0:00
discussion uh so that we can kind of hear uh what's what's going on. So
0:05
hopefully everybody's here this afternoon for matter three of these examination hearings. This is looking at
0:10
the spatial strategy within the plan that's presented at policy SP3. So this
0:16
is looking at broadly the pattern and distribution of development within the plan area over the plan period uh in a
0:24
way that's designed or intended to meet the development needs which we've been discussing over previous um sessions.
0:32
Um, for those of you who weren't here yesterday, uh, I have visited the
0:38
burough. I've been to the various kind of locations, uh, sites, etc. that are
0:43
being proposed as part of this plan, but also to kind of see the burough more generally. So, I do have an
0:49
appreciation. It's a relatively geographically compact burough. We've obviously got the main urban area uh to
0:55
the north of the burough uh to the south of the river Tine and then obviously the settlements of the Baldens, Caden, and
1:01
Whitburn. All three of which are in large part surrounded if not exclusively
1:07
by the green belt which applies to most if not all of the undeveloped land outside of the main urban area. And then
1:14
also as part of the kind of considerations for this ma for this matter is also a recognition although
1:20
it's not part of this plan that we have the international advanced man manufacturing park area in the southwest
1:27
of the burough. I think when I'm looking at this spatial strategy issue just by way of introduction and kind of
1:33
headlines, I think the things that I'm going to have has to be having it sort of bearing in mind is whether the plan
1:40
has kind of made the optimal potential of uh suitable land within the main
1:45
urban area. Uh and ultimately as we'll come on to tomorrow will green
1:51
belt um alter are there exceptional circumstances for green belt alteration
1:56
if there's not capacity within the main urban area is it appropriate and is the next logical step to kind of look at
2:02
areas adjoining the main urban area as part of a a sound spatial strategy.
2:09
Uh thirdly, if we're looking at areas adjacent to the main urban area, is it
2:14
the appropriate strategy to look at a large single um uh sustainable uh development
2:23
location? Uh and were the choices uh around that? And then fourthly uh how
2:31
much and broadly how should development be distributed uh to the uh the three
2:36
villages uh generally to the south of the burough? Should the plan be directing more or less to those
2:42
locations? And are there particular factors or reasons which would shape uh
2:48
the amount of development that should be uh accommodated within uh the Baldens,
2:53
Cleon and Whitburn. As part of this part of consideration of
2:58
soundness in my mind one of the key tests will be is it justified and that means is it an appropriate strategy. It
3:05
doesn't mean it has to be the most appropriate strategy. There may have been relatively finely balanced choices
3:11
as part of the assessment process but nonetheless is what's presented in the plan uh and appropriate um strategy. So
3:20
that's my sort of broad introduction and overview um to this session. As I say,
3:26
we're going to follow uh the agenda that I've previously uh published and had circulated about a week ago to kind of
3:33
frame this discussion. It ties back to the matters and issues questions that I've previously uh published. Uh so
3:41
there's a a framework and link um back to those. But can I just ask at this
3:47
stage before we get into the discussion, are there any questions around the mechanics or how these hearing sessions
3:53
work? No. Okay. Then if I can invite people to
4:00
uh pick up from uh my agenda and I think my first question will be to the council. I appreciate when you're
4:05
looking at uh plan making you're not necessarily starting with a blank piece of paper. There will be various factors
4:11
characteristics of the area that will shape and influence what the spatial strategy um
4:20
could look like. Uh so I think picking up my mass in issues question 3.1
4:27
does does the proposed spatial strategy in uh policy SP3
4:33
uh appropriately kind of reflect the nature of the burough and the types of settlements that you've got and the kind
4:39
of potential choices that you had as plan makers.
4:44
Yes, no problem. Um yes I think uh the council's approach to the spatial strategy uh has been informed by the the
4:52
nature and the characteristics and the existing setal pattern within the burough. Um as you've just described
4:57
there in introduction the burough is a fairly compact um area with the main
5:03
urban area uh to the north of the burough and then the three villages to the south with the green belt wrapping
5:08
around those. Um the I think the overall approach in terms of the SPAT strategy
5:14
was basically um in accordance with the MPPPF in terms of um particularly paragraph 11A um the need to make the
5:22
most efficient use of resources and also paragraph uh 19 119 120 sorry where um
5:29
it states plan policy should make as much use as possible previously developed land and give substantial weight to use suitable brownfield land.
5:38
Now obviously that was sort prioritized in the main urban area and criterion one
5:44
of SP3 seeks to promote sustainable patterns of development supporting growth in the main town centers of South
5:51
Shields Heben and Jarro. Um these areas support uh the majority of the
5:56
residential and employment areas in Southside. So it seemed appropriate that that's where we should be directing
6:03
growth in the first instance. Um picking up on SP3 as well. So criterion three
6:09
and six also relate to maximizing brownfield land and increasing densities. Um and those are supported by
6:18
um two key evidence papers that we produce the the density paper and also the efficient land use paper which sets
6:24
out how we've tried to maximize uh brownfield opportunities within the brown um urban area as well.
6:33
I think it's also important to acknowledge that our spatial strategy is also reflective of the availability of
6:39
sites that was available within the main urban area and that's been informed through our schlar and site selection
6:45
process which has led onto the identification of exceptional circumstances for for green belt release
6:52
um and that's acknowledged um within the sporting text of SP3 as well which sets out the the the limitations in terms of
7:01
site availability ility in terms of how that relates to the spatial strategy.
7:06
Um with regard to the identification of sustainable growth areas which you've identified around each of the villages
7:12
and also the the large scale green belt release at Falgate um the council's um
7:18
MIQ response sets out how the character and the nature of the bur has been taken into account through the evidence base
7:25
um extensive evidence base um which has looked at various constraints and designations across the burough um which
7:31
has helped inform that process um and also through the sustainability appraisal and the identification of
7:37
sustainability issues which is obviously informed by baseline information specifically relating to the bearer.
7:45
And we've set out um in our response to to question 3.6 what the spatial
7:50
distribution actually is in terms of percentages in terms of where that growth has gone.
7:59
Thank you. And in terms of the response to MIQ 3.6 that's factoring in because I'm mindful there's a proportion of what
8:06
the plan is seeking to deliver is already kind of consented or understood. Um and then obviously there are
8:13
allocations on top of that. So the answer to MIQ 3.6 picks up both in terms
8:18
of the overall is it just the allocations? It
8:23
yes it takes up both. Yes.
8:29
Thank you. Can I just check is everybody comfortable with the temperature in the room?
8:34
Because I I think the air I'm struggling to hear with the air con.
8:42
If we turn the air conditioning off and open the door,
8:51
it won't be as hot as it might be in here. Thank you.
8:59
Okay, thank you for that. If I can just bring in um MIQ 3.2 as well for the
9:07
council at this stage and then I will we'll open out to others. I think in terms of the council's kind of set out
9:13
there some of the factors that have shaped um the spatial strategy uh in
9:18
policy uh SP3 as part of plan making were there kind of reasonable alternative strategy
9:25
options? I think when I look back at the sustainability appraisal do appear that you have looked at are there alternative
9:32
ways in which we could accommodate our development needs and have you kind of
9:38
looked at reasonable kind of alternatives.
9:47
Yes. So just to give an overview the um the sustainability appraisal work in relation to the spatial strategy options
9:54
has been undertaken iteratively throughout the course of the plan making process. Um back in 2019 when the
10:01
council was undertaking the sustainability appraisal work. Um four options were identified which was urban
10:08
area growth only. So no green belt release um urban area growth and large
10:14
scale green belt release or urban area growth and more dispersed green belt release. And there was a fourth option
10:21
of um neighboring authorities taking some of the need which meant that green belt release wasn't necessary but that
10:26
was not considered to be reasonable. So wasn't subject to appraisal. So those options were considered through the
10:32
essay at the time. Um after that partly in relation to responses received
10:38
through the consultation um an additional option was identified which was um I suppose a little bit of a
10:45
hybrid almost of two of those which involved looking at urban area growth um with a large scale green belt release
10:51
and some additional green belt smaller green belt releases of varying sizes. So they were um as I say a bit of a hybrid
10:59
option. Um but that was also appraised at that point to make sure that all the alternatives had been considered.
11:15
Thank you. So just uh I think I've seen those four alternatives and you say then the fifth one was kind of um introduced.
11:22
They've all been looked at on a comparable kind of basis in a similar level of detail.
11:29
They have um when the fifth option was identified that was after the point that Luc had taken over the sustainability
11:35
appraisal work for the council. So it was an opportunity not just to kind of bolt on um an appraisal a few of years
11:40
later of that additional option but we reviewed and refreshed the appraisal of all the options comparatively um at that
11:47
time. So they were all appraised in the same level of detail.
11:53
So from the council's perspective because I'm mindful there are people around the room who would say a
11:59
reasonable alternative or the preferred strategy should be to just look at you know just focus on the main urban area
12:05
only um accommodate as much as we can within that part of the burough. that was one
12:12
of the kind of alternatives that you looked at but for various reasons through sustainability appraisal and for
12:19
other other factors it's not emerged as the preferred option but nonetheless
12:25
it's something you carefully looked at it was looked at my understanding is
12:31
that it wouldn't be able to meet the housing figure so arguably it may not even have been reasonable but on a
12:38
precautionary basis it was appraised and the appraisal findings reflect that actually it might not enable housing to
12:44
be delivered at the scale that's required.
12:53
Thank you. And and in terms of consistency, in terms of the options that were looked at, the main urban area
13:00
I presume was always looking at some form of capacity or um ability of the
13:07
main urban area to accommodate something was a kind of a consistent within the kind of the the various options. It's
13:13
not something you'd kind of discount or or or ignore.
13:19
Uh yes, that's correct. there was an urban area element to all of the options that were considered and there's a table
13:24
in the essay report table 4.8 which um sets out the sort of indicative
13:30
distribution of housing um at the urban area versus the green belt under all um
13:36
of the the four options that were appraised
13:48
and table 4.6 six in the sustainability appraisal report sets out um the reasons
13:54
why um at 2019 plan making stage the um options were selected or rejected. Um
14:01
and that same information is provided in table 4.10 um for the um more recent
14:11
version of the plan.
14:19
Thank you. And I think you you mentioned a moment ago, but just so that I fully uh appreciate it and and record it
14:27
myself. So for the uh an option around neighboring authorities accommodating
14:33
some of the needs that wasn't a reasonable kind of option given the evidence that had been provided that
14:40
they were unable to uh assist southside in terms of any unmet needs.
14:49
Uh yes that's correct. Um obviously as we discussed yesterday and show through the duty to cooperate um sort of
14:55
correspondence with our neighboring authorities had taken place throughout the plan meeting process and in each stage it was self identified that they
15:01
weren't able to take our needs and that is reflected in sustainability appraisal.
15:09
Thank you. And I'll open up at this stage for anybody who's kind of um got
15:15
comments or has made submissions in terms of the general approach to uh the
15:20
spatial strategy. I appreciate there are various people around the table who do think uh more could have been made of
15:27
the kind of development within the main urban area. So, Jarro, Heburn, South Shields um before looking at uh other uh
15:35
other options. Um we'll come on to that in a bit more detail tomorrow when we're looking at the green belt issue. But as
15:41
a general approach and kind of strategy uh as a kind of a reasonable
15:48
or I think in some people's view that should have been the preferred strategy and way forward. So I'll invite Mr.
15:54
Green first on behalf of the save fellgate working group. Yeah. Thanks. Uh yeah, again I know we
16:01
were discussing uh Roman H yesterday uh and again I've been looking through the the sustainability appraisal report uh
16:09
you know and is issues related with you know Roman house has got a slight flood risk uh you know is in the main Jarro
16:16
area and uh there's a current there's going to be a six million pound refurbishment within the Jarro uh town
16:23
center uh which would you know if the build was to take place the majority of the
16:28
on Roman H uh would provide footfall without travel uh in and it would
16:34
enhance the Gerald shopping center. Uh and I was also listening in in this
16:39
morning, you know, the the uh feed wasn't too bad this morning. Uh it was just issues again related to the Felgate
16:46
Green Belt which we'll go into depth in another, you know, in the next uh sitting. Uh and I think it was Mr. M if
16:52
I can mention uh you know you mentioned that the you know southside has got a lower house bills there's not much being
16:59
built around the area within the felgate green belts uh 4 mile radius I was going
17:05
through this this morning there's been a mass of house building within the local area now the problems that we're trying
17:11
to highlight is the fact that the infrastructure at the moment cannot cope with this influx of house builds uh you
17:18
know I could name that I would appreciate actually if the council could come up with the this if you could request it uh of the amount of sheer
17:25
house bills that went into that area. Uh now again the problem I have is with
17:32
this this will go back to North Thumbland water as well the infrastructure I simply can't quote which I I feel that Roman hash should
17:39
still be the main alternative to the to the main build you know it should be
17:44
yeah thank you for that I mean I think I indicated this morning we will want to
17:52
look in more detail as part of stage two around
17:57
what's currently in the housing pipeline and going to contribute to the housing trajectory in terms of some of the
18:02
consented sites and then how the allocations uh subject to what I reflect on as part
18:08
of these stage one hearings then further contribute to that. So I think um at
18:13
this stage u Mr. Green I'm not going to request that list necessarily at this stage from the council. I think it'll
18:20
invariably form one of my matters issues and questions for stage two. So I'm going to part that for now and we will
18:27
we will come back to it. I mean just on the general approach to the strategy. I mean the council's saying it's looked at
18:34
the main urban area. It then worked out from that to say if we can't do
18:39
everything in the main urban area and I appreciate there's a a disagreement about uh particularly the Roman uh site.
18:46
It would then look at sites adjacent to the main urban area as the kind of the next kind of sequence
18:55
uh and then look at uh in a combination uh sites in uh some of the uh uh the
19:01
village settlements in the south of the burough. I mean is there a is there a fundament is the fundamental point from
19:08
your working group and for others Mr. green is you know for plan making it should just have stopped at looking in
19:14
the main urban area and if you can't do it there you know that's where you draw the line and
19:20
that's that's the strategy you try and do as just what you can do in the main urban area. Yeah, I just think that the
19:26
burden has been put on on Felgate, you know, because it is, you know, in a way it is ideally situated because it's got
19:32
the relevance, you know, it's got masses of road infrastructure around. It's got the A184, got the A194, the A19, but the
19:40
problem is, you know, and we will discuss this, you know, in future sittings. Uh, it's over capacity at the
19:46
moment, which, you know, we will provide evidence. but did provide evidence yesterday and I think what they're trying to do is just put it on that site
19:53
uh without taking into consideration the the problems that we already have.
