and considering needs in the rounds, I think plan making needs to
15:35
also factor in whether there are sectors that are currently here but are not
15:40
particularly strongly represented or maybe the forecast or the analysis is
15:46
that those are sectors that are not perhaps got such a positive kind of
15:52
outlook over the over the plan period. This a question for you Mr. Fishery or for uh NLP to kind of
15:57
Yeah, I'm happy to take this one sir. Um so yeah I mean that's that's absolutely right in terms of the um the sort of the
16:04
modeling of requirements that's fed into the employment line review that includes a range of um scenarios five scenarios
16:12
in total to reflect a sort of variety of forecasts and techniques as required in planning practice guidance that's a
16:19
combination of um labor demand labor supply and past take up where we're
16:26
looking at the um labor demand and take up where projecting sort of net changes
16:33
in the economy. So we're not just looking at those sectors that projected to grow, but we're also looking at those
16:38
sectors that as you say may maybe sort of forecast to to contract as well and and
16:44
across the various use classes then sort of aggregating those up to arrive at a at a view as to what the overall
16:51
requirement might be. And I think just to to pick up on the point around the kind of the adequacy of provision and
16:58
the way in which we've tried to have regard to the various sectors that may um provide strong growth prospects for
17:06
South Tinside moving forward. It's probably worth being aware that the overall range of
17:12
requirements forecasts a need for and these are figures from the employment land review. So that's EMP1. I
17:19
appreciate that the figures that then flow through to the employment land technical paper are slightly different
17:24
because of some adjustments for the um change in the plan period and the
17:29
application of a a allowance for loss replacement. But in terms of the figures in the employment land review, we
17:37
identified an indicative um gross land requirement ranging from 9.65 hectares
17:44
to 33.59 hectares. And then off the back of that recommended that the authority should
17:50
look to accommodate needs of between 25 hectares and 35. So that that range
17:55
essentially aligns with the um past take up and labor supply scenarios at the
18:00
bottom end and the labor demand policy on scenario. So the sort of um IMP le
18:09
jobs growth scenario at the the top end. And I think part of the rationale for
18:15
sort of narrowing the range if you like was having regard to the need as set out in MPPF for strategies to plan
18:21
positively and proactively to um support economic growth. And in particular I
18:27
draw your attention to paragraph 7.45 of the employment line review EMP1 which
18:33
provides a little bit more sort of narrative to as to the kind of thought process underpinning that. So three key
18:41
points if you like. First of all, the baseline labor demand scenarios were
18:46
discounted on the basis that they were deemed um insufficient to proactively support a sustainable growth. that was
18:54
underpinned by fairly strong and clear feedback from a variety of stakeholders
19:00
that they felt that that those levels of need risk constraint in the economy of Southside but also those scenarios are
19:07
are policy neutral. Um so they don't factor in the potential uplift in the supply chain associated with amp offsite
19:15
and also they generate a a land requirement that falls below past take up. So again, it didn't feel as if they
19:22
um recognized the potential to deliver a kind of step change in performance off the back of um and other opportunities.
19:30
Second key point is um that they also recognized the need to meet as a minimum
19:35
the land needs associated with housing growth under the labor supply scenario. And then thirdly and kind of
19:41
particularly relevant to the sort of sectoral point it was acknowledged that scenarios three
19:46
and four. So the policy on labor demand scenario and the labor supply scenario
19:52
included the greatest levels of industrial demand and that was considered to be
19:58
particularly important in um reflecting the likely sectoral demand or the key
20:03
drivers of of growth in Southside. picking up on you know clear feedback
20:08
from stakeholders on the growth potential of advanced manufacturing and offjaw which Mr. Fishwick has has spoken
20:14
to that's also reflected in the council's um economic assessment as well
20:20
which is EMP4. It also recognized that um past
20:27
employment trends have generally indicated that the historic contraction
20:33
in industrial has started to sort of slow a little as well.
