0:01
um that's um without prejudice of course to the
0:07
democratic right to object to the plan and to have those objections heard and
0:12
that's understood. Um it's our responsibility as professionals on this side of the room to discharge our
0:19
professional obligations and responsibilities as best we can.
0:24
um having regard to the duty which we owe you as the inspector sitting here and having to listen to the evidence. Um
0:31
statements of common ground as you said um earlier are useful means of
0:37
identifying issues of both commonality and difference between the parties so
0:42
that you're able to focus on those issues. Not only that um that clarity is
0:49
also of assistance to those who object because it identifies clearly what the
0:54
issues are. Focus on those principal issues as well. Um there's nothing
1:00
improper in discharging this as an administrative
1:05
task in the context of this examination and we are here to assist the
1:11
examination and that is all we are doing entirely without prejudice to the rights
1:16
of objectors, individuals, groups to voice their views
1:24
and to reiterate the views of members who rejected the plan
1:31
and I can say no more than that at this stage.
1:40
Okay, thank you for that. Uh that's helped to everybody in the room. The first bit I'm assured has been recorded.
1:48
Uh so welcome everybody who's joining the live stream, but the first uh 20 or
1:53
so minutes you'll have to go back to uh the recording for that bit. Thank you. I
1:58
will give an opportunity to the council and to um the joint uh land promoters
2:04
here here this morning. I summarized at the start of today having read that statement of common ground
2:11
um that I saw it kind of reaffirming or confirming what what I understood to be
2:16
the kind of differences between the two parties um at the start of this
2:21
examination and and as a consequence