19:59
Thank you. I'm going to come on to this very shortly in terms of the next um or probably the next couple of agenda
20:05
items, but just on this kind of general approach and whether the council's
20:10
striking the right kind of balance between reflecting there as certain characteristics, certain factors it had
20:18
it took into account in terms of the the nature of the burough um that led and
20:23
kind of form part of the kind of the the uh the evidence for the strategy that
20:29
it's it's come up with whether that's justified and appropriate. So is it Mr. Hutcherson next for the East Ben forum
20:36
please? Yes, thank you sir. Um the comments that I'd like to make are primarily in
20:43
relation to MIQ 3.1 which um deals with the nature characteristics and
20:48
settlement pattern in South Tide. Um, we would argue, the forum would
20:54
argue that policy SP3 and SP32 in particular hasn't been positively
21:00
prepared to deliver sustainable development, particularly in the East Balden area. And we have a proposal for
21:08
263 houses at site G82, um, land at North Farm. And we talked
21:15
this morning about the 202 homes at Cleon Lane which are now subject to
21:21
appeal and m may or may not be approved. There's also been uh a scheme for nine
21:29
homes at the former Mayfair Glass site which has had planning permission for over two years now. If all of those
21:36
sites come into being that'll represent a 26% increase in the number of houses
21:41
in the village. Um that's 474 houses in total which will have a a very
21:48
significant effect on all of the different types of infrastructure whether that's transport um social
21:55
medical infrastructure in the village and that will have a significant effect on the distinctive character of the
22:02
village which has its own conservation area. Um I can go into more detail about
22:10
the nature of the village with its Victorian infrastructure and the conservation area. Um the traffic
22:17
capacity assessment has already shown that if site GA2 goes ahead that would
22:23
contribute significant additional capacity to the A194 Bokea lane junction
22:29
which is already been shown to be over capacity at evening peaks and also at the Sunderland Road station road
22:35
junction. uh the A184B1229.
22:40
Um in relation to policy SP34,
22:47
we would contend that that policy is not justified as it's based on outofdate evidence and the exceptional
22:54
circumstances case to amend the green belt to enable uh progression of site
23:00
GA2 has not been made. Um, we gave a response to Mic to to question 2.3 this
23:06
morning. This was considered by the independent examiner for the East Balden neighborhood forum, the East Balden
23:13
neighborhood plan, um who considered that it was appropriate to retain the green belt around the village in order
23:20
to meet the the identified h the specific identified housing need in the
23:26
plan area and that could be provided by the 202 houses at Cleven Lane which may
23:34
or may not go ahead. Now, thank you. Just to assist me, I mean,
23:41
I've kind of introduced as part of this session, I refer to them as the Baldens now and then you refer to the village
23:47
and I'm your mean East Bald in particular. I mean, is just for my benefit and uh
23:53
accuracy uh particular when reporting him is the Baldens not an appropriate term? Should I be making a clear
24:00
distinction between there? There are three distinct element to the Baldens. We have East Balden
24:07
which is the initial rural farming community. Um then West Balden which
24:14
again was a distinct community going back to historic times and there's still
24:20
a a fairly narrow separation between the two and then there's Balden Collure which again is a separate community. Um,
24:28
East Balden is part of the Cleon and East Balden local authority ward council
24:34
ward. Uh, West Balden and Balden Collurey part of the Gen Balden Collery ward. So there is another separation
24:41
there. I'm going to hear from uh other people
24:46
to my immediate um left and then I'll come back round um to others. So I think
24:52
I'm going to hear I'm going to invite Mr. Butler next and then councelor Herbert.
25:00
Uh thank thank you sir. Uh clean this bord labor party uh made representations
25:06
uh at regulation 19 in regard to SP3 and particularly to SP 3.2 and 3.4 and to
25:15
echo really uh the points that Mr. Hutcherson has just made in terms of the impact uh of the proposed spatial
25:24
strategy on the villages. And I'd like to expand that by obviously referring to Cleon as well, which as he's just said
25:31
is within uh the ward that my organization uh is is
25:38
in involved with. In addition to the um proposal at um GA2, we have the proposal
25:44
at GA um three the north of Town and Farm which is to the south of West
25:50
Balden and we have the proposal at um uh Mor Lane CDN and uh the cumulative
25:59
impact of those three uh settlements would bring 733 new homes in or
26:06
adjoining the ward. Um and as a result of that we believe that uh that does not
26:13
deliver a sustainable development in the villages of Cleon and East Balden. And also we believe uh that the um evidence
26:22
used to justify uh the exceptional circumstances case has not been made for those reasons. And of course we're going
26:29
to come on to discuss that in more detail in your later questions and also tomorrow on green belt and the issues
26:36
relating to the importance of green belt particularly to to residents of the villages is a factor that has to be
26:41
weighed up when looking at the distinctiveness and character of the village. Thank you
26:47
councelor Herbert please. Actually Mr. Butler's said a lot about I was going to say about Clean Village in
26:53
particular uh and both East Ben as distinct settlements, ancient
26:59
settlements, both were conservation areas, both were highly valued by the
27:04
people live there and part of that is the fact that semi- rural feel to the the area with a green belt wrapped
27:11
around it. Now that the green belt has been gradually eroded over the years. Uh so now is the time to say we need to
27:18
keep that green belt because there's not a great distance between Caden village and Sunderland East Band and the
27:25
Baldens. So really we need to maintain that green belt feel otherwise we will
27:31
be lost forever really and we've seen that the the housing figures that include green belt development have been
27:38
over overeed. It's too many too many houses not required. So we they don't
27:44
need to go to green belt. Thank you. If I can bring in others. Uh
27:49
I'll start with Mr. Excuse me, Mr. Martin first.
27:55
Thank you, sir. um refer really to our hearing statement in the fact that
28:03
in my mind there's a there's a degree of logic to the spatial strategy that's been chosen by the council. If anything,
28:10
I'd say the assumptions they've made for accommodating in the main urban area are
28:16
probably optimistic because the density report that's been used to inform that
28:23
is based on planning applications that were submitted previously before matters like statutory BNG that sort of thing
28:30
has come in which has squeezed net to gross ratios on sites even more. Um
28:38
so my view is there's a strategy there's a degree of logic in looking at the urban area and then um also looking at
28:46
sort of the villages to the south. But um my point is more about there's a a
28:52
difference between looking at it in theory and looking at it in practice and
28:58
how it works. And the issue I think there is is the urban areas are the
29:03
areas with the lower residential values arguably the least or lesser desirable
29:10
places to uh to live in in the burough. Um and therefore they have the highest
29:16
val v vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi viability challenges in terms of being able to deliver the homes. The concern
29:22
from my point of view is that the plan looks good on paper and
29:27
there's, you know, plenty of homes allocated in around the urban area, but then in reality
29:34
few years down the line, does some do do these get delivered because of the viability issues? and therefore is there
29:40
merit in looking um to additional sites in more deliverable areas of the burough
29:47
to almost act as a bit of a safeguard against housing numbers falling. Um I
29:53
think there's merit in looking at that. Um and I think that's been that's been detailed in my my representations to
30:00
date. Thank you. So if I understand you correctly, Mr. starting
30:05
the council might sort of broadly be in the right area but it could be a different balance and a different kind
30:12
of distribution as to where where development goes.
30:18
Yes, I think that's correct. And I think it's it's as I said, I think if anything, they've overestimated
30:24
what could be done in the urban area. And I think because of the net to growth ratio point, but also because of the
30:29
viability point, um we've obviously I know viability is a separate session and
30:34
we've put in our representations and concerns we have on some of the assumptions used in the plan viability assessment. Um but it feeds into the the
30:42
strategy
30:48
Thank you, Mr. Smith. Your name plate is Is it Mr. Morton? It is. Sorry.
30:55
Thank you, sir. Um, I just wanted to go back to the point about um spatial
31:00
option one and only providing housing in the main urban area. Um,
31:06
the council might be able to put me right on the figures, but my calculations were if you only developed
31:13
in the main urban area, that would leave a shortfall of 2,253
31:18
houses. Um so that's you know only developing in the in the urban area and
31:24
that's against what we discussed this morning the bare minimum housing need um
31:30
standard method housing need which arguably should be higher. Um in my
31:35
opinion that wouldn't result in a positively prepared um strategy and would be unsound.
31:47
Thank you. I mean I hear the points about um whether beneath the kind of the
31:54
uh I think you described it as the kind of theoretical approach Mr. Martin of kind of way you distribute developments
32:01
the kind of the practicalities but does it nonetheless remain I don't know if the council can assist me on this point that most of the services the employment
32:08
within the burough transport connections are in the north
32:15
uh and to the west of the burough uh within the sort of the main urban area
32:21
yes that's correct um I think um there's the carbon ordered paper that was
32:26
produced which identifies areas, services and accessibility, public transport and some of the conclusions of
32:32
that paper is to the the most accessible um sort of areas are generally to the
32:37
north and the west of the burough which is the main urban area itself.
32:43
Thank you. Is that is that the climate analysis? Is it the audit paper? Yeah, the carbon audit paper.
32:57
never recall that's a couple of year at least a couple of years old now. Has anything significantly changed within
33:03
the the burough since that paper was produced in terms of the distribution of
33:10
services public transport that would kind of affect the findings of that
33:15
report? No, it remains pretty much the same as it was when that was undertaken which would been 2022
33:22
I think that check the exact date but it was
33:28
yeah but 2020 but we'll we'll double check it was around that period.
33:41
Okay, thank you for that. Sorry, councelor Herbert, you're just not quite I'm sort of I'm
33:49
looking so apologies. I'm I'm falling into a
33:54
kind of a Yeah. So obviously the the best option
34:01
would be to build in urban areas uh for sustainability and to comply with MPPPF
34:08
paragraph 1.141A that states that the plan must make as much use as possible as suitable
34:14
brownfield sites and underutilized land. Now in many town centers there's under
34:21
underutilized land such as South Shields Town Center where previously developed land has been used for car parking and
34:29
rather than housing. So there's an area west of Fowler Street
34:34
which fits that bill. Quite a large area owned by the council uh so it would be
34:40
easy to bring it forward. There's only 75 dwellings are included for the sites in that area H4 and H5.
34:47
There's a vacant Harton Key office building previously occupied by BT which
34:52
is now proposed to be converted into student accommodation for South Timeside College as it moves into the town
34:58
center. This would release a previously designated site for student accommodation which was a central
35:04
library which has already got permission for building some apartments there
35:10
originally for students but now could be redesated say for elderly people who
35:16
want to live in that sort of accommodation in that sort of location near the town center.
35:25
There's various brownfield sites across South Tside within the main main urban area which have been rejected and which
35:32
for for for reasons which are no longer valid. Eg the former park hotel site at
35:38
Lower Road which is now designated for 15 apartments. So there's a a patent
35:44
building in South Shields Town Center of buildings being converted. The old
35:49
Bartlet Bank and the adjacent building are being converted into flats for people to move into. This is course
35:56
against the demand thing that Mr. Martin's talking about. These are being these places are in demand now. people
36:02
want to move back into the town center especially as we identified that we need
36:07
for single person accommodation where it's affordable hopefully and then
36:14
can then be near infrastructure not far from the South Shields transport
36:21
hub the metro station the bus station all the shops and all amenities are there near the coast near the river so I
36:30
think that's a very high valued part of area.
36:35
There's also the uh former Brownfield site at Hart and Key, the former ST
36:40
house that's been derelct for for decades, cleared, left open. Nothing's
36:46
nothing's done with it. It's just been left. That would be highly desirable area. It's right next to the ferry station, the new Hallbborne Development,
36:54
Customs House. So there is areas that haven't been identified in the plan that
37:00
were suitable for housing. I think I'm I'm keen to probably draw
37:07
some sort of line today because I will want to come on to that tomorrow under matter
37:12
for when we look at green belt and exceptional circumstances uh around sites that people think
37:20
could have been. Yeah. So it takes a lot of boxes high density. But I think I take I take your point. I think your rebuttal to Mr. Martin and to
37:26
others is there is a capacity within the urban area and there's a uh signs of kind of market further market demand in
37:33
that location. I don't know that's prompted Mr. Martin to the names up from
37:38
previous or yeah it was more the previous I don't think we we should mistake the fact that
37:46
there are lots of services and facilities in the main urban area. It doesn't mean there aren't any in the
37:52
likes of East Balden. For instance, for for instance, East Balden has a metro station itself. It has bus links. It has
37:58
shops. Um, so it's not like it doesn't have any facilities to accommodate any
38:03
any growth. Um, and there's also a need for looking not
38:08
just at things like apartments and urban areas, but there is a need for family housing in the burough for um reduc for
38:16
increasing working age population, young families, etc. Well, I do want to come on separately to
38:21
East Balden, further items of the agenda. I think that's probably the appropriate point to put there because I think there are divergent views on
38:28
whether East Balden should have a greater or reduced role than what's currently in the plan. So, we'll pick that up then.
38:34
Uh, very briefly, Mr. Green, because I want to move on to probably an area that you are interested in.
38:40
Sorry. It's it's just basically uh I think the main problem here there is a lot of and
38:46
I'm just uh you know going on what the council has just says I think the problem here is that the main focus has
38:52
been putting one mass of housing onto one area and brownfield sites within
38:59
urban areas have been discounted you know within urban areas and outside of urban areas because if you look at the
39:04
schlaw I believe it's now changed to the schmoz it is that right somebody says no so it's it's a it's uh you know it's
39:12
discounted a mass load of brownfield sites you know with issues maybe you know they've got slightly flooding and I
39:18
think that you know the plan's unound in that it's failed to you know go go back
39:24
and revisit those brownfield sites particularly the ones in the urban areas uh and and I go back to you know I think
39:31
I disagree with the houses for family in this area there's an abundance of executive homes
39:38
that builds you know executive homes on on the Falgate Green Belt and probably other green belts, you know, they say 1,200, I believe it's a lot more than
39:45
that. I think it goes to about 3,000. Uh, but I think it it's with all the
39:51
with all the houses that are empty as well. I believe that was mentioned this morning. I think they've all been it
39:57
hasn't been taken to account and I think the council need to go back and revisit the whole package and see exactly where
40:02
the housing's needed. Thank you. I don't know about other people. I'm finding the rooms now
40:08
getting quite warm. Um, please make yourself comfortable, but I think we're gonna have to relent and
40:14
have the air air conditioning back on again. Um, I'm not getting much draft
40:20
and I'm probably in a prime position. So, uh, I just encourage people to be
40:26
closer to the microphone and and speak up and I'll probably include myself um, within that.
40:31
We still got a lot of ground to cover so I want to sort of move forward with uh, a bit of pace now and it's item three.
40:39
Sorry, can people settle settle down? Sorry, trying to um
40:45
item three of the agenda. I mean, obviously as part of the uh the the spatial strategy is to look at a a large
40:53
single strategic growth area um which is obviously uh the Felgate um location. I
41:01
just want to understand from the council kind of two two aspects really. Uh
41:09
firstly is that kind of uh strategic approach of putting a lot of development
41:16
or significant proportion of the plans development needs into one location a
41:21
sustainable uh approach in the south uh tinside
41:26
context. And when you were looking, if you'd kind of arrived at the view, yes, we need to be looking at a large
41:33
strategic site for a variety of reasons. Was Felgate the only reasonable option
41:39
or were there other kind of potential alternatives available to the burough?