21:11
Thank you. We'll we'll come on to the scenarios I think in a bit more detail um shortly under um other areas on the
21:19
agenda, but appreciate that kind of um overview at um at this stage. I mean in
21:26
terms of again picking up the point around uh flexibility and ensuring
21:32
there's going to be a degree positive and kind of reasonable degree
21:37
of supply plus trying to anticipate you know what sort of buffer you need for kind of um unanticipated needs. I think
21:44
you mentioned there about obviously you looked at kind of various scenarios um paraphrase but kind of generally
21:51
going towards the top end of those um scenarios but then been sort of further adjustments if I I understand it. I
21:57
think you pointed me to the employment land topic paper. Is this where we're sort of looking at kind of the
22:04
additional allowance is it two years for kind of to to accommodate or make factor
22:11
in a degree that kind of this churn does exist within components to um explain
22:17
the difference between the um requirement in the employment law review and then the um requirement the
22:23
authority are planning for through the local plan. First thing to point out in
22:28
relation to the um sort two-year safety margin that that that is actually sort of baked into all of the figures
22:34
presented in the employment land review. So the um the recommendation to plan for
22:39
25 to 35 hectares includes that two years and as set out in the employment land review that's essentially
22:46
designed to provide an additional buffer for delays in development allow for
22:51
potential uncertainties in the forecasting process and um provide a reasonable choice of sites to developers
22:58
and occupiers. In addition to that, as we sort of step away from the employment land review
23:04
figures and towards the um employment land technical paper figures, the local
23:10
authority has taken a policy decision to add a loss replacement allowance
23:18
at a um 25% allowance. Um so that's essentially to
23:25
try and guard against the erosion of um employment land over a period of time
23:31
whilst recognizing that it's not appropriate to replace all losses because some of that just reflects kind
23:37
of natural restructuring of the of the economy and so on. And then then the final adjustment which isn't kind of uh
23:44
relevant to flexibility but in moving from the employment land review to the employment land technical paper there's
23:49
been a slight um change in the period that's covered which means that there's
23:54
been some kind of pre-ordering of the um of the numbers
24:15
And in terms of that kind of 25% I'll call it an allowance in terms of loss um
24:21
replacement um is that something that could be
24:26
described is um reasonable. Um I mean looking through
24:32
the employment land uh evidence and sort of past trends, certain sites clearly
24:37
have gone um lost to other other uses including residential
24:43
um is that a is that 25% figure
24:49
say reasonable or grounded in the evidence? Yeah, absolutely. So paragraph 7.26 26
24:56
of the employment lamb review um essentially sort of sets out the um the thought process behind uh identifying
25:04
25% as a sort of potentially suitable allowance and and that takes into
25:09
account a range of factors. So one is the scale of difference between net and gross take up rates in the burough um
25:17
which the loss is sort of arguably indicates the planning for a high level replacement could overstate future needs
25:23
because there has been quite a lot of loss there. Um the second is the fact that historic losses have been driven by
25:28
residential development on windfall sites rather than the delivery of sort of complimentary uses on uh industrial
25:35
estates. So things like uh gyms, food outlets and so on, crashes.
25:40
And the third was um advice from Lambert Smith who suggested that losses of in
25:47
recent years focused on old industrial complexes in inner urban areas or 1960s
25:52
office blocks um that no longer meet the needs of modern businesses. And as a
25:57
result, there's perhaps less of an imperative to sort of allow for their replacement. but but also LSH of advis
26:04
that fewer of those sites remain currently. So again, probably less of a need to sort of plan for um future
26:10
replacement.
26:21
Thank you. And on the issue of kind of planning for sufficient kind of employment land on the one one hand it's
26:27
a quantitative kind of exercise um
26:32
refer to all leading to the kind of the various scenarios as you say that reflected in planning guidance.
26:39
There's probably also a qualitative dimension or a spatial dimension. We'll
26:44
come on to the plan's overall spatial strategy but it's it struck me as sort of quite telling sort of reading through
26:50
the evidence. It's repeated in various places that the employment land portfolio
26:58
um notwithstanding the IMP and some other um examples including where we are
27:03
um today as a business park close to the A19 but a lot of the remaining employment land is to the north of the
27:09
burough close to the river. Um is this again we'll come on to the
27:16
spatial um strategy but various people are sort of making the observations well would it be better
27:23
uh in terms of meeting employment needs to be looking at alternative
27:29
sites in alternative locations as opposed to what I think the council itself recognizes is a I think a
27:36
geographically tight supply um in the north of the burough.
27:42
close to the river.
27:49
As you state, sir, we have acknowledged in the employment land technical paper that there is what you might term
27:58
an imbalance in the spatial distribution. uh in that
28:04
in the north of the burough the supply
28:09
um is where our existing portfolio of land is.
28:15
Um there is stronger demand around the southwest of
28:22
the burough where the strategic road network uh is at its densest.
28:29
So we acknowledge there's evidence of a qualitative need and the evidence from the employment
28:37
land review and from our own
28:42
economic development team is that that would likely to take the form of a of a
28:48
new business park. Um however
28:54
um and we acknowledge that in a purely commercial context you know the
29:00
southwest of the burough i.e. close to the would be the logical location for
29:05
that and that would uh improve the prospects of achieving the upper bound requirement of the council's preferred
29:12
scenario. However, as set out in the green belt
29:18
exceptional circumstances paper, the council concluded that there are not
29:24
exceptional circumstances to justify the scale of green belt release that would
29:29
be required because it would be quite substantial. Um, also as set out in table 15 summary
29:37
of site assessments in the employment land technical paper, there would be other substantial hurdles to overcome.
29:45
National highways would have concerns, for example, regarding the allocation of a new
29:51
business park close to the strategic road network, potentially issues around land
29:57
availability. Council would also point out that figure
30:02
2.1 of the IMP employment land position statement shows a clustering of activity
30:10
in South Tinside and Sunland. um
30:15
where there are business needs where business needs to be close to the AMP
30:21
and it also shows the supply chain is located throughout the region.
30:28
So this illustrates that while sites close to are likely to be preferred,
30:34
supply chain businesses will consider alternative locations where necessary.
30:42
So the council is looking to work within the grain of
30:47
the existing supply to ensure can attract opportunities as
30:53
and when they emerge. And
30:58
I think you've heard from Richard that there there are sites elsewhere in South Townside which are still attractive to
31:05
modern occupiers. Um, I'd also point out that we do have a
31:12
policy in the plan. Um, I think it's policy 23 which
31:18
provides some flexibility for employment sites to come forward
31:23
that are not identified in the plan. I appreciate that it's within the context
31:28
of the main urban area. Um so um so
31:34
there is it wouldn't be a green belt release.
31:40
So we feel that the strategy is an appropriate balance and doesn't unacceptably constrain the local
31:47
economy.
31:52
If I could just add please um from an economic development point of view you're still seeing inquiries for land
31:57
in the north. So, it's not to say it's all about the the south of the burough. Uh particularly around the port. Um
32:04
we're aware of um a couple of companies at the moment um working with land owners and agents and developers uh that
32:11
there is interest and things about to be signed for development in the north on some of those sites uh moving forward.
32:22
If I might just add as well. So um in terms of this idea that um other parts
32:28
of the burough are still capable of attracting interest from those key sectors, you might want to turn your
32:36
attention to the uh local economic assessment pages
32:45
14 and 15, which essentially has two sort of um focus pieces on the offshore wind supply
32:53
chain. and the advanced manufacturing supply chain and and and shows where the sort of clusters of existing businesses
32:59
in those sectors are located currently. And that that does show significant levels of activity in the south around
33:06
kind of Monton and Balden where we do accept there is is is strong demand but it does also show that there are a
33:12
number of businesses operating in the likes of Heb and Jarro. So not as kind of clearcut as um you know
33:20
sites in the in in the north being sort of holy unattractive to those those industrial sectors.
33:55
Thank you. I've just got two um brief questions uh in response to the
34:01
council's response to my matters issues. Question 211. It's at paragraph 239 of
34:06
the statement. I just wanted to be clear in terms of the uh flood risk at Port of
34:13
Tine. Is that does that then have a ramification for the any of the figures in the plan that need to kind of be
34:20
tracked through in terms of that reduced area? Um the short answer is yes. But we have
34:29
proposed a modification to address that and it's a fairly modest reduction.
34:59
Thank you. And then second point is rel related to
35:04
I think this is in the employment land uh technical paper this kind of figure of the 25 hectares for a
35:11
new business park um and as whether there were kind of alternative options.
35:18
Did it need was that did it need that kind of 25 20 or 20 to 25 hectares for
35:24
kind of critical mass or could that be kind of divided down into I don't know four four
35:32
sites of five to seven hectares. We we've taken the advice of our
35:38
business development team and also the views that were expressed
35:43
through the workshop for the employment land review stakeholders
35:50
that a critical mass would be very important for viability. And so when we
35:55
conducted the site search exercise which is detailed in the employment land technical paper, we did have a minimum
36:02
site area site threshold of 20 hectares. So that is the that is the view that we
36:08
took.
36:26
Thank you. Um I'm going to move on to MIQ 212.
36:32
Um in terms of um
36:39
the point we raised uh earlier this afternoon in terms of this kind of separating out the IMP uh from general
36:48
uh employment um needs and whether that's a kind of a a justified approach.
36:53
I've obviously heard this afternoon there uh it's not as clear-cut as that because there will be the supply chain
36:59
um uh issues but um I think you say uh
37:06
Sunderland Council have no issue or taken no issue with that approach. So I think they presumably adopted similar
37:14
in relation to their plan making.
37:22
Yes, that's correct. Um, there is that separation.
37:28
It's confirmed in the statement of common ground that it's a it's an approach by
37:36
both councils. Um and the methodological approach in
37:42
the South Tinside employment land review is consistent with the one which underpins Sunland's city council's
37:49
adopted core strategy and development plan um which has been tested at examination in public and accepted by
37:56
the planning inspector at that time.
38:02
But as I stated earlier, the needs of the IAMP are planned through the AAP,
38:07
not the local plan. So it was not the purpose of the ELR to justify the employment space requirements of the
38:13
IMP. And this has already been subject to its own evidence base and found sound.
38:21
And also as I stated earlier, whilst the IAP AAP was adopted in 2017,
38:28
a review was undertaken by both councils as required by national policy in 2022
38:34
just before work on the employment land review commenced and that review concluded that the policies remained
38:41
effective and up to date.