41:46
Okay. Uh yes, so the council does consider a large uh strategic green belt release is an appropriate strategy for
41:52
the plan in terms of meeting our needs. Um our response um to question 3.3 sets
41:58
out um how why we think that it is appropriate in terms of the MBPF
42:03
paragraph 73 and that it is supported by infrastructure facilities um again as
42:10
mentioned earlier um referring to the the S tide coret audit um work which was
42:15
done for us um which um in table 4.1 um oh I I'll come back to table 4.1
42:22
sorry um in terms of whether felgate was the only um option which was
42:29
considered. Um so moving on to that um
42:34
it was set out in the um sustainability appraisal in 2019 um so document pre46
42:41
um that the council undertook an area of search um to identify um a suitable area
42:47
for a large scale green belt release. Um so in that um in that um essay report we
42:55
identified five areas of search across the the burough. Um and that is set out
43:00
in appendix F of that document. Um the we the five areas that were identified
43:06
was land south of Marsden, land south of Bitic Hall, land south of Felgate, land
43:12
south of the Baldens and land west of Whitburn. In summary, um, which is again set out
43:18
in appendix F of option three, the land south of Fellgate was identified as
43:24
being the most suitable site in terms of a large scale green belt release. um that was because of um taken into a
43:32
number of constraints which were considered ins appendix F which I'll
43:37
just sort of run through some of the the considerations which were taken into account um which was purposes of the
43:45
green belt landscape and townscape biodiversity historic environment
43:51
flooding and green infrastructure impacts taking those factors into account option three was the most
43:58
suitable as it seemed to have the least least amount of constraints and compared to the other areas of search which were
44:04
considered in that pro progress. So from that point the land south of Fgate was
44:10
considered to be the most suitable area for a large scale green belt release within the bar and that was carried forward through the various
44:16
sustainability appraisal um options following that.
44:21
And in terms of those kind of options Mrs. Lam were they presented at an earlier stage of a regulation 18 or has
44:29
there been a kind of a consistency that having done initial assessment appraisal work kind of felgate has been
44:37
the kind of the front runner when looking at a an option for a large single kind of strategic site.
44:45
Yes. So they were presented as part of the the sustainability appraisal for the the first regulation 18 that we done
44:50
back in 2019. Um at that point Felgate was not included as a large scale green
44:57
belt release. Um Felgate was included at the second regulation 18 in 2022
45:03
which followed the um addition of the fifth spatial strategy which was um
45:09
which Miss Nichols has mentioned uh previously in terms of looking at the spatial options for the burough.
45:18
Thank you. And some might say and have put forward in representations. Well, the alternative is instead of putting going for a large single strategic site,
45:26
why doesn't the plan go for more dispersal you spread over you more sites? Um, that would be the way to kind
45:33
of deliver things. Um going back to previous kind of spatial
45:40
strategy options, did the council look at kind of a the alternative of kind of
45:45
what would more disper you more dispersed approach potentially mean? Uh
45:50
particularly if there are potentially advantages around going for you a large
45:56
single strategic site.
46:01
Uh so yes, that was one of the options that was appraised. Um and as I said, I
46:07
think it's table 4.10 details the council's reasons why um the option that
46:12
was taken forward was selected.
46:20
Um also just to add um we considered that option four does have a dispersed
46:26
approach to that and I think the
46:32
that the conclusions through the sustainability appraisal would probably result in a very similar outcome
46:37
depending on if if you consider more dispersed approach in terms of green belt releases. I think in terms of the
46:44
the effects would still be similar to that what is set out within that option.
46:52
Just to add to that, um, yes, that option four, um, did not perform well,
46:58
um, in the sustainability appraisal. I think in sustainability terms, there's
47:04
possibly a bit of a sort of tradeoff between the likely environmental effects of of green belt release and perhaps
47:11
some of the um, sustainability benefits of focusing development in the urban area. And um that option was almost a
47:19
kind of worst of both worlds in the SA term because you're um you've got the uh
47:25
the green belt release, but because it's more dispersed, you haven't got some of the advantages that come with the large scale development in terms of what you
47:31
can deliver as a a large scale sustainable settlement. So it didn't perform well in essay terms.
47:45
Thank you. So in terms of the council's uh approach to spatial strategy,
47:51
obviously policy SP3 is where we kind of introduced at point five to the Felgate
47:57
sustainable growth area first up in the spatial strategy. Obviously we come on to look at the detail
48:04
around that but um Mr. green in terms of the overall strategy if the council's as
48:10
it says is looking at a large strategic site it's looked at alternatives
48:15
but has nonetheless identified felgate as the preferred option the kind of
48:21
again again I have to question the validity the validity of the local plan uh you know I highlighted yesterday in
48:28
the uh the wait I grab it the s sustainability appraisal report that the
48:34
reports from the council that highlight Felgate as the big development that I want once are
48:40
incorrect. uh you know initially up till yesterday until I'd read this report uh what
48:46
actually felgate was down as flood risk no flood risk 0% of floods uh surface
48:52
water which we'll come on with to later on with you know the the Northland water
48:57
uh and it's it's actually in this report it's on three in 3B where there should
49:03
have been a further risk assessment carried out and we did pick up on this yesterday and you know I've been going
49:10
through it again today And there's a lot of different reasons which the council haven't come up with. Uh you know it's
49:16
it's the Felgate flood is in 3A3B not in uh one or 1A. Uh it's close proximity to
49:23
local wildlife sites. I mean if you look up uh 5.21 on the sustainability appraisal report
49:31
there's a there's a massive areas which have been missed by South Council. And whether that's convenience or not, you
49:37
know, I have me, you know, I suspect uh but it's just been it it hasn't been
49:43
looked at correctly and I think that that's you know it places a local plan. I don't think it's fit for purpose
49:49
particularly in relation to the the fel what they're going to do at the fiery green belt.
49:54
Thank you. I think I said yesterday I do want to check back myself those specific references at paragraph 521 of the
50:01
sustainability appraisal. I think there are various land parcels referenced and they may well be that they're not in the
50:07
actually identified uh preferred site allocation but I just
50:13
want to make check through myself Mr. Green. Yeah. Could I just come in on a
50:18
brief thing? Instead of just going for 521, can you go 522, 524, 525,
50:25
uh 526? Uh because the all go against the reasoning for the council building
50:31
on the Felgate Green Belt. Uh it's it amounts to it's it's fabricated, you
50:38
know, the reports are fabricated. Okay. I think I think we need to just
50:43
perhaps be slightly careful what we say. It may be that you you've got a different view or judgment, Mr. Green,
50:50
in terms of how those sites have been looked at or or appraised rather than inferring that the council's kind of
50:56
made things up uh through or the LU have kind of say fabricated. I'm not sure
51:01
that's really what we should be saying. Yeah. Um for others in terms of this approach
51:08
that the plan's putting forward of a a single large strategic site I mean I'm sort of mindful on the one hand the MPPF
51:15
says that this is uh a way that you can deliver significant growth in a sustainable way.
51:22
I think on the flip side of the coin are those who saying well on that might be the case on the one hand but on the
51:29
other hand you got to think about delivery uh and meeting the development needs in the most sustainable way. Uh
51:36
are there any further views people want to bring in on the this part of the the spatial strategy before we look at the
51:42
detail of Felgate next week? Mr. Morton please. Thank you sir. Um I just wanted to go to
51:50
table um 4.9 in the sustainability appraisal. Um um lady from LUC um
52:00
mentioned earlier that option four which is the dispersed strategy um was poorly performing and and that is the case. Um
52:08
it's of all the of all the spatial options assessed. Um it gets one, two,
52:14
three, four, five, six reds, um and two greens, which is
52:22
sort of the worst performing option. Um option three, which is a single green
52:28
belt release, is arguably the best performing option. Um it gets one red um
52:35
and four greens. That's not to say that we don't support option five, but it does underline in sustainability terms
52:42
the benefit of a of a large site. Just going back to paragraph 73 of the MPPF.
52:50
So, not only is a large site an appropriate strategy, national policy
52:55
clearly references it as it can be the best strategy um not not just appropriate. Um the point was made
53:03
earlier um that the main services are in the north and the west um of the of the
53:09
of the burough. Um Felgate adjoins that area. Um it's well served by public
53:17
transport as we'll come on to. So providing large scale housing in that location is clearly a sustainable
53:24
option. Thank you Mr. Hutchinson please.
53:35
Thank you. Um can I comment first of all on the question of a large strategic site and I
53:43
make these comments without particular reference to to Felgate I uh I add but
53:50
we from East Ben forum feel that um in principle a large strategic site would
53:56
give the capacity needed to enable the provision of essential supporting infrastructure such as roads, schools,
54:04
health and community facilities. ities which aren't possible in some of the smaller sites and particularly in the um
54:12
the surrounding villages using using our own village of East Balden as an example. Um so you know to to create a
54:21
sustainable community to us the logic is a large strategic site is preferable to
54:28
um to further dispersal dispersal around the uh the villages areas. I think with
54:36
specific reference to East Balden, um other than the site G82 at North Farm,
54:43
which is in the the current plan under consideration, in previous versions of
54:48
the local plan, the council has already ruled out other potential green sites around the village um for a range of
54:55
reasons. All of those sites must add conflict with the uh the policies
55:01
included in the East Bold neighborhood plan.
55:07
Thank you. If there no further points in relation to kind of just the general principle of including a large strategic
55:15
site within a uh a spatial strategy for South Dide, I'm going to move on uh in
55:21
terms of the agenda. Uh I did have next down as item for
55:26
employment. I appreciate we we touched upon this quite a bit yesterday afternoon, but I think given who's in
55:32
the room at the moment and what probably need to cover, I'm going to do I'm going to put employment back in the agenda.
55:40
Um, we're going to move on to I I will pick it up before we close, but um I'm
55:46
going to stick on to u item agenda five, which will take us through to six and
55:52
seven. I did indicate we will have a a mid-after afternoon of German at half past 3. People have already discussed
55:58
and touched upon this and it's whether the plan is justified and positively prepared in looking at uh a role for the
56:06
Baldens, Cleen and Whitburn uh as identifying them as sustainable locations uh for housing delivery
56:14
and I've asked sort of posed the question are there factors which indicate these settlements should have a
56:19
a reduced role and as part of that I want to specifically pick up under agenda item seven uh the issue of
56:27
wastewater uh capacity. Conversely, I do know and appreciate and have read that those who
56:34
consider that those three locations should have a greater role in accommodating development over the plan
56:40
uh period which was my mass issues question 3.7
56:45
um for various reasons that have been identified I think already as part of this discussion around you know
56:50
viability deliverability um etc. just to start the discussion and to just
56:59
um look at this particular part of the
57:05
spatial strategy uh when the council was considering policy uh SP3 and the role for the
57:13
Baldens, Cleon and Whitburn. I mean, do they are they similar? I've been to these settlements, but I want to get the
57:18
council's view on this. Are they similar settlements? Uh are some got more
57:24
sustainability credentials than others and is that then reflected
57:30
in the broad kind of distribution of development to those um particular
57:36
communities uh in terms of the amount of growth that's been assigned to them as
57:41
we come on to some of the the specific sites? Yes. Um I think I'd like to draw
57:46
attention to table 4.5 which is in the uh sustainability appraisal. Uh this
57:52
table shows a sustainability overview of the villages within South Tinside and it
57:59
looks at Cleon, Whipburn and Bowens in individually and provides a sort of an
58:05
overview of um services and distance to town centers um and other facilities
58:12
that each of the settlements have. Um I think you'll be able to see from there that in terms of size, proximity to to
58:19
town centers um and provision services each village does
58:25
are fairly equal in terms of the services that they have. Um and I think
58:30
that's that was that assessment was undertaken fairly early in the the plan preparation process and therefore we've
58:37
been able to consider the three areas as equally um throughout the the process when we've been considering the spatial
58:44
strategy going forward.
58:53
Thank you then. And then in terms of drawing a distinction from the way I'm sort of looking at things. So
59:00
the Baldens and Cleon get approximately the similar levels of growth and then
59:05
Whitburn gets uh noticeably kind of less. And I
59:11
think the council set that out in its its table in terms of percentages and
59:16
proportions and how that um uh that uh
59:22
that shakes out. Um I think again I'd check with the council obviously you
59:28
referred to earlier the carbon uh assessment audit I will get the name right before before the end of these
59:34
hearings obviously has fed into that process has anything changed in relation to the Baldens or Cleon I've heard
59:42
obviously reference to the metro at east east Balden has anything kind of
59:47
materially changed no nothing's materially changed
1:00:00
Thank you. I heard earlier from various people reasons perhaps why um these
1:00:06
communities should not see the amount of growth that's been proposed. There was a reference to obviously the maid uh East
1:00:13
Balden neighborhood plan. I think Mr. Hutcherson, you reminded me this morning when the referendum was when that
1:00:19
document was made. Um, presumably that was at a time of a
1:00:25
different housing requirements or a different housing need
1:00:31
compared to what's now being looked at as part of this local plan. Would that be a fair observation or
1:00:43
I think the plan was at regulation 18 stage when um the neighborhood forum u
1:00:49
neighborhood plan was was made. Yeah. So if if I could help. Yes, that is the case. That is the case sir. But
1:00:56
um our examiner uh was aware of the regulation 18 proposals within that that
1:01:03
stage within the the plan area. There were three sites proposed and and she
1:01:08
decided because it was such an early stage that they wouldn't be considered and agreed the settlement boundary
1:01:16
approach which our plan proposed and we only have the one site within the settlement boundary which is Clean Lane.
1:01:26
Thank you. And can I just start with the I mean in terms of the overall approach to plan making presumably you having
1:01:31
regard to what's in the neighborhood uh the plans existence of the neighborhood plans but does it not nonetheless follow
1:01:39
that at some point there will be a successor local plan.
1:01:44
could potentially be this this local plan and that that changes
1:01:50
some of the context and moves things on from when the neighborhood plan uh was
1:01:56
prepared. I mean it's not a case that local plans have to be consistent with
1:02:02
made neighborhood plans. No, can assume you've had regard to them,
1:02:09
but you are dealing with burrow wide housing need, not a not a very
1:02:15
specifically geographically fixed need. So, I'm thinking of paragraph section
1:02:22
385 of the act in terms of uh successor um documents.
1:02:29
So I understand from from uh Balden neighborhood forums
1:02:35
perspective and from the the local uh Labour Party group. So I think is it is it your view position
1:02:42
that the neighborhood plan has set a sufficient amount of growth certainly at this point of the plan period and it
1:02:50
this local plan should not be allocating or signing or
1:02:55
identifying Balden East Balden as a further location for for growth as part of this local plan be removed from
1:03:03
policy SP 3. Is that what you're seeking? not the case.
1:03:08
Yeah. Yeah. That that is the case. Sir, um can I can I add to that that we feel
1:03:16
as we've related earlier on today um that East Poland should have a reduced
1:03:22
role in in providing uh the housing need because of a limited ability to sta s
1:03:28
sustainably accommodate growth. The inclusion of the G2 site at North Farm
1:03:34
will result in development that isn't sustainable and will destroy the character and distinctiveness of the
1:03:40
village. Uh, as mentioned, it has a historic core with a Victorian air
1:03:46
infrastructure and it's not only the traffic from those 263 houses at G2. Um,
1:03:54
we've also talked about the 202 houses at Cleon Lane if that goes ahead. um
1:04:00
Cleven Village, Mo Lane site, 259 houses, a lot of which will pass through
1:04:06
the village on route to the A184 to go up to Newcastle and the town end farm
1:04:12
site of 400. Um and again, it's likely that a lot of the traffic from those
1:04:18
sites will pass through the East Balden area. So that's a total of,00
1:04:23
houses in total which will impact significantly on on the capacity of the
1:04:28
village to to cater for that level of of throughput. Um we've already mentioned
1:04:34
the settlement boundary for the neighborhood plan which was intended to protect the character of the village. Uh
1:04:42
and we've said also this morning that we think the the house the local housing
1:04:48
need could be met. that was identified by the neighborhood uh plan examiner
1:04:53
could be met by the land at Cleven Lane if that proceeds.