38:47
In July 2024,
38:52
South Tinside Council and Sunland City Council published a new regulation 18 draft of the AAP and this progressed to
38:59
a regulation 19 consultation in spring 2025. And the new AAP seeks to ensure that the
39:07
plan is aligned to the designation of parts of the site
39:12
as part of a new northeast investment zone.
39:19
The revised plan proposes to amend the definition for principal uses to ensure
39:24
consistency with the key sectors which the investment zone is designated to.
39:31
However, the proposal to limit development to the principal uses will continue to apply. Therefore, the clear
39:37
distinction between the site and the general employment areas would continue to remain in place.
39:45
So the council considers that whilst the is clearly an important asset to both of
39:51
the council's administrative area it straddles the is properly understood as being
39:58
primarily a regional economic asset providing the region with a supply of land for the specialist uses designated
40:05
as the principal uses
40:10
and as also stated earlier the council has proposed modification ations which clarify the relationship of the to the
40:17
PL.
40:24
Thank you. So linking to the um
40:29
the AMP um I think in terms of what was referred to me earlier as tier two and tier three kind of supply chain issues.
40:37
We come back to uh item four on my agenda. So in terms of the reasonleness
40:42
I was taking earlier through the kind of the various five scenarios that the employment land review um looked at uh
40:50
it's uh a lighted on uh scenario three which is the policy on uh labor demand
40:58
um scenario I think I've asked question about strategy that earlier around what's
41:04
what's happened in relation to kind of past trends uh and the evidence or been pointed to
41:09
kind of the evidence base to show where development is clustering not necessarily close to the um um close to
41:16
the IMP but overall it is obviously the highest kind of jobs
41:22
uh kind of figure um uh that's uh identified through the employment land
41:28
uh review work uh and whether that poses any kind of
41:33
risks around uh when you look at that against the um
41:40
uh the the kind of the job supply from the new homes whe there's going to be a
41:45
potential disconnect or whether there are other issues that the plan is trying to address or needs to address. What
41:53
I've looked there is whether there's for example there's particular unemployment issues or as the kind of strong evidence
42:01
around kind of outcomuting is the council looking to kind of retain and or
42:07
upskill kind of employment um within within the burough. I think it's kind of
42:12
going for sort of a very positive and strong jobs figure can be positive on the one hand, but is there any kind of
42:19
potential side effects that we need the plan needs to be sort of cognizant of or we need to be aware of
42:27
or am I being overly concerned about uh well I point out sir that the
42:35
um the requirement produced by the policy on labor demand scenario IO
42:42
complements the connected to jobs, skills and learning key ambition in the
42:48
South Tinside vision and council strategy. So
42:55
in terms of broader council strategies, the scenario will contribute to
43:00
addressing issues such as uh needs
43:06
regarding the relationship to housing growth. Sunland City Council and South
43:11
Tinside Council's IAMP impact studies housing topic paper
43:17
uh forecast the scale of local housing requirements likely to be generated by
43:22
IAMP. So to be clear, I think this was part of the IMP evidence base. The report suggested that at least 90%
43:29
of potential amp workers are already projected to be living in the northeast
43:36
based on analysis of advanced manufacturing parks elsewhere with the majority of employees originating from
43:44
the primary area of influence. In terms of the point you make about outcommuting, I think in general
43:51
strategy terms, yes, we we would like to reduce outcomuting and um
43:59
that's uh something I think obviously it works as well in the terms of uh
44:04
sustainable travel trends.
44:12
Sir, if I can just come in there. I think I think there are essentially sort of three three parts of the question on
44:17
there. What one of which is perhaps better um dealt with by Mr. Clifford, Mr. M Mr. Fishwick, but I think we've we
44:23
sort of touched on it already in terms of the um process that's the council has
44:29
gone through in order to try and identify sites in the south of the um the burough and and as you say the um
44:35
the potential for other locations to potentially play a role in accommodating
44:40
growth. So, if we can set that aside, unless Mr. Clifford, Mr. Fishwick have anything to add. I think there's one on
44:46
past trends. Um, and if you go to table 7.5 of the employment land review, so
44:53
EMP1, I believe that that essentially sets out the sort
44:58
of the indicative gross land requirements identified under the various modeled scenarios. that shows a
45:05
requirement of 33.59 hectares under the policy on labor demand scenario. So accounting for the
45:12
potential to capture growth from the IM supply chain
45:18
that compares to a figure of 26.20 hectares if the authority was to
45:25
continue to plan for demand on the basis of past rates of net take up. So there is an uplift there. Um and and one that
45:33
you know sort of reflects that opportunity to capture wider um economic
45:38
opportunities but but but I would suggest that it's it's not a kind of
45:43
unrealistic or unachievable um scale of uplift.