1:05:01
Thank you, Mr. Butler, please. Yeah, thank you, sir. Um I would say to
1:05:07
Mr. Martin that uh there is a metro station at East Balden. There is a park and ride scheme there, but that car park
1:05:14
has been consistently at capacity for many years. Uh the local community has
1:05:19
been lobbying Nexus with the C council's support to get that car park expanded to
1:05:24
no effect and it keeps slipping down the infrastructure development plan. In
1:05:29
addition to uh that it it leads to the spillage of commuters into the
1:05:36
residential streets nearby causing further congestion. That's been a constant issue for local counselors over
1:05:43
many years. Um it also has brought uh further problems to the uh road
1:05:49
junctions uh that serve the village and clearly we have a level crossing at East
1:05:57
Balden which is a a full barrier crossing uh which obviously not only is
1:06:03
down for metro trains, it's down for the regional rail network and the freight on on the line and that brings it
1:06:10
increasing congestion. Uh so all of those factors lead lead us
1:06:16
uh to say that whilst it does have uh good transport hub, it's one that needs
1:06:21
further investment before there's any consideration for for further development uh uh within the village.
1:06:29
And obviously as I said earlier, we've made our formal observations known about
1:06:34
the two aspects of policy 3 uh.2 and 3.4. Thank you.
1:06:41
Thank you. pops to hear next from people who have perhaps an alternative view about the role of um I'm going to call
1:06:48
them the villagers but um not exclusively East Balden but uh others. So I'll start with Mr. Green and we'll
1:06:54
work our way around that part of the table then we probably will take a mid-after afternoon break. So Mr. Green
1:07:00
first please. Yeah, I believe that the neighborhood plans have resulted in con have con resulted in constraining the c
1:07:07
the scope and potential of the of the sites that have been made available in the local plan. The neighborhood plan
1:07:12
should not result in green belt, gray belt or brownfield sites being removed from the local plan in favor of green
1:07:18
belt land in other areas purely because these areas do not have a neighborhood plan. Felgate does not have a
1:07:23
neighborhood plan. uh neighbor neighborhood plan should therefore not override exceptional circumstances which
1:07:29
I might highlight exceptional circumstances has actually been proven I believe by south council uh but you know
1:07:39
there shouldn't the uh sorry neighborhood plan should therefore not override exceptional circumstances
1:07:44
highlighted by national governments and in relation to traffic issues and I'm not going you know uh the traffic from
1:07:53
bolden progresses up for and it goes to White Mayool which is a huge you know is
1:07:58
in huge contention uh you know that about putting infrastructure there but also you know
1:08:04
travels towards Felgate. Felgate has a a metro station with a small car park
1:08:09
which is overwhelmed. Now we're going to traffic issues. uh Felgate actually has
1:08:15
there's going to be an access road off this 1200 stroke 3,000 houses onto a 20
1:08:20
mph residential road which has three schools in the vicinity and 17 sets of speed homes around the estate you know
1:08:27
so I I think you know the neighborhood plans I think should should be overridden by national policy
1:08:36
thank you excuse me Mr. Next, please.
1:08:41
Thank you. I think there's a clear case to say that the villages can have a greater role um in accommodating the
1:08:49
growth of the plan period. Um the sustainability appraisal itself knows
1:08:54
that the villages of Clem Baldens and Whitburn accommodate approximately 17% of the brother's population. So, a
1:08:59
significant amount and they described as being accessible and popular settlements. I think we've heard from
1:09:05
the council how they recognized that they're comparable in terms of their sustainability um criteria.
1:09:11
Um specifically in relation to Witburn um again the sustainability appraisal
1:09:17
summarizes the criteria for the village. I know it has a wide range of service and facilities with good access to
1:09:23
public transport. There's nothing suggest that it should have a reduced role in meeting the housing need. Um,
1:09:29
paragraph 79 of the MPPPF requires planning policies to identify opportunities for village to grow and
1:09:36
bribe as a key element of planning policy, especially where they will support local services. I think that's
1:09:41
been reflected in the council recognized that the villages can help meet that need. And I guess the regulation 18
1:09:49
version for whiten proposed almost 400 homes. While some of those have been reduced at this stage, the reason has
1:09:56
not been because of the sustainability of Whitburn. It's been for other reasons. So I think there's clear recognition
1:10:02
that Whitburn is able to make a more positive contribution to meeting that
1:10:08
housing need.
1:10:14
Thank you. Uh Mr. Martin, please.
1:10:20
Thank you, sir. Um it's just to pick up on a few of the points discussions from
1:10:26
from other people. It it simply can't be the case that
1:10:32
no further development would happen in Balden because they've got a neighborhood plan in place. That neighborhood plan was clearly made
1:10:38
pursuant to a different plan and the examiner had the regulation 18 plan in
1:10:44
mind when they made it but very much on the basis of I know there's a local plan
1:10:49
coming forward at some point in the future and it might have to look at strategic sites. So to say that, you
1:10:56
know, that no more no further growth in in Balden or to reduce Balden's role because of a neighborhood plan, I just
1:11:02
think makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because it's it doesn't follow that um as I think you've already
1:11:10
mentioned, sir, that you know, things stop once a plan's adopted. There'll be other strategic plans that come along
1:11:16
that will inevitably supersede it. Obviously, East Balden, if they are minded to, could produce a new neighbor
1:11:22
plan pursuant to this plan if it were adopted. Um, and there's nothing necessarily stopping them doing that.
1:11:29
There's questions as well about the role of the villages in terms of infrastructure.
1:11:34
Um, and I know we've heard a lot about infrastructure being at capacity.
1:11:40
I haven't necessarily seen the evidence for that, but what I would point out is that um if you if if development does
1:11:49
occur, often you can get infrastructure improvements off the back of development. What you tend to not get is
1:11:54
infrastructure improvements as everything stays as it is. They you know, we should be looking at this positively as in as in housing growth
1:12:02
enabling infrastructure improvements. Um and look at it in a positive way. Um and
1:12:09
the point about heritages is there's a point there that it that there is a charact specific character to these
1:12:16
these villages but I don't think that in itself precludes development it may mean
1:12:21
that development has to be sensitively master planned it may be that you have to have careful selection of materials
1:12:27
careful architectural detailing looking at the densities of development but in itself the fact that there's a
1:12:34
conservation area and historic core doesn't necessarily mean that that should preclude development
1:12:42
Thank you, Mr. Westwick, please. Hi, sir. Um, just two points to make. I
1:12:48
I won't be long. Mr. Eton and Mr. Martin has covered most of them. H just on East Balden. Um, obviously our client is in a
1:12:54
curious position. We are at appeal on a site uh on Clean Lane. Um, and I welcome
1:12:59
the um East Balden Forum support uh at this point for that and I hope that follows on to the subsequent appeal. Um
1:13:06
but essentially it is a brownfield site in a highly sustainable location. Um I also back Mr. Eton's point about
1:13:12
Witburn. There is no logical reason why this hasn't got a greater level housing growth. It is a sustainable village just
1:13:19
like the Clevenens and the Baldens. It is a tight urban area sir. We're not talking about dispersed dispersed settlements here. There are very well
1:13:25
connected with very good transport links if you compare to other areas of the country.
1:13:33
Thank you Mr. Thompson. No. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Um, okay. I'm going to
1:13:41
just before we take a uh mid I'm going to take a slightly early mid-after afternoon of German because I want to have a a clear run at item seven of the
1:13:48
agenda. Um, Mr. Hutcherson about getting sort of too I appreciate Balden is
1:13:57
is the issue without getting sort of too sort of sight sight specific. Um is
1:14:02
there anything further you wish to briefly say in response to what what I've heard?
1:14:07
Thank you sir. Just very extremely briefly um in relation to some comments about the East Ben Neighborhood Plan.
1:14:14
The East Ben Neighborhood Plan wasn't against um all development in the village. Uh the the East Balden
1:14:22
neighborhood plan supported the development of the Brownfield site at Cleon Lane which as we know may go
1:14:28
ahead. So I just wanted to make that point. We were against development within the green belt.
1:14:35
Thank you. And then I think finally on this point, Mr. Smith,
1:14:44
thank you, sir. It's it's a slightly different point, but I think probably one that is this is the the most
1:14:50
appropriate point within your agenda to make the point is that I think on behalf of Town and Farm that site seems to have
1:14:56
been largely grouped in with the villages. So, it was just a neat point and you'll probably up from our
1:15:02
statements on this point as well is that whilst we're we're generally satisfied with policy SP three on that regard.
1:15:08
It's not specifically name checked but it would fall within sub sub.4 which picks up the sustainable growth areas. I
1:15:16
think the the neat point I want to make is just if if I was to take you further on in the plans to page 37 in paragraph
1:15:22
4.33 um that states uh that the six proposed
1:15:29
urban and village sustainable growth areas are within Whitburn, Cleon and East Balden, which if you take that as
1:15:36
red isn't isn't factually correct because obviously one of those does include town and farm. So I think again
1:15:41
I'll just refer to what we've we've made um in our statements but I just want to kind of explain that point in the context of our general with no
1:15:47
particular wording issues with SP4 on that point.
1:15:53
Thank you for that. Can I just check with the council? I mean that does seem uh in terms of just looking at paragraph
1:15:59
433 as it kind of sits with policy SP3
1:16:06
as a way of kind of just ensuring
1:16:16
whether there needs to kind of be a specific reference for Town End arm
1:16:27
just for clarity effectiveness. Yep. Okay. Thank you, Will.
1:16:37
Okay, we're coming up to 25 3. I appreciate some people have been sort of patiently waiting to talk about waste
1:16:43
water. I'm sure you will do that after the break. Um, we're now at I say 25 3.
1:16:51
If people can be back in this room at 20 to 4 and then we'll go straight into item agenda seven, please. Thank you.
1:31:41
Okay, everybody, it's 20 to 4, so I'm going to resume these hearing sessions, please. Uh, as indicated just before we
1:31:49
took the midafter afternoon adjournment, uh, that when we resumed, we've been on to item seven on my agenda, which is
1:31:56
around wastewater capacity. I'm picking up in the first instance with particular
1:32:02
relevance to the planned growth at uh within the I'm going to describe it as
1:32:07
the Henden wastewater treatment works catchment area which the council's helpfully
1:32:13
pointed me to kind of various maps to show what's where the catchment of that is. So I think we're principally looking
1:32:18
at the Baldens, Caden, and Whitburn. And hopefully we got sufficient time as well to kind of just touch upon uh Howen
1:32:26
Treatment Works as well uh to the north of the burough. Uh I can't help but notice Mr. Shadow, you got uh somebody
1:32:34
new sitting next to you um this afternoon. Uh several new
1:32:39
some new faces. There are several new faces here. So it might be as well just to do some more introductions. For those who are joining
1:32:46
this afternoon, my name is Paul Sherevian KC acting for the council and I ask you to introduce yourselves,
1:32:53
please. Good afternoon, sir. Uh my name is Jeff
1:32:58
Horseman. Um I'm employed as a town planner by South Tinside Council. Um my
1:33:04
role at the moment is managing the council's um development management team. Um but I have been heavily
1:33:09
involved in in recent years um with um a couple of major planning applications. one for the Cleveland lane industrial
1:33:16
estate that was mentioned um earlier in this afternoon's session and also um a
1:33:22
planning application for site um G5 um which is the Whitburn Lodge site on
1:33:29
the northern edge of of Witburn and um a lot more involved in terms of those planning applications in terms of
1:33:35
looking at the waste water issues and the various representations that we've had on those um in connection with those
1:33:42
particular applications. My name is Matt Clifford. I'm a senior
1:33:50
planning policy officer and I lead on the infrastructure delivery plan for the
1:33:55
council.
1:34:00
Hi, I'm Richard Murray. I head up wastewater treatment and bio resources for North Umbrean Water.
1:34:08
Thank you. here. I think all the other faces at the table look familiar from uh pre the uh the adjournment. So, thank
1:34:14
you for that. Now, I've raised at my mass issues question 3.9. I mean it was
1:34:19
clearly a theme that was raised in various representations on the plan in terms of whether the wastewater capacity
1:34:27
or the treatment sorry the capacity to treat waste water uh arising from the
1:34:33
growth identified in the plan uh could be appropriately um dealt with. I've
1:34:39
referred to in my question uh MIQ 3.9 whether the council's evidence uh which
1:34:46
includes a sewage management local plan position statements which was prepared earlier this year uh document IMV13 for
1:34:55
the examination its infrastructure delivery plan and its statements of common ground both with the environment
1:35:02
agency and North Umbrean water sufficiently demonstrated that the existing kind of wastewater treatment
1:35:09
uh infrastructure could cope with the demands uh from the plan's uh proposed distribution of
1:35:16
growth and I was mindful Mr. Shadowavian you said to me yesterday in respect of another or an affiliated matter
1:35:22
obviously things are taken in good faith at particular moment at particular times
1:35:27
but I'd like to invite the council first to kind of just outline how it's looked at this issue the evidence the
1:35:34
engagement it's it's uh entered into and where of the plan period
1:35:42
regarding the howen treatment works they have said there is headroom and that they are investing testing to ensure
1:35:49
that that is going to be sufficient for the whole of the plan period and North Umbre and Water will no doubt be able to
1:35:55
provide further details on their investment plans.
1:36:00
Um in terms of the engagement or how we
1:36:06
have proceeded in terms of evidence we've had regular liaison meetings with North Umbrean water and they have
1:36:17
expressed their professional opinion and provided their um assurance that there
1:36:23
is the headroom as I have described
1:36:29
in terms terms of the council's overall approach, the council is also mindful of advice in
1:36:37
paragraph 188 of the September 2023 MPF
1:36:44
that the focus of planning policies should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land
1:36:52
rather than the control of processes or emissions where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes. as
1:37:00
is the case here. So, I hope that provides a sufficient
1:37:05
broad overview. And can I just excuse me just briefly
1:37:12
clarify with the council at paragraph 363 of your statement you kind of outline
1:37:21
where kind of the broad distribution of kind of the plans uh development
1:37:28
proposals the kind of the the number of properties that um would go to Henden
1:37:33
and the number of properties to Howen. Is that still the figures we should have
1:37:38
in front of us? to just clarify there is a factual error
1:37:44
there. The proportion sorry to just clarify uh there is a
1:37:50
factual error the proportion to Henden is actually 17% and the proportion to
1:37:56
Hen is 83%.
1:38:07
Thank you uh for that. We'll come back to uh the council in due course. But if I can invite others on this particular
1:38:14
issue, I'm keen or mindful that I make a distinction between the sewer network
1:38:21
and treatment capacity at the water treatment works as kind of um particular
1:38:27
uh factors. If I could understand from Mr. Latimer first, please and we'll come
1:38:34
back then to North Umbrean water and and potentially others. Obviously, I've read
1:38:39
your your statement, various appendices. I've also got a similar statement from
1:38:44
Mr. Lavel and the Whitburn um neighborhood forum who've also um identified
1:38:51
uh or presented similar evidence in terms of the frequency number of spills
1:38:56
uh and uh issues uh in relation to to Henden can understand from your
1:39:04
perspective Mr. Latimer, the way I I sort of first read your representations was a kind of a view
1:39:11
that there should be a stronger policy in the plan on fowl water uh treatment
1:39:17
uh and protection of the the kind of the water uh environment. I think as things
1:39:23
have kind of progressed during this examination, we've now got the offwatt u
1:39:29
report if I can phrase it in those terms early in June. I think you've invited me
1:39:34
at various stages that we we shouldn't even be having these these hearings until these kind of issues uh are
1:39:41
resolved. So are you of a view that there should be a moratorum on development in Whitburn
1:39:50
Cleon and Balden? Yep.
1:39:56
If I can uh my name is Bob Latimer. I'm a retired
1:40:01
engineer, petrol filler station owner, transport contractor and fisherman and I
1:40:08
have a big fish business. So in all ways it it involves me that the sea is clean.
1:40:17
Now um if I can explain first of all the Witburn system isn't an old system. It
1:40:24
was commissioned in 1996. It has a pumping station. It has a long
1:40:29
sea outfall and it has an interceptor uh tunnel which is roughly I would say
1:40:36
about a mile long which runs under the prominard and under the road and it holds 14,000 cubic meters.
1:40:44
Now uh that's the basis of the of what it was for. Now, um
1:40:53
if I can say to you that um I I had a garage business in uh and North Umbly
1:41:01
Water came to me and said uh we want to want to build this system was due to an
1:41:08
EU directive. We had to build it. Uh we had to stop these little uh overflows
1:41:13
down the beach and that was the purpose of the system. So what they said to me
1:41:18
was 99% of the time there nothing down the pipes. Estimated discharge 225,000
1:41:26
cubic meters a year. No return flows. Discharged 20 times a year. Discharge 20
1:41:34
hours a year. Generated only during storm conditions. Excess rainfall. Rain
1:41:40
water. It would only discharge in extreme rainfall. Liquid entering the pumping station was water from the
1:41:48
roads. Uh north humbling water terminology of the liquid entering the
1:41:53
station as storm water, the pumping station would be not to be used to pump
1:41:59
raw sewage. So I accepted that and although the pumping station was right next to my
1:42:05
property, I accepted that being a company such as North Umbrean Water, I
1:42:11
felt as though I could trust them. But within no time at all, I found this
1:42:17
thing was pumping foul sewage. The smell, the stuff washing ashore, North
1:42:22
Water denied it. and I pursued it and I came across information following a
1:42:29
freedom information request that the environment agency warned them to stop
1:42:34
discharging and they were discharging every day even when there was no rainfall and it it upsets us really to
1:42:42
hear the council say we are going to what does they say in that in that policy the local planning must have
1:42:49
regard to whether there's sufficient capacity within the existing sewer network before granting planning
1:42:55
permission to the development that will impact on that capacity. However, it is
1:43:00
the response of the north north water as sewage undertaker to ensure that there's sufficient capacity in assessing whether
1:43:07
there is sufficient capacity. The local planning authority will have regard to their professional advice.
1:43:14
uh the environment agency is the regulator for lic abstractions, pollution control, quality of the water
1:43:21
environment whereas North Umbrean water is responsible for and it goes on like that. So they work hand in hand.
1:43:30
system um was commissioned in 1996.
1:43:36
Uh in on the 6th of February, the council
1:43:43
were invited with no by North Water to go and attend uh where no sorry in
1:43:52
the original permit it was the council supplied the wrong population figures.
1:43:58
So the stissum was designed wrongly from the very start. It had Whitburn had a
1:44:03
population of 15,000. It didn't have a population of 15,000. And uh it went on
1:44:11
and it said that if the if the seaburn system failed with a witburn, the
1:44:16
interceptor tunnel could hold the the flows from seaburn in dry weather for 69
1:44:22
hours. Now the council actually took part and it was illegal that in the 17
1:44:30
hours it discharged three times and it was dry weather. So it stood out a mile there was something sadly wrong. Now in
1:44:38
2001 managed to get it to a public inquiry and the inspector at the public inquiry was great. Although North
1:44:45
Umbrean Water employed barristers, environment agency employed barristers
1:44:51
to get the scope of the inquiry reduced which they managed to do. But at the end of the day, we still managed to get the
1:44:59
inspector could see what was going on and he put conditions on the three CSOS
1:45:05
spilling into the interceptor tunnel. As well as that, he put a condition on the
1:45:10
hend and sewage treatment works that the flows arriving at the works should be measured, not the flows leaving the
1:45:16
works or escaping from it or whatever. And that has never been done. They
1:45:22
measured exactly what he told them not to do and that's what they did. Um
1:45:30
the other thing I want to say to you is that the the East Balden and Clean villages
1:45:40
sewage flows to Seaburn. Seaburn then pumps to St. Peters.
1:45:47
St Peters in turn pumps to hand and sewage treatment works. Now,
1:45:53
um, that's how the system works. It pumps it. It's got to pump it across the
1:45:59
bridge. So, that's a big pump to get it over there. And, uh,
1:46:05
so what happened on the 6th of February showed that the flows arriving at the at
1:46:10
the seaburn were far greater than what had been accounted for. Now at the
1:46:16
public inquiry, the inspector said that the
1:46:22
in 1993 uh before the permit was issued when they were constructing it was that the
1:46:30
calculations were wrong and North Hian water ignored that and the environment
1:46:35
agency allowed them to continue. Now, it's got us into a situation now where
1:46:41
we've got everybody, nobody wants to admit it's a horrendous mistake. I mean, I've got Story Holmes up here about
1:46:48
Witburn. It's 150 million to put it right. Well, I hope Story Holmes is going to pay the 150 million. Um,
1:46:58
in the environment impact assessment in 1991 for the system, it said up to 50
1:47:06
small fishing boats have been mowed in the sea and the southern rocks of Witburn
1:47:12
and on the beach. Now there no boats, nobody fishes for lobsters. The sem
1:47:17
fishermanmen used to look out for Henden if it rained and said, "Oh, it's
1:47:23
discharging." They they didn't call it turbulence, they called it turbulence.
1:47:30
Um the advocate general said it's absurd to accept discharges because the system
1:47:37
was wrongly designed and the Witburn was commissioned in 1996. So it isn't old.
1:47:44
Uh so I don't want to cut across you too much, Mr. Latim. I mean I appreciate you put all of this into your Yeah.
1:47:50
your statement. So it's it is already before me. I think I appreciate there is a very long history to this. You've been
1:47:57
involved in this for a long period of time and I've seen that from the sort of the evidence trail as it goes back.
1:48:04
We're now at a particular point in terms of this local plan, the local plan examination. I think what I'm keen to
1:48:11
understand is whether this uh the degree to which there is a a residual
1:48:18
unresolved issue whether in your view the recent off-WAT
1:48:23
report and the undertakings uh that are contained within that report
1:48:28
are going to provide the compliance with the urban wastewater treatment uh
1:48:33
directive and I'll understand from uh North Umbrean water uh their you and
1:48:40
whether a situation in your opinion, Mr. Latimer, whether as I said at the start,
1:48:45
you there should be a a I think the change you might want to see to the plan is it a a ban on development until
1:48:54
this issue is resolved or this issue can be resolved but it's going to take time and it might be five years before
1:49:02
development can take place. I just want to I want to kind of understand a bit more what you're seeking or changing
1:49:07
from the plan rather than too much. I feel as though I'm coming to that. I feel as though it's important that I carry on to say that to uh it the it
1:49:16
went to the European Court and the European Court somewhere along line said it had to be 20 discharges. So this is
1:49:23
what I'm up against. What they did was they changed the counting method. Instead of counting them as one discharge each, now count them no matter
1:49:31
how many in a day. So it guess is below 20. Now following the the the
1:49:38
European Court judgment, they were going to carry out an upgrade. So what I you know what I want to say to
1:49:44
you is they did carry out an upgrade, but they put in a 3,000 tank. That was
1:49:51
in 2017. 2023 with burn discharge
1:49:57
1 million tons. uh in 2024 944,000.
1:50:02
So the upgrade is a total waste of time. And if the the intention here is if
1:50:10
you're going to build these houses at Balden and Caden and Witburn, they're
1:50:15
all going to it's all going to discharge at Witburn. Now, as well as that, it has
1:50:20
to pump forward to se uh St. Peters. Now, when the sheep falls, there's a little area in Sunland uh which is above
1:50:28
St. Peters and they're looking at putting 600 houses there. So that takes
1:50:33
up the capacity of the Witburn Cleven to be able to pump forward. But also since
1:50:39
then you find that the facts that have been presented are not true. And you
1:50:47
know if I just finish it that and let the the last letter I got off the EU when we've left the EU in 2020 was
1:50:55
actually for me it was more positive. Wow, it was a another letter from OffWAT. This is as it seems that people
1:51:02
are looking at the overall systems. Interesting, but also a shame for the local people to see how badly hendered
1:51:09
treatment works is operating now. We're we're up to our eyes in it and we've
1:51:15
got, you know, the planet sitting here. No, nothing nothing wrong. We can add more there. And I just want to, you
1:51:22
know, get it across to you that there's not the capacity. You cannot believe a word they say. And the environment
1:51:29
agency are just we've got what I like to say is we've got a third world sewage system uh
1:51:36
regulated by a third rate environment agency. Okay. Thank you. I will now give the
1:51:43
opportunity to North Umbrean Water who've uh kindly agreed to attend for
1:51:48
today. Obviously you you may have seen some of the representations that have been made on the plan. Obviously the
1:51:55
council's produced as I say it's kind of position statement on uh wastewater in
1:52:02
relation to the local plan. Uh obviously I've got a number of representations Mr.
1:52:07
Latimrus uh not alone. You may need to switch off your microphone Mr. Latimus so others can use theirs. Obviously a
1:52:15
number of representations echoing what Mr. said about you know a lack of confidence
1:52:21
that the sewer network uh in the Whitburn area and further uh I don't
1:52:29
know if downstream is the right term but you know further on in Seaburn St Peters will not be able to uh cope or
1:52:36
accommodate with the uh foul water from planned growth as part of this local plan and ultimately Henden wastewater
1:52:44
retreatment works uh won't have the capacity uh to deal with this uh deal with this
1:52:50
demand either. I think there's a kind of I don't know obviously the offwalt the
1:52:55
recent off-watt report is in front of the examination various people are referring to it. I don't know if that
1:53:01
from your opinion kind of shifts the dial and will result in various things um that will assist the situation and
1:53:09
broadly you how long will that take? Obviously there are various kind of deadlines within the offwatt
1:53:16
report uh that for North Umbrean water. So
1:53:21
pass over to Mr. Murray first. Thank you. Okay. Right. Um there's a fair number of
1:53:28
questions in in there that uh need to be addressed but I think first first of all
1:53:33
just to put some clarification on uh the things that Mr. Latimer has said there.
1:53:39
He's quite right. It it is the the system that Mr. Latimmer is talking about is a storm water system. The
1:53:45
intention of the storm water system was to intercept um storm overflows that were going direct to the bathing motor
1:53:52
at the time back in in the early 90s. Um it did that. We we put an intercept
1:53:59
sewer in there and the intention was to return those storm waters back to Henden
1:54:06
Sewage Treatment Works when when we had capacity to do so. But if that capacity was exceeded, there was a pumping
1:54:12
station would burn steel which would then pump out 1.2 km out to sea and deal
1:54:18
with the storm water there. And we are talking about very low content of sewage there. We're not talking about raw
1:54:24
sewage going going into there. So that that's just for the clarification of of what we're talking about there. In terms
1:54:31
of the capacity for dealing with development in in the area, we look at
1:54:37
dry weather flows and the dry weather flow. There is capacity for the likes of
1:54:43
Henden and there's dry cap dry weather flow capacity for Hen for these
1:54:48
locations that that are suggested in terms of this planning.
1:54:54
Taking up the offwatt elements to that. So the the off report that's referred to
1:55:01
was something that was um set away in 200 sorry 2021.
1:55:07
Um and the whole purpose of that that there was to assess water companies
1:55:14
around their capacity to deal with floatful treatment and not spilling
1:55:20
before the floatful treatment. All water companies have come under scrutiny as far as that is concerned in
1:55:27
in the UK. Um the the first three published are TMS, Yorkshire and
1:55:32
ourselves in in ter in terms of that uh which there were penalties going to be
1:55:38
applied to the water companies and uh they've been announced for TMS Yorkshire
1:55:44
and and ourselves. What we did with with off water was is go through an undertaking. So you you you will see
1:55:51
within that document there there is an undertaking for us to do a number of things there. Now the offwot um scope
1:56:00
widened significantly over the over the space of time um and that included
1:56:06
started to include storm overflows, spills and everything everything around
1:56:12
uh that that there now as part of that uh representations were made um from the
1:56:19
likes of Mr. Latima and Mr. Lavel uh with with with Offwart to ask ask off to
1:56:25
have a look at it from the Witburn system point of view. Um now so so off
1:56:30
covered that as part and parcel of everything that that they wanted to look at and we effectively gave a commitment
1:56:39
with within that undertaken that we would look further at other things that
1:56:44
we could potentially do as far as the drainage around that area is concerned
1:56:49
with respect to the surface water. there is a disproportionate amount of surface water actually gets into the system um
1:56:56
which which which is why we're talking about the volumes that Mr. Latimar has mentioned um going via Witburn steel we
1:57:05
are not outside of permit um Mr. Lamar is quite correct in terms of the target
1:57:12
was for getting to 20 spills perom uh with with respect to with burn steel
1:57:19
as defined under the spill 1224 regime. Um we're not currently doing that. Um we
1:57:27
are we are outside of that. What we have seen is is probably more rainfall against the design uh rainfall time
1:57:34
series that we used at the time when we actually did the upgrade in 2017.
1:57:40
Uh so we're we're looking at things that we have been doing as part of some innovative processes around uh the likes
1:57:48
of Tainside on smart sewer networks that that sort of thing. Is there anything different that we can do? Because what
1:57:56
where we were back in 2017 was that you were running into disproportionate costs
1:58:03
around any extra form of storage to actually achieve any environmental
1:58:09
benefit uh against that. The bathing waters have performed particularly well
1:58:14
since since the concept and the commissioning in 1996.
1:58:22
Steve, would you like to add any more?
1:58:28
I think you mentioned uh treatment capacity to support the um um the locations within the plan. In terms of
1:58:35
treatment capacity, um as Rich has alluded to, we the model that we take as
1:58:40
an industry, as a water industry, is looking at how the system is operating in dry weather flow conditions. So
1:58:48
you've got to discount storm overflow spills and full flow to treatment in
1:58:53
terms of treatment capacity at the works. You're looking at what's actually the the the the current situation in
1:59:00
terms of um that treatment works operating on a dry weather flow day.