45:49
The second point and this builds on what Mr. Clifford was saying in terms of the sort of relationship between
45:56
housing growth strategy and um employment growth strategy and
46:01
what I would say is my my kind of remit has been to sort of author the employment land review that's clearly
46:07
part of the sort of the evidence for the authority to sort of take into account in in development a strategy. And so
46:13
there's a better place to to kind of speak to the the precise sort of logic for the um the two strategies. But if we
46:21
set that aside again, table 7.5 of the employment land review shows the gross
46:26
land requirements and you can see from that that the sort of labor supply scenario
46:32
results in a need for 25.78 hectares. So essentially what we're saying is in order to provide enough jobs to meet the
46:39
population growth that's anticipated under the the um level of housing growth
46:45
associated with the standard method. We'd need 25.78 hectares. We're
46:51
obviously planning more planning for more than that. Um the council's taking a decision to plan for 33.59
46:58
in terms of the employment land scenario. And I guess what that suggests that is that the number of jobs to be
47:03
created locally will exceed the needs associated with
47:09
local housing or population growth. And I guess what that then means in terms of
47:14
how that plays out in the economy. There are two potential sort of impacts I guess. One one is it could very likely
47:22
reduce outcomuting um because we'd held commuting rates constant within our labor supply scenario.
47:31
But a reduction in in out commuting actually would not necessarily be a bad thing for for South Tinside. The data
47:37
that feeds into the employment alarm review in the baseline section shows that there was a net net outflow on a
47:42
daily basis from South Tinside of more than 13,000 residents commuting to work
47:48
elsewhere. So you know reversing that would would potentially be a positive.
47:54
out migration and a a sort of low job density were also flagged as key challenges for the burough within the
47:59
council's economic assessment and then the second potential impact is around
48:04
possibly reducing unemployment and again within the sort of local context that
48:11
I would argue would be a a a good thing. The latest annual population survey data for January 24 to December 24 shows that
48:20
modelbased unemployment in South Tinside stood at 5.7% which is higher than the northeast at
48:26
4.5% and higher than Great Britain at 3.8%.
48:45
Thank thank you for for that. In terms of
48:52
um yeah I guess it's I guess it's kind of
48:58
the uh the flip side of this. I've asked it of MIQ 214. Conversely, whilst I've uh on
49:06
the one hand asked a question about is this presenting particular risks around um imbalance of jobs and homes, uh it
49:15
affected it being too positive a strategy. Uh conversely,
49:20
for those who've made representations on the plan, this could be potentially too restrictive
49:26
uh an approach. Um, council's answered my um, MIQ um, 214 uh, on this. I think
49:36
identified sort of various factors. I think Mr. Clifford's referred to some of them already in terms of potential
49:42
highway capacity. We obviously got green belt um um considerations but I don't
49:48
know from uh NLP's perspective when looking at the employment land review
49:53
work and particularly with sort of engaging with uh kind of various business forums or
50:00
local businesses or the the the Northeast uh local enterprise
50:06
partnership where there's any kind of signals that actually
50:11
plan making potentially should be even more uh positive or aggressive on kind
50:18
of employment land um release. I think from a a sort of quantitative perspective um there's been no sort of
50:25
feedback to uh to indicate that we uh went through a sort of extensive process
50:31
of engagement to inform the employment land review. that included um business surveys. It included one-to- ones with a
50:36
a host of sort of key economic development stakeholders and it included a um sort of workshop session that was
50:43
attended by local authority officers from the surrounding districts. It
50:49
included um local commercial agents, developers and and and so on. And I I
50:55
believe that the the sort of general consensus as part of that session was that the less ambitious scenarios, the
51:02
baseline labor demand scenarios should be discounted. But there was a general sense that a sort of a requirement in
51:10
that order of sort of 25 to 35 hectares was was probably sort of sensible.
51:22
Thank you. I appreciate we'll come on to look at um spatial strategy tomorrow and
51:30
uh the approach to green belt uh on th Thursday.
51:36
Yep. Um, in terms of the overall approach to employment land, when I look at the the
51:43
evidence, it appears to me that um, roughly, if I call it what's available,
51:48
uh, what the employment land review is kind of determined is kind of suitable and available for uh, employment uses
51:57
broadly align or is not far off from um,
52:02
uh, the various kind of forecasting. uh and in this case the plan has then
52:10
built in some additionality or flexibility uh in essence through the wardly collery
52:17
site and we'll come on to that and deal with that in more detail uh specifically
52:22
on Friday this week uh as part of the strategy but just mindful councelor Herbert and from think what the green
52:28
party was saying I think they've got from reading your representations there some you don't think it's the sound
52:35
approach to have kind of built in this this flexibility in at that particular
52:40
location. We'll we'll deal with the location in in more detail in due course. But is there anything further
52:47
you want to say about in terms of the approach of say building in some flexibility
52:53
through this additional land release?