1:59:06
So we've provided evidence to South Tinside Council in terms of the
1:59:13
development of the sewage management plan um and the common uh statement of
1:59:19
common ground um as well as the um infrastructure delivery plan um
1:59:24
providing the information providing details of that dry weather flow capacity within Henden and Howen um
1:59:32
giving them the actual figures um and So they can assess whether their housing
1:59:38
figures um are are within threshold of those figures.
1:59:46
In terms of network capacity um and the impact it does have on increasing spills. It it localized storm
1:59:54
overflows um as was mentioned yesterday um throughout the um the catchment. Um
2:00:01
that's typically done um pre-development inquiry stage with developers um through
2:00:07
development control with the local authority. Um because at this stage um there's uncertainty as to where those
2:00:14
connection points would actually be on the networks. Um and as you can imagine a sewage network is quite complex in
2:00:21
terms of operating a number of storm overflows and a number of pumping stations as well as bifications on the
2:00:28
network. um you know so so it's not a a true pipe um to pipe to get it to a
2:00:35
treatment uh works um there's lots of assets and ancillaries that has to be taken into consideration in terms of how
2:00:42
that network's operating just so I'm I'm clear on what's been
2:00:48
said there so North Umbrean water provide the data on the kind of the uh I
2:00:56
think you described it as the um in relation to the dry weather flows um
2:01:04
if it's the kind of the capacity that or the the capacity that's at uh currently
2:01:10
at either Henden or Hen but I think you said it was then for South Tinesside to work out or assess whether their
2:01:18
development could be accommodated within those thresholds. Is that correct or
2:01:24
can I just get some clarification on that Mr. Clifford? So, so just to give you more
2:01:30
clarification on that. Sorry. Don't know who wants to go first. Can um thank you sir. Uh Mr. Walton is
2:01:37
correct that North Umbrean Water have provided data to the council
2:01:44
and the analysis that North Umbrean Water have themselves undertaken of that
2:01:49
data is that it shows there is ample headroom
2:01:55
at the Henden sewage treatment works and there is headroom for existing
2:02:01
development at the Henen Treatment Works and they've
2:02:07
assured us that with their investment plans there will be ample headroom moving forward with the howen treatment
2:02:15
works. Obviously we've looked at the data they provided um but it is technical data. We
2:02:23
fundamentally uh defer to them in terms of their
2:02:30
technical analysis of that data. And I just make the point that
2:02:37
as stated within the local plan, it is the responsibility of North Umbrean Water as sewage undertaker to ensure
2:02:45
there is sufficient capacity within the existing sewer network.
2:03:07
Thank you. Before I come back to excuse me, North Umbrean water uh bring in Mr.
2:03:13
Horseman on this point please. Yes, if I can just um add a little bit
2:03:20
um some more in terms of the the council's assessment of um capacity
2:03:26
matters in light of the advice that we've received from um North Umbrean of water. Um just a a kind of general point
2:03:35
first in relation to the offwatt report um the June 2024 offwalt report and
2:03:41
these are just some issues that um we've looked at as part of as I say handling planning applications um in the in the
2:03:47
south of the the BA in Witburn and um East Bordon. Um so just a general
2:03:53
observation on the on the offwalt report. Um um the offwalt report um from my reading of that report um um relates
2:04:02
to um sort of um um alleged breaches of the urban wastewater treatment
2:04:09
regulations. Um now my understanding is is that um that is that is a slightly
2:04:16
different matter to the issue of capacity which is what we're looking at um as I say in the context of this local
2:04:23
plan examination and this is something that offwalt acknowledged themselves in their in their report. So um I would
2:04:31
just point you sir to um a number of paragraphs in the offwalt report. Um so
2:04:36
paragraphs 2.9 to 2.11 um 2.39
2:04:42
to 2.4 and paragraph 2.58.
2:04:48
So those particular paragraphs of the off report where where off um do acknowledge that um um the the concerns
2:04:56
that they've raised around storm overflow spills and and potential breaches of the urban wastewater
2:05:03
treatment regulations that those spills can be um attributed to a number of sort
2:05:09
of causes not simply hydraulic capacity um matters. So that that is a a point
2:05:16
that of what do make in their report in those particular paragraphs. So I just ask you to as I say give some
2:05:23
consideration to to that matter in terms of um issues around um um capacity
2:05:30
figures that have been supplied by North Water. If we take um the Henden um treatment works as an example
2:05:38
and I know you're interested particularly in terms of this particular question around the the the Witburn and
2:05:44
the the the Cleon um area and those allocations and the impact um in terms
2:05:49
of some of the issues that Mr. Batima and others have um sort of raised um um
2:05:55
as I say the um the the capacity figure we were given in terms of hend and as as
2:06:01
things stand today is is by by North Water as a spare capacity um to
2:06:06
accommodate nearly 38,000 um of additional homes um within the
2:06:11
Henden sewage treatment works. Um now as I say our analysis in connection with
2:06:17
sort of um sort of um planning applications is essentially that um um
2:06:25
basically our sort of um our sort of um of um allocations um just in terms of um
2:06:33
of numbers um
2:06:39
just bear with me a moment I'll just um get to That was
2:07:03
Yes. in terms of um our sort of numbers in terms of our sort of um of allocations. Um in terms of sort of um
2:07:10
sort of Henden um basically um we we have um
2:07:19
we have the um the the Town End Farm site which is 400 dwellings. That's um
2:07:25
GA3. Um we have um West Hall Farm in Cleon which is 259 GA4. We have GA5
2:07:34
Whitburn Lodge which is 30 dwellings and GA6 um land north of Sheia Water which is
2:07:41
41. Um so that um essentially gives around about 730 a total of around 730
2:07:48
dwellings um from our allocations um of being served by the Henden sewage
2:07:53
treatment works. Um um we also looked at um at basically the situation with
2:07:59
Sunderland um city council which is the other um local authority um that has um
2:08:06
developments that served by Henden Sewage Treatment Works um the Sunderland um core strategy and development plan
2:08:13
which runs from 2015 to 2020 2033 um that envisages in the period between
2:08:20
2023 and 2033 um a further 6,000 247
2:08:26
sort of dwellings. So I would just um put to you sir that I'm adding as I say
2:08:31
the um projected dwellings for Sunderland to those that are proposed in the South T side plan even accounting
2:08:38
for for windfall um developments. um still s substantially less than 38,000
2:08:46
um sort of dwellings um being accommodated within the Henden sort of um treatment works in the in the coming
2:08:52
sort of um sort of um sort of years um from where we are today. Um and then just at one final sort of um point um
2:09:00
just around um um some of the issues relates to networks of capacity that have been mentioned um as I say there's
2:09:07
been reference made to the Witburn steel um of sewage pumping station and the
2:09:12
long sea outfall associated with that. Um um as I say the the experience we've
2:09:18
had with um as I say the the planning applications that we dealt with in the in the south of the burough is that um
2:09:25
um one of the ways of of reducing impacts related to sort of um network
2:09:30
capacity um matters is um around use of um sustainable sort of drainage um to
2:09:37
reduce surface water um sort of um sort of flaws um um as I say Mr. Um Murray
2:09:44
mentioned um issues around um surface water. As I say, we have a combined
2:09:49
sewer network. Um within that particular part of the um B indeed um the B as a as
2:09:58
a whole and um we we have found in terms of planning applications that one way of reducing um the amount of surface water
2:10:05
going into um the um combined sewer system is through use of sustainable
2:10:11
drainage. the GA4, for example, the Whitburn Lodge. Um, sorry, G5, the
2:10:16
Whitburn Lodge site. Um, the the planning application for that site does include a sustainable drainage system.
2:10:23
Um, and as I say that the council have made submissions um that that would
2:10:28
result in a degree of betterment in terms of sort of um surface water discharges. equally the Cleveland lane
2:10:34
um district estate site that was mentioned and and indeed this is part of North Ambian water strategy I understand
2:10:40
to sort of um reduce surface water flows in connections with with the storm sort
2:10:46
of um of all the flows. Thank you sir. Thank you for that. I mean I'm keen to
2:10:53
kind of uh obviously the references that are put to me through various representations are around whether
2:10:58
there's compliance with the urban wastewater uh treatment um directive. Um I think
2:11:05
I'm being uh correct me if I'm wrong on this side of the room to help kind of dis disentangle
2:11:14
that from what we're looking at in terms of land use planning. I mean just to clarify with the council is that the council's position where you say from uh
2:11:22
national planning policy framework paragraph 188 of the September 2023
2:11:28
uh MPPF that this is a separate regime. It's one that we must assume will be
2:11:35
complied with. That is correct. Um if the evidence
2:11:42
demonstrates in reality that there is a real problem with capacity then of
2:11:48
course it's the duty of the local planning authority to consider that as a material matter in terms of its
2:11:55
allocations and also the headline number of of dwellings it proposes.
2:12:02
Um and the uh planning practice guidance
2:12:08
um tells us that uh plan making may need to consider the fish the sufficiency
2:12:15
and capacity of wastewater infrastructure.
2:12:21
So if there is a clear indication that there is a problem with the capacity of that infrastructure
2:12:28
um or its efficiency which would impact on the viability of
2:12:36
the allocation in other words affect the ability to implement it in a timely way
2:12:42
as envisaged in the plan. um then that's a material matter that needs to be taken into account and could affect either the
2:12:50
substance of the allocation itself or the trajectory in the sense of when can
2:12:56
houses come on stream, how long it's going to take to provide the infrastructure. We are however um led by the evidence
2:13:04
which prevails and the and the advice which we are receiving from the statutory undertaker whose duty it is to
2:13:12
provide that and um uh we are informed
2:13:19
and it is appropriate and legitimate for us um to accept that um that capacity
2:13:27
exists. and will exist and a new for the plan
2:13:34
period in relation to the allocations we are making.
2:13:44
Thank you. And just to double check with the council that remains the position in light of the offWAT reports that there's
2:13:51
nothing in that report that's led you to to arrive at an alternative
2:13:57
conclusion. We'll come back to North Water on this, but
2:14:02
yes sir, that remains the position. Um, as Mr. Horseman stated, our view is that
2:14:09
the causes of the issues that have led to the offwot ruling uh are technical
2:14:15
and complex. They may be related to circumstances other than fundamental treatment
2:14:22
capacity matters. And fundamentally it's it's an issue
2:14:27
about compliance which is for North Umbrean Water to address rather than for
2:14:32
the planning system to address.
2:14:37
Thank you. And in terms of compliance with the urban wastewater treatment directive, if I'm looking at the offwalk
2:14:43
report, Mr. Murray seems to be kind of like a menu of of of kind of things for
2:14:49
North or North Umbrean Water has undertaken to commit to if that's the correct
2:14:55
terminology. Um that you'll do as an organization at your own
2:15:01
cost. Uh I see as part of that that includes smart metering or smart flow
2:15:08
metering um bringing forward.
2:15:13
So, so uh there's a whole host of uh items that that are contained within that undertaking which um includes smart
2:15:21
readings, smart networks, that type of technique that that that's there. The
2:15:26
smart network stuff is the stuff that we're doing in Tainside which which is all around manage creating
2:15:34
utilizing the capacity that was in with within the network uh in a smarter way
2:15:40
using using intelligence to actually control flows to certain locations and
2:15:46
and that's certainly something that we we were contemplating from a Witburn perspective
2:15:52
on on urban wastewater treatment directive of what are not the regulator the env environment agency or the or the
2:15:58
regulator around that and and and the questions that offer are posing there is
2:16:04
is really to both North Umbrean and and the environment agency uh with with a
2:16:09
view of are we demonstrating so I'll have to read this out because I can
2:16:15
never get the letters in the right way uh best best technical knowledge not exceeding excessive cost the BT
2:16:21
technique stuff um and so when when we did all of that activity which relates
2:16:27
to wit burning for the 2017 scheme the there there was no extra elements that
2:16:34
that we could apply there. things change. Uh we're years down the line on on this sort of thing and and the the
2:16:41
likes of the smart technology is something that we would look to in in innovate with in in that
2:16:48
particular area. But I I agree with the council's view in terms of urban
2:16:54
wastewater treatment directive and the capacity for for the sites are not
2:16:59
necessarily related when you're talking from a planned perspective.
2:17:16
Thank you. And just so I'm I'm clear, um there's been a reference there to the planning practice guidance. There's
2:17:22
various things I have to have in mind um in relation to uh plan making. Um Mr.
2:17:28
Shadow Ravens referred to one of the paragraphs around local authorities or plan makers giving kind of consideration
2:17:34
to wastewater uh capacity.
2:17:39
I mean this is an increasing kind of issue for uh for planning in terms of the the capacity of uh or the ability to
2:17:46
dispose of foul water. Just so I'm absolutely clear of kind of North Umbrean waters position. And you're not
2:17:52
saying to me at this examination today there's a capacity issue, things need to be held back or potentially phased.
2:18:00
Uh any uh there's nothing that needs to be added into the infrastructure
2:18:06
delivery plan that the council's been working on over many years.
2:18:11
I appreciate you've got your own separate kind of asset management planning processes which obviously come to bear. I think what the council's
2:18:18
saying in relation to the Hen site and further investment going forward at that
2:18:23
site, but I just want to be crystal clear on this this point before I leave
2:18:28
this room today. Okay, just just picking up on Hen in
2:18:34
particular. So, uh, howen is as as you correctly say, we we've gone through a fiveyear planning cycle with that. we
2:18:41
didn't didn't get the way we wanted to do with with off what with respect to the investments that we require around
2:18:47
that and we're currently challenging that as part of the CMA challenge that
2:18:52
that is ongoing as as we speak. Um we we're we're looking for uh just just
2:19:00
short of 300 million pounds worth of investment for the Howen site to be able to accommodate growth going forward to
2:19:07
accommodate all all of the the the planning intentions for all of the councils that that that go into that
2:19:14
particular catchment there. Yeah, we we we hit trigger points. I mean we we look at the the flows
2:19:21
continually as as far as how the likes of how is concerned and we look at the percentiles in terms of the dry weather
2:19:27
flows at an 80 percentile in terms of we where you we're just about there that's a trigger point for us to start doing
2:19:34
that planning around that overall investment a 90 percentile we're we're
2:19:39
into territory where we're outside of our regulatory permits. So we we really need to be managing in in between that.
2:19:47
That's where we are with Hen. I think I think it's worth Steve covering some of
2:19:52
some of the other elements that you were asking. So I think if I bring it back to your
2:19:58
original question is the treatment capacity to support the the the the housing growth predictions in the local
2:20:05
plan. Um our position is as we've uh provided um South Tide Council um in our
2:20:13
opinion there is capacity at the treatment works to support the level of growth in the plan. Yeah. Um we we feel
2:20:23
that if there are issues in terms of network capacity, they can be bu dealt
2:20:28
with as business as usual under our statutory duties under the water industry act which sits outside of
2:20:34
planning. And in terms of investment plans and projections, um we use um the
2:20:42
growth through local plan growth projections um to um to project and to
2:20:50
shape our investment plans and they're done in a five-year uh delivery.