52:59
um question. Yeah, you might need your microphone. Y
53:06
so if I read out what her notes were. So put my council for hat on
53:14
saying the answer to the question was uh the plan is not justified by the evidence base sustainability appraisal
53:20
report saw notes that the local plan has increased the amount of land required for employment from the draft 18 reg uh
53:29
local plan. It notes that the level of employment growth underpinning this is high in a
53:35
context of past trends. The S states that the draft 18 reg's
53:43
preferred scenario for employment land requirements was the baseline demand
53:48
scenario and the reason for given the employment land technical paper 2022
53:54
whether that the council recognized the constraints placed by the green belt and
54:00
the very high value placed on this resource by local communities. The S states that the regulation 19
54:06
draft plan the council has instead used the the policy in an labor demand
54:12
scenario. The 2023 employment land technical paper explains that the level of employment
54:18
growth underpinning scenario seeks to capture the impact of on the general
54:23
employment market. However, the SAR notes that this level of employment growth is high in the
54:30
context of context of past trends. The S also notes that the negative
54:36
impact that is the preferred option has on employment land
54:41
in 4.26. However, negative effects were recorded against a number of environmental objectives reflect the
54:48
impact of the high economic growth could have upon the environment due to proximity ex of existing designations
54:56
and increased impacts on natural resources. Potential impacts on biodiversity and wildlife corridors.
55:03
This level of growth is also likely to acquire land from the green belt to facilitate the growth aspirations.
55:10
This objective however scores negatively against objectives four green belt and
55:15
objective five green infrastructure due to potential impacts on the green infrastructure corridor.
55:23
Thank you. I wonder if that leads us into u message question 215 and um
55:32
the approach that the sustainability appraisal has taken. I think I heard from NLP a moment ago. I don't know
55:39
whether scenarios one one and two are kind of almost unreasonable
55:45
um options because that the kind of the market was kind of indicating no we
55:50
don't think that's going to be suitable u or whether SA sorry sustainability
55:56
appraisal still looked at the full gamut of kind of uh uh land uh employment land
56:05
requirement options as kind of reasonable to test and picking up councelor Herbert's kind of commentary
56:11
that probably inevitably when you look at some of these uh options they will score negatively against some uh
56:19
objectives uh positive against others. I just wonder for for my benefit and for
56:26
others how sustainability appraisal has looked at the kind of various options for the amount of employment land.
56:32
Yes. So um originally back in 2016 when the council was undertaking sustainability appraisal work in house
56:39
there were three um options that were considered at that point a high medium and low growth option that were subject
56:45
to appraisal. Um and then in 2019 the new ELR had produced revised options
56:52
which were then subject to essay in the 2019 essay report.
56:57
Potentially with hindsight that may not have been strictly necessary. It may be quite possible to justify for the
57:04
reasons spoken about that actually they aren't necessarily reasonable but by the
57:09
by being precautionary they were subject to essay um and that work was followed through
57:16
into the later essay reports um and is presented in chapter four of the submitted essay report although those
57:23
options were later updated um I think in 2022 they were the figures were very
57:30
much still in the same ballpark as the options that were appraised because the thing about um looking at quantum
57:36
options through SA in terms of both employment and housing. Um it's not really an exact science. I'm sure you're
57:42
aware there's not sort of necessarily a carrying capacity that's defined or a threshold figure after which we can say
57:49
okay there'll be significant negative effects. It's much more about the um the comparison I suppose and the differences
57:56
between the scale of options that are being considered. Um and because of the
58:01
nature of essay um it's it's necessarily quite a high level appraisal looking at
58:06
very much the principle of more or less growth. So our view was that the
58:12
appraisal findings for those very slightly different figures were very much valid and still represented an appraisal of the options as they stood
58:19
then. But presumably the uh part of the role of a sustainability appraisal could be
58:25
to point out if even at that high level it might point you to think about soundness of plans. You're looking at an
58:32
appropriate strategy and a number of things could be an appropriate strategy but presumably sustainability appraisal
58:37
can maybe set off some alarm bells that definitely not going to be or that's
58:42
very likely not to be an an appropriate strategy. But you've still got a pool of
58:48
reasonable options that might score differently in different ways, but all
58:53
of them are in one shape or another potentially part of an appropriate strategy.
58:59
Exactly. I mean, in to put it in very sort of crude terms, in general, more
59:04
development, a higher growth figure through the SA will see more negative effects on the sort of
59:11
environmental topics that we need to look at as have has been pointed out. um and perhaps more benefits on the social
59:18
and economic topics. And if you're looking at a lower growth scenario, then that would would flip and something in
59:25
the middle might be a bit more of a balance between those things. the essay um in relation to any of the topic areas
59:31
being considered doesn't sort of um throw out an instruction to plan makers
59:37
that this is what you must take forward. But as you say, it can highlight actually, you know, if we're looking at
59:42
a higher growth figure, these are some of the issues that might need to be taken into account. But there's a limit to the level of detail that the
59:48
appraisal can go into based on sort of a blunt growth figure because obviously it depends hugely on the specific sites
59:55
that are taken forward, their distribution and and other factors.