2:21:00
So in terms of any emerging issues with respect to development, we can deal with
2:21:06
them in our business plan investment proposals. But at this moment in time, we're saying
2:21:14
that, you know, for Henden, we don't need to invest to create headroom
2:21:20
capacity to support the plan. For Howen, we've reached a trigger point where we've asked our regulator for
2:21:26
investment. Um but we can still support the numbers um in the plan that will
2:21:34
eventually end up it it how treatment works.
2:21:40
Thank you. I bring in So can I can I add something else? So I don't I don't wish to interrupt your
2:21:46
train of thought but um you were referring to the planning practice guidance. I just thought for
2:21:51
completeness we might just also refer to paragraph 005.
2:21:59
and it talks about plan making may need to consider phasing new developments so
2:22:06
that water and wastewater infrastructure will be in place when and where needed.
2:22:11
Now I'm not suggesting that um we need to do that in this case but
2:22:17
if there are any residual concerns about this um then it's important that we take
2:22:23
that into account uh when we come to examine the individual policies the
2:22:28
allocations and their particular requirements was quite clearly um with
2:22:34
respect to the larger allocations there will need to be proper phasing and
2:22:40
implementation of infrastructure provision
2:22:45
um and that would need to be done as it were hand inhand with North Umbrean
2:22:50
water to make sure um that connectivity and flows are managed properly
2:22:58
throughout the construction and use phases. So that's something which we can take into account um at the second stage
2:23:06
if we get to the second stage of the examination. Thank you. I think that does pick up
2:23:13
kind of part I apprej was a multi- sort of layered question to North Umbrean
2:23:18
water. I appreciate you've answered the points around Henden and Howen uh treatment works. It was whether there
2:23:24
was anything else that at this stage points to potential need to kind of
2:23:30
phase things. I appreciate when we come on to the specific sites, we'll be looking at how the council's profiled
2:23:35
them. I mean, they're obviously not going to happen immediately. uh for most of the allocations there is a bit of a
2:23:41
lead in time specifically for particularly for fellgate so it'll be looking as you say Mr. shadow over at
2:23:48
kind of where the trajectory of those sites might sit with things like North
2:23:53
Umbrean waters uh asset management plan uh processes. But I just want I say I
2:23:59
wanted to be crystal clear that there's nothing now that's kind of screaming out at us that says
2:24:06
we need to fa we need to significantly phase some of this for for some period of time. And I'm not hearing I'm not
2:24:12
hearing that from either the council or from North Umbrean Water. No. Mr. I will
2:24:17
now come back. You've been very patient to come back to um this side of the room uh to pick up points that have been
2:24:23
raised from Mr. Mr. Latimer first. Please wouldn't expect North Umbrean Water to
2:24:31
say anything else. I mean, you know, if you're going to say, well, is the capacity in our system to hold the
2:24:37
system? They're making money. They're not going to say no. But also Jeff Horseman, what was the what was the date
2:24:44
he referred to about the the Offwart report?
2:24:51
Yeah, I'm referencing the report that's dated um June 2025,
2:24:57
sorry, this year. Yes. I said, well, the other thing I want to say is that I hear
2:25:03
the thing about the you know, it's road water, it's fresh water. Well, part of
2:25:09
the upgrade was to take 400 lers of surface water out of the system, the
2:25:15
very thing that diluted it and the very thing it was built for. Now if there was so much uh capacity in the system
2:25:24
uh if I can just give you a brief explanation is that south of the Witburn
2:25:29
border on the seaside it used to run about I don't know 500 yards half a mile
2:25:37
and it that used to be part of Witburn in the 60s. So the sewage from that comes north and
2:25:43
then goes south. So in I think it was 2019 they built 62
2:25:50
houses there. North Umbian water connected the South Ben estate direct to
2:25:56
the inter interceptor. So that was the foul sewer getting connected to the
2:26:01
interceptor. 85 houses built at Seaburn again connected to the sewer. The
2:26:09
interceptor not the foul sewer. Now I heard about the houses but actually
2:26:15
since the permit was issued there's been 600 houses in total added to the system
2:26:20
in South Tide. In Sunderland there's been 600 houses added and the permit
2:26:27
hasn't changed and the dry weather flow cannot be what they're trying to say it
2:26:32
is. So the other thing is that when I read it out earlier on was that um
2:26:40
the actual what I got told was there was no return flows and at that time there
2:26:47
was no intention of using return flows. The return flow was for the to return
2:26:53
this uh the uh what do they call what they call the
2:26:59
where you scrape off the solids screenings return the screenings. So
2:27:06
last year it returned 300,000 tons. It was only ever going to take 225,000 ton.
2:27:14
So on top of that it was a million ton. So to try and say it's only surface
2:27:20
water and my colleague Steve I mean he has the facts and figures he goes into it where it's not you know it's not
2:27:27
raining it's gone in but I hear them speaking but you might have seen it but
2:27:33
I haven't seen the evidence to back up any of that what they have said or any facts or figures because they're just
2:27:40
not there. the system's wrong and it was wrong from the very outset and they
2:27:45
don't want to admit that which I can understand as well but at the end of the day when you look at me I I was born in
2:27:53
Wittburn I lived in Witburn a young boy I played on the rocks the rock pools were full of sea life just fantastic now
2:28:01
there's nothing and to sit there and say you know everything's fancy and dandy it's just wrong and I'm only a member of
2:28:09
the public but again for somebody that's two planners to sit there and say North Humbly water tells us that. So that
2:28:16
takes away their responsibility that just cannot be right. Thank you.
2:28:22
Thank you Mr. uh Mr. Latimer. I'll hear from Mr. Butler and then I want to hear
2:28:27
from Mr. Green please and I'll come back to North Umbrean Water. Uh thank you sir. At the start of of
2:28:34
introduction to this session, you referred to catchment area maps that have been supplied to you relating to
2:28:40
both Henden and Hen. Uh I'm seeking clarification because in Mr. Horseman's
2:28:46
evidence, he's referred to certain sites um that would go to Henden and certain
2:28:52
sites that would go to Howen. Is that map available to the inquiry, please?
2:28:57
Examination, please. It is. I think it's at appendix 12 of um is it is it the sewage document EMV13
2:29:08
or is it in the infrastructure delivery plan? I think it is available to the inquiry. I'll just verify whereabouts we have it
2:29:16
and if if it isn't then I'll I see no reason to prevent us making it
2:29:22
available. Thank you Mr. Green please.
2:29:28
Yeah. Gosh, where do you start? Uh, you know what's seriously concerning
2:29:33
about Felgate is that 83 uh you know Hen there's all of the pipe work from the
2:29:39
Felgate development I've got an FOI goes is going to go to Hen that correct? Yeah. Now what they're saying is there's
2:29:45
headroom in that investing in further works. Uh you know but
2:29:51
to simplify it uh you know that's possibly the sewage treatment works at the moment that had lots of different
2:29:56
housing. So picture, you know, four or five extra bottles. They pour it in.
2:30:02
Yeah. There's there's extra headroom for the first bottle. Yeah. Pour it in. Add another bottle. Add another bottle. And
2:30:07
then add a 5 liter bottle from Felgate. And even if they add another one of them, it's going to totally overflow.
2:30:14
Sorry. Uh sorry. It's But I mean concerns are I mean at the moment the
2:30:20
head you're seeing there's head headroom at the Hen site. I mean, I've got lists in front of us of storm overflows, and
2:30:27
if you've got you've got, you know, headway, you know, this is 2024. There's there's one I'll not go right through
2:30:32
them because there's a stack of them. Uh, one of them went 179 times. This is in the donesty in the river T. One went
2:30:39
108 times. One went 111 times, one went 89 times. Yeah. Now you know the council
2:30:47
and Northman water. I was actually at a a sewage a surface surface against
2:30:52
sewage uh event at South Shields and what we tend to call it is the table t
2:30:58
the ping pong table tennis blame game where counselor Ernest Gibson who's the head of uh I can't remember what it is.
2:31:05
Can somebody help there? Is it environmental ecological? Uh he what he what he said was it's not
2:31:12
South Tai fault. it's Northland Water's fault, you know, and then what we have there is so they blame each other. They
2:31:18
say they'll do it and then you have the developers coming in who say we've been given permission to build, but it's not
2:31:24
our fault. It's the responsibility of water companies, not applicants. So that's a three-way issue. Now, in the
2:31:31
meantime, fell gates, you know, I I know I go on about the Felgate floods. It floods. I mean, we had a playground
2:31:37
closed, you know, last year and they couldn't open it because of some sewage issues in the in the water. Uh, and I'm
2:31:44
seriously concerned that they say they're investing in future works. But when will that happen? I mean, the
2:31:50
developers could, you know, if this plan got to go ahead, the developers could start planning. Yeah. While the
2:31:56
infrastructure, well, the funding 300 million was it isn't available. So then what happens? They've started building
2:32:03
and I think it needs to be clarified before uh any bricks whatever put in not that
2:32:10
you know not go ahead uh to prevent the once it's once the building starts to
2:32:15
prevent the blame game you know because they just constantly blame each other and it's constantly happening it's went
2:32:20
on for decades and somebody needs to make a stand and say look don't build anymore until you get this
2:32:27
infrastructure sorted you know because we're right in the middle of it they're going to put a massive development and
2:32:32
83% of it's you know going to go it's it's all going to go to Hen and they say they've got a little bit of headroom but
2:32:40
3 1 1200 3,000 houses I mean I I question it I question the reports and I
2:32:45
mean you know Felgate had a historical flood back in uh 2012 whereund you know
2:32:51
the A194 was six foot underwater and you know there's reports come out I
2:32:57
know I go back to reports and I'll change me terminology to misleading is that is that better yeah because yeah
2:33:04
And there's one here which which it was put out in 2017 and it refers back to
2:33:10
2011 flood risk assessment in since December 2011 that have added or changed
2:33:15
our understanding of significant flood risk in South D area. We had 174 houses
2:33:22
flooded. The entire estate was underwater and this this was then carried on because it then goes into the
2:33:28
uh strategic flood assess risk assessment and it's it states that we
2:33:34
have 0% risk of flooding and 0% risk of surface water and you know it's got to
2:33:41
stop. Somebody's got to put a stand somewhere. Thank you Mr. Green. We'll pick up flood risk specifically to Felgate next week.
2:33:48
Can I pick up your point you just made there about Howen and uh kind of just understand from North Umbrean Water
2:33:55
there are and I'm sure I can track this back into the uh infrastructure delivery plan but you may have this information
2:34:03
straight off the top of the head from uh your knowledge of this. So we're obviously currently in one asset
2:34:09
management planning period for North Umbrean Water. Can you just advise me when that period currently runs to? I
2:34:18
appreciate you're in a I think you me mentioned there kind of a degree of um
2:34:23
challenge or push back on uh off what and what what you can kind of invest in
2:34:28
this period and then when the next kind of uh AMP period starts and is that the
2:34:35
one where you are anticipating to kind of have the funding to kind of invest in in Hen.
2:34:44
So yeah yeah yeah you're correct in terms of the challenge. So the the amp period started this this year this this
2:34:50
April. So the five-year period for that in terms of the challenge from a CMA
2:34:55
perspective if if if we were successful with that that investment would start
2:35:01
happening within this amp period. So we we were doing that but as I say there is
2:35:06
still headroom as far as Hen is concerned. Hen is a million population equivalent works.
2:35:14
But assuming in a worst case scenario if the CMA process was not successful then the next AMP
2:35:21
period is 2030. Is that is that how it works? Correct.
2:35:27
Correct. Correct. That's that is correct. But we we have an obligation to drain effectively as part of our license. So we we have to
2:35:34
adrain effectively. it. We we we we're reliant on the on the process that we're
2:35:40
going through at the moment to make the best judgments in terms of how how how all of that is funded.
2:35:47
Thank you. And I think we'll look next week at the council's kind of assumptions and trajectories of when you
2:35:52
think, you know, first developments are likely to take place at the Falgate site if it does, you know, carry on forward
2:35:59
as an al an an allocation uh uh within within the plan. Mr. Green also has
2:36:06
referred to I've seen it in his material. Again, he's not alone. Others are also referencing that issues um that
2:36:15
Mr. Latim has referred to at Whitburn maybe happening on other parts of the network in relation to um the dawn uh
2:36:23
etc. I mean in terms of things like the smart metering, the smart networks in
2:36:28
terms of giving additional kind of capacity within the sewer network is
2:36:33
that exclusively to the kind of Whitburn area or is the potential that that can
2:36:39
be rolled out to other parts of uh the T the Tine area.
2:36:47
So before I answer that, can I just clarify Mr. Latima that the two development sites that he's suggesting
2:36:53
connect direct to the interceptor sewer. Um they don't um they do they connect to
2:36:58
the combined network. In terms of Mr. Green's um issues around
2:37:05
Felgate, uh we absolutely support and agree that it should be a phasing in terms of the drainage. Um and so we're
2:37:14
in favor of of of master planning. Um what's significant about Felgate is that
2:37:20
all of the surface water management will be outside of the sewage network and and
2:37:26
we would only be dealing with fowl um created. Um so this is domestic waste
2:37:32
for from the houses themselves. Um typically for a 1,200
2:37:37
um housing um um allocation it typically takes around 20 years for a site like
2:37:45
that to be fully developed. Um um and and probably four to five years and that
2:37:51
was through the planning process. So in terms of our investment planning that gives us four amp periods. So four
2:37:59
separate um investment periods um to identify um um investment um if there
2:38:08
were any capacity in relation to treatment at Howen um or capacity
2:38:13
treatment to uh transfer f flows um to Howen itself.
2:38:21
Thank you for that. I'm keen to move on, but I will give it's a very brief point, Mr. Green, because obviously we're going
2:38:27
to we are going to obviously look at infrastructure and and flood risk at Felgate, but there's probably something
2:38:33
there you want to come back on. It's just Yeah, there could be four periods ahead, but again, it's a big if you get the investment, if you get the
2:38:39
funding, the if could go on to the next one and the next one, the next one, and before you know, the estate's built and then wear up uh Sewage Creek. Uh and the
2:38:48
other point I'm trying to make is that the over the rain water the surface water will be flowing into the mountain
2:38:54
and the corp gross burns. Have you seen pictures from uh 2024 in relation to the
2:39:00
flooding on the the foot bridges were underwater. Yeah. Uh and that was
2:39:06
without the the extra bills. uh and and you know if that's the case then what what you're saying is that you might not
2:39:12
have the sewage capacity or the the capacity to take the the surface water from any new developments.
2:39:21
Thank you. I don't know just for clarification. So um in terms
2:39:26
of uh managing flood risk outside of this public sewage network um that's not
2:39:32
our role our duty. Yeah. And and in terms of Felgate, we will not
2:39:38
be managing any of the surface water um um from any of that development and it's
2:39:43
unlikely that we'll be asked to adopt any of the surface water infrastructure
2:39:49
um as part of our network as well. I want to yeah I want to come back to
2:39:54
flood risk next week when we look at Felgate clear on the position of um North Umbrean water. Mr. Latim very
2:40:00
brief point before I move on with the agenda. You mentioned the AMP the AMP agreements. Well, I've got the letter
2:40:07
from the Environment Agency. Witburn will not be corrected. It's the 24550.
2:40:14
That's when the money is going to be put there and
2:40:20
I'll send you the thing where it's connect.