1:00:03
I'm going to park kind of specific discussion around wardly the wardly collery um site till uh certainly for
1:00:11
Friday but I suspect it will come up as part of the discussion just in general terms around exceptional circumstances
1:00:18
on Thursday but just in sort of broad terms and it's Mr. Clifford or um I
1:00:24
forgotten your name from NLP
1:00:34
Okay, thank you. Um the kind of the rationale just in economic terms for the
1:00:40
wardly collery site is it kind of giving you further flexibility in the supply?
1:00:46
Is it to point to some of these issues we've talked about about employment land
1:00:51
being well related to the strategic road network closer to the IMP just
1:01:00
so some sort of the general headline kind of it does provide additional flexibility
1:01:08
that flexibility however is principally probably in relation to the B2 use
1:01:14
class. Um it benefits from proximity
1:01:20
to the strategic road network. One thing which did come through the
1:01:26
employment land review was um you know a demand for B2.
1:01:34
Originally the site was promoted by the owners of the site or on their behalf.
1:01:41
uh they no longer intend to develop the site themselves, but they're still promoting it for employment and believe
1:01:50
their intention is to market it subject to it being confirmed as allocated in
1:01:55
the plan. Um, so I think there is a it does meet a
1:02:02
need, but I wouldn't in all honesty say that there's a particularly strong relationship with the IM in relation to
1:02:08
that, but it does provide additional flexibility in general employment terms.
1:02:21
Thank you. And then just finally from me for this afternoon if we haven't talked about the AMP enough and I appreciate
1:02:27
I'm not examining the the AMP and this is uh this is your own separate uh local
1:02:33
plan. Nonetheless, thinking about the policy uh sorry scenario three the policy on uh trying to sort of
1:02:40
capitalize on the wider economic benefits of the um the in terms of
1:02:46
supply chain and other kind of activities that are linked to that. uh
1:02:51
and whether that's an appropriate and kind of justified um strategy
1:02:57
obviously that's relying on it seems to my mind the I am happening and being
1:03:02
delivered I've been to the site I've seen various obviously things are happening I don't know if the council
1:03:08
was just able to just provide a brief overview in response it was my MIQ216
1:03:14
how that's going what's potentially sort of coming and what kind of confidence you can or that
1:03:22
you know policy scenario three is kind of justified because the IMP is is
1:03:30
happening. It's a it's a local and and a regional priority.
1:03:35
Well, I think the first thing to point out in terms of it being a local and regional priority
1:03:42
is that our employment evidence base really does acknowledge that both the local
1:03:48
economic assessment which identifies
1:03:53
uh advanced manufacturing as a key sectoral strength and also the employment lamb review.
1:04:00
Whilst it obviously isn't part of the evidence base, I am as such it does recognize its significance.
1:04:08
Um, in terms of evidence
1:04:13
of delivery, both councils are confident of the ongoing success of the IMP and
1:04:22
committed to preparing a new area action plan for the area.
1:04:28
Um, one of the reasons that the AAP is being reviewed is to ensure
1:04:34
it's in line with the recently announced northeast investment zone
1:04:41
and to improve the flexibility of the document to make the most of any new inward investment
1:04:48
opportunities. And I would point out in relation to that in terms of fiscal incentives
1:04:58
that in terms of the northeast investment zone the forms part of I
1:05:03
think it's called the strategic uh international advanced manufacturing area and that has fiscal incentives
1:05:10
associated with it to encourage investment.
1:05:17
The regulation 19 I am barrier action plan was accompanied by an infrastructure delivery plan and table
1:05:24
two of that document details the infrastructure provided or under
1:05:30
construction since the adoption of the existing IM
1:05:37
and the infrastructure delivery schedule table three provides a description of the known infrastructure required as
1:05:43
well as the as well as a tabular list of infrastructure requirements. irements.
1:05:54
Both councils are continuing to engage positively with infrastructure providers
1:05:59
and other stakeholders in order to ensure delivery of the strategic infrastructure in a timely and effective
1:06:06
manner. The IMP
1:06:12
AAP employment land position statement addendum tables one and two identifies
1:06:18
the amount of employment floor space completed and consented since the AAP was adopted in 2017.
1:06:28
There's no land remaining for development within phase one which is
1:06:34
within the Sunland boundary of the scheme. So that's been fully committed.
1:06:39
Uh and we're now working on implementing road and power infrastructure to open up
1:06:45
phase two which is predominantly within the southside boundary. We continue to
1:06:51
take inquiries in relation to this.