2:40:25
Okay. Well, take that outside of um this room. I am clear on the respective
2:40:30
positions of Mr. Latimer and North Umbrean water and if necessary I need to take I'll come to my own view uh on
2:40:37
where I think things um stand. I'm going to move on from from waste water. I
2:40:42
think I'm clear on the respect I say the respective positions. We are going to come back as part of stage two to look
2:40:48
specifically at policy 10 and I know that those who are advocating that the plan should have a policy similar to the
2:40:55
Whitburn neighborhood plan or something stronger. So we will pick that up uh as
2:41:01
part of that discussion. But I think I'm clear I think Mr. Mr. Latimer from your
2:41:06
perspective and maybe from others that the issues here are so so significant in
2:41:11
your view that we shouldn't be contemplating further development until uh in your
2:41:17
view issues are are resolved. So I'm on I'm taking all of that away and uh we'll
2:41:22
we'll deliberate it on it further. But I do want within the time available to just cover some further ground that's on
2:41:28
the uh agenda before we close for today. So thank you uh everybody for those
2:41:33
contributions and to North Umbrean Water for uh agreeing to come along um today.
2:41:41
Um if people we're going to be talking now going back on the agenda
2:41:47
uh my agenda to item uh four I think it is in relation to
2:41:53
employment. If anybody's got any kind of time constraints or you you're not here specifically for employment and you wish
2:41:58
to leave, I won't be offended if you need to be somewhere else.
2:42:10
So whilst other people are making their way uh from the room as indicated at the start of this afternoon or earlier in
2:42:16
this afternoon session, I appreciate we covered a bit of this yesterday uh afternoon um in terms of what the
2:42:23
council's planning for in terms of employment land provision. But obviously policy SP3 as part of the spatial
2:42:30
strategy picks it up again and we discussed yesterday around the kind of
2:42:36
the broad uh kind of spatial distribution of employment whether there are kind of
2:42:42
reasonable uh alternatives uh and we went through that uh in some
2:42:48
detail uh yesterday. But in terms of my masses and issues questions
2:42:56
3.4 four and 3.5 I think again comes back to the kind of the justification
2:43:02
around the employment land provision generally being in the large part to the north of the burough where I think the
2:43:09
council's evidence says employment land is tight and perhaps from a quality qualitative perspective there'll be some
2:43:16
businesses that may prefer to kind of have a more sort of a better
2:43:22
relationship to strategic road network or closer to um the the IMP uh whether
2:43:28
that kind of is a kind of a a uh the council's approach remains a kind
2:43:35
of an appropriate one for the spatial strategy when we're looking at employment and then in terms of policy
2:43:40
SP3 you specifically reference port of time and wardly collery obviously we're
2:43:48
going to look at the second of those two uh at the end of this week
2:43:53
uh in terms of kind of understand about uh Wley Collery being specifically
2:43:58
identified but just perhaps to understand a little bit more about why the council kind of particularly kind of
2:44:04
identified Port of Tine within the spatial strategy and the significance
2:44:09
of that. Is that you Mr. Clifford?
2:44:17
Thank you sir. So to pick up your first point in terms of the north of the
2:44:23
burough, we do recognize the supply is relatively tight. However, the points Mr. Fishwick made
2:44:31
yesterday um that the council is uh
2:44:39
taking measures to address kind of qualitative issues within that and that
2:44:44
there is a um substantial degree of activity within the north of the burough
2:44:53
um valid points. I won't reiterate them. Mr. Feswick has more a better detail
2:45:00
knowledge of those measures than myself. Um in relation to
2:45:08
um the issue of a business park,
2:45:15
again to reiterate what was said yesterday, we do acknowledge that um
2:45:22
there is a certain demand for sites which are particularly wellrelated
2:45:29
in relation to the strategic road network. We have looked at that. We have
2:45:34
considered it um for the reasons I gave yesterday. Just
2:45:40
to reiterate, we decided that
2:45:46
we felt we were not able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify
2:45:52
that scale of green belt release would be in the region of 20 to 25 hectares.
2:45:57
There are also issues around achieving satisfactory access to um
2:46:04
possibly the the most obvious site and also um mitigating the impact on the
2:46:11
strategic road network and issues around land availability. So we took a considered view that that
2:46:19
wasn't the right option and that um exceptional circumstances had not been
2:46:25
demonstrated. Again, um falling back on on what was
2:46:31
discussed yesterday, um there are still opportunities within the
2:46:39
existing land supply for um which we have confirmed the
2:46:45
allocation of um for businesses which are connected to
2:46:52
the supply chain for I am to locate And
2:46:59
it's not absolutely necessarily critical for those businesses to locate in very
2:47:04
close proximity to IMP. In respect of WLY collery,
2:47:11
uh there are a number of advantages to
2:47:17
identifying that site. Although it does involve green bout release, it is a
2:47:22
wellscreened brownfield site and in economic terms
2:47:28
it uh is suitable for for B2 and whilst
2:47:36
uh B2 general industrial um
2:47:42
there's a variety of things which come under that umbrella. uh it doesn't preclude something in the supply chain
2:47:48
for I am locating to there. Uh and there's other advantages which um
2:47:55
set out in in the council's um response to MIQ 3.4.
2:48:04
So it's obviously proximity to the A184 A194 junction
2:48:10
which is a key strategic junction. Um, as I mentioned, it's previously
2:48:16
developed land and its proximity to the Fingsby business
2:48:23
park in Gates. Um, importantly it lies adjacent to the
2:48:30
Lamide line and obviously there are plans which um have been
2:48:38
supported um for that line to be reopened.
2:48:51
Also whilst um
2:48:57
It provides an opportunity for Thomas Armstrong. We are now aware that they no
2:49:04
longer plan to expand, but they um plan to market the site,
2:49:12
probably subject to it being allocated in the plan in order to allow flexibility that it's no longer a green
2:49:18
belt site. Um so we feel it's um
2:49:25
you know it's it's a valid rounded approach taken in the round. Um
2:49:33
I hope that provides a a succinct overview.
2:49:40
Thank you. Yes. So I'm sort of mindful we obviously covered some of this ground yesterday. So I think um we probably
2:49:46
kind of foreshadowed um what might have come up um this afternoon. So I'm not
2:49:52
going to kind of explore or push it um further. That's helpful. I'm not sure there's anybody here wishing to speak
2:49:58
really on the kind of the employment side of the um the spatial strategy and I obviously see from the council's
2:50:04
response to my MIQ35 the kind of regional significant support
2:50:10
of dine and why it's got a kind of maybe got a specific reference and name check within um policy um SP3. So just to kind
2:50:19
of draw this session to a conclusion, it was my final sort of question and final item on the agenda is um in terms of
2:50:26
whether uh having had regard to all factors and everything we've kind of discussed this afternoon and people have
2:50:35
referred to in statements in terms of whether all relevant factors uh were taken into account in terms of
2:50:42
developing an appropriate spatial strategy to meet uh the the uh and accommodate the development needs of
2:50:48
Burough I appreciate the council's answer is very succinct and it's yes we have looked at everything but I just
2:50:53
want to be clear from other people around the table as I said at the start one of the purposes of plan examinations
2:50:59
is to understand whether there are potential changes needed to the plan and what they look like are people saying
2:51:06
that there needs to be a significantly different spatial strategy than the one proposed and I think I'm reasonably
2:51:13
clear on the the East Balden perspective that you your reference to his Balden removed
2:51:20
from policy SP3. Yes, thank you, sir. Um, as we've
2:51:26
outlined uh earlier in our evidence to the inquiry, we would argue that policy
2:51:32
SP3 isn't sound. Um, and we suggest three ways in which the policy could be
2:51:39
modified to improve that situation. With regard to 3.2 two regarding villages. Um
2:51:47
the plan does not in our opinion secure the sustainability and vitality of the
2:51:54
villages as as I explained earlier on in the hearing. Um secondly, the proposed growth does
2:52:02
not in our opinion respect the distinctive character of each village. Again, I've you know gone into some
2:52:09
detail about that earlier earlier today. And finally, we would suggest that um
2:52:17
policy 34 is amended to remove the allocation of village sustainable growth
2:52:23
areas for for the reasons that we've already outlined.
2:52:32
Thank you. I think if I move around the table, I'll come back to councelor Herbert. I think Mr. green and probably
2:52:38
can understand from your perspective you probably want felgate removed from policy or reference to felgate removed
2:52:45
from SP3 that's your kind of view on the special strategy yeah it is yeah and it just goes back to
2:52:51
what Mr. Morton was saying earlier in the afternoon, you know, national policy might be the best strategy for large
2:52:57
developments, but it's only if the relevant infrastructure is in place around the area. And I truly believe
2:53:03
that Felgate is struggling with with the infrastructure at the moment in regardless of the white may pole uh you
2:53:10
know, infrastructure that's going to be put in place, it won't solve the problem. Yeah.
2:53:17
And for those at the uh as a move around the table um from the sort of probably
2:53:24
the wider sort of development sector umbrella is it that you're looking for the proposed modification that's needed
2:53:30
is an altered spatial strategy or is that there are varants within the spatial strategy? the spatial strategy
2:53:36
itself maybe doesn't need to change, but how it's it's implemented or how it then
2:53:43
follows through in the plan um needs to needs to be modified.
2:53:50
I just chat with Mr. Eton first, then Mr. Fulture, then Mr. Martin, Mr.
2:53:56
Morton, Mr. Mr. Westwick. Okay, there we go. Mr. Eton first, please.
2:54:02
I'll keep it brief. is going back to a point raised earlier about the spatial distribution in relation to the um
2:54:11
to the villages and there was a comment about
2:54:16
the village themselves are quite comparable in terms of their sustainability and I just checked back
2:54:21
on the council's answers to question 3.6 It breaks down that spatial distribution
2:54:27
in percentage terms and has got the Baldens at 7.5% say 75 but I think it
2:54:32
means 7.5%. Cleaning at 7.4% but then Whitburn is down at 2%.
2:54:39
So I'd expect that to be more in line with 7.5% in terms of its how it relates
2:54:44
and its contribution it can give to that housing need. Um, and I think that goes back to policy SP3 doesn't give a clear
2:54:50
direction on that in terms of how Widburn can make that comparable
2:54:56
contribution to that need. Thank you, Mr. Fulture. Next, please.
2:55:04
Thank you, sir. Um, it's not so much a criticism of the spatial strategy. I think it goes back to what we discussed
2:55:11
this morning in relation to housing requirements and where we feel that they're not they're not where they need
2:55:17
to be currently um in light of the affordable needs that we discussed as well as employment growth. So we don't
2:55:25
necessarily object to a large strategic allocation such as Felgate, but I think
2:55:32
with the challenges that that comes with in terms of infrastructure and time scales, I think what we're proposing is
2:55:38
that the villages need to be reassessed in terms of sites within them to meet
2:55:44
that short-term need for small and mediumsiz sites.
2:55:59
Thank you, Mr. Martin, please. Yeah, I'd echo Mr. Fulture's uh views
2:56:06
there. Um I think it's not so much that the spatial strategy is completely
2:56:13
wrong. it it's uh my view that the um
2:56:19
that in practice I have my doubts that it's actually going to work and as I said it's more to do with the
2:56:25
overoptimistic assumptions of what might be able to be delivered on some of those uh main urban area sites and I think
2:56:31
it's quite clear from the discussions that we've had that um the villages could accommodate further growth and um
2:56:39
it could be done in a sustainable way um and I do I think following on off Mr.
2:56:45
Fultch's point, if you take that alongside the need, we believe for a
2:56:51
further uplift in the amount of homes that are required in the plan, I think that points you in a direction of um
2:56:57
needing to find additional sites and where those additional sites should be should be at the villages I think have
2:57:03
got more capacity to take additional growth. Thank you, Mr. Morton. Next, please.
2:57:13
So, um, we've made submissions, sir, on safeguarded land at Felgate. Um, I know
2:57:19
we'll pick that up tomorrow and uh next Tuesday as well. Um, but that would require a modification to the spatial
2:57:26
strategy policy. um as per the the regulation 18 uh local plan, but I see
2:57:34
that being more a continuation of the spatial strategy.
2:57:49
Thank you. Um is it Mr. Smith? No, not M. Smith. Mr. Westwick next, please. Thank you.
2:57:54
Hi, sir. You'd be very pleased to hear. I've got nothing further to add. Um at the end of this table uh Mr. and Mr.
2:58:00
Martin and Mr. Fulture cover my point and fully support additional growth in the villages.
2:58:07
Yeah. Finally, Mr. Thompson. Yeah, thank you. Um just reiterating what's being said. Um the villages can
2:58:13
accommodate more growth. Um I think there's a bit of an over reliance on the delivery of Felgate and uh the villages
2:58:22
could take up some of that u capacity.
2:58:27
particularly in the short term. Thank you.
2:58:34
I'm going to move on. Before I do, is it a very brief point, Mr. Butler? Sorry, Mr. Herbert. I need to counc my
2:58:42
peripheral vision is uh letting me down. Councelor Herbert, next please. Sorry.
2:58:48
Thank you. was not surprising that developers want to see more green field
2:58:53
green belt development because that's where it's more profitable. But to remove the green belt, you need to prove
2:58:59
exceptional circumstances and increasing profits for developers is not an exceptional circumstance. I think we've
2:59:05
got to remember the original purpose of the green belt. This one of them is to prevent urbal sprawl. It's also you know
2:59:12
you need to uh keep the villages as villages. At one point you keep taking away the green belt there and not be
2:59:18
villages anymore. So now I think we look at the population projections don't
2:59:24
support the amount of housing that's being proposed. I think there's alternative sites in urban areas which
2:59:31
should be explored before we look at green belt development and we've suggested a few already and I think
2:59:36
there's probably many more within the burough. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Butler please.
2:59:48
Thank you, sir. It was perhaps just to enhance what councelor Herbert's just said. I think in reflection uh of the
2:59:54
evidence we've heard today um it is clear that we have the ability moving
3:00:00
forward as a burough to be looking at greater investment in our urban area and
3:00:05
particularly in our town centers which clearly are the most sustainable um parts of of the burough in terms of
3:00:12
the uh transport network etc. and the linkages that they could bring um both
3:00:19
for employment purposes and for other purposes. And the example is the council's uh move of South Tside College
3:00:27
to the town center in South Shields which will bring uh the opportunities as has been mentioned for for potential
3:00:34
other sites to come into play. So I think um whilst the emphasis um from the
3:00:41
submissions that we've been making is around uh the concerns about the villages there is clearly uh a more
3:00:48
positive move to the ability to look towards direction in the town centers.
3:00:54
Thank you. Before I close for today, is there anything further the council wishes to
3:00:59
come back on or supplement to what it's told me previously and what's in its statements on this issue? No, I've got
3:01:06
no further points I wish to raise with the council. Um, okay. So, I'm going to
3:01:12
draw today's uh session to its conclusion. We are back here tomorrow. I think it's another 9
3:01:19
30 start. We're looking at matter 4 which will be green belt uh or the
3:01:24
strategic approach to the green belt that this uh has been adopted through the plan uh preparation process and also
3:01:31
the general approach to site um selection. So, uh, I think I'm going to be seeing some of you again back in this
3:01:37
room, uh, tomorrow. Okay.