1:06:58
So I think it's uh I don't think that there's any doubt in the council's mind that I am will be
1:07:06
delivered. Just to add to that sir in terms of the
1:07:12
um package of fiscal benefits that uh Mr. Clifford referred to I don't know if it's worth just sort of running through
1:07:18
those for your benefit and the benefit of others. Um, so
1:07:25
businesses located at the IM are essentially eligible for a range of incentives including stamp duty land tax
1:07:32
relief, national insurance contributions relief, enhanced capital allowances, enhanced structures and buildings
1:07:38
allowance and business rates relief. So there's a fairly significant package of um, incentives there which Mr. Mr.
1:07:44
Fishwig might be sort of better placed than than I to take your view on from a sort of inward investment perspective, but it seems to me that um that has
1:07:51
every every prospect of making that a very very appealing proposition just on
1:07:56
sort of scale of development as well. Section five of the I am AAP update
1:08:03
paper. The um addendum Sunland City Council addendum to that has a section
1:08:09
that provides quite a helpful sort of summary in terms of the overall scale of activity. It's as of October 2023. So a
1:08:16
little bit dated, but I think it does give a a sense of the sort of momentum that's already been sort of achieved and
1:08:22
is gathering there. So at that point in time there was um 480,000 square foot of
1:08:30
floor space already developed. Planning consents in place for another 3.1 million square foot and then another
1:08:39
application was anticipated by the authority for an electric vehicle manu
1:08:44
battery manufacturing and packing facility which was expected to account for another 1.9 million square foot of
1:08:49
floor space.
1:09:01
Thank you councelor Herbert.
1:09:07
In answer to question 216
1:09:12
answer is no. The IMP draft area action plan for 2024 acknowledges that there has been a considerable shift in
1:09:19
economic context since the existing AAP was originally prepared and adopted and
1:09:26
that the existing IMP A is primary focused on space for the automotive and
1:09:32
advanced manufacturing sector. Whilst these are still considered to be principal areas of operation for the IM,
1:09:38
the nature of economic change since the adoption of the AAP in 2017 has changed
1:09:44
and is considered that there's there are new market opportunities within the green manufacturing and clean energy
1:09:50
sector which would be complimentary to the existing offer in the IA. These
1:09:55
would be consistent with sectors identified within northeast investment zone. The draft AAP allows us that the
1:10:03
jobs density in some of these buildings are lower than was originally envisaged when establishing the existing AAP.
1:10:15
Okay. I've well I I've not got no sort of
1:10:22
further questions myself on that. I mean is there anything there that the council wanted to pick up or come back on? um
1:10:32
sort of just mindful there's obviously the existing area action plan the principal uses that are there at the
1:10:38
moment. I'm sort of cautious about speculating too much about what might or
1:10:43
might not um and obviously I'm mindful the the
1:10:48
work that sits behind this local plan. It's obviously reflective of the air
1:10:54
action plan as currently exists and what's anticipated to take place on that site as part of
1:10:59
the principle um principal uses. So I'm not unless the
1:11:05
council's got or its consultants got anything. No, I don't think we've got anything further to add. Um I mean it's a key and
1:11:12
principal driver. Um and um um the
1:11:18
emerging plan predicates its importance. just for my benefit in terms of accuracy
1:11:24
of reporting and all those sort of things that I'll need to worry about after I've sat here. So the the local
1:11:32
enterprise partnership is now is that now part of the northeast combined
1:11:37
authority NECA? Yeah.
1:11:47
And just so I'm absolutely clear on this point in terms obviously there's a factual I'm I'm going to describe it as
1:11:53
a factual situation with the port of Tine and a slightly reduced
1:11:58
land area in relation to flood risk. Uh just want to be clear where I track
1:12:05
through a potential modification. Is that something the council's already put to me or is that something I need to kind of work out mathematically myself
1:12:12
by taking 0.9 hectares off? I think we can do that for you.
1:12:18
I was going to say you you're Yes, we'll review that and come back. Okay.
1:12:23
Um through Mbpini. Thank you. And that'll potentially be a modification to policy SP2 in terms of
1:12:30
the overall headline figure. Yeah. Okay. I'll make a note of
1:12:37
that is an action that's kind of in the in the ether. Okay.
1:12:44
Thank you. Is there anything further people wish to say in relation to the amount of employment land being uh
1:12:52
provided for as part of this this plan? No.
1:12:59
Sorry. Put a hand up. Well, uh, I appreciate
1:13:05
you're not at the table and I appreciate you came into the meeting. I hadn't anticipated anybody else for this
1:13:10
session other than the Green Party. So, I'm going to have to decline that uh
1:13:16
that offer of a offer of a question. Thank you everybody for your um contributions and assistance this
1:13:22
afternoon. That's been very helpful. I'm going to adjourn for today uh and I anticipate seeing some of you again
1:13:28
tomorrow morning at 9:30 where we pick up the rest of matter 2 on plan period
1:13:35
and housing need in the morning and then looking at the sort of broad special strategy in the afternoon. Okay. Thank
1:13:41
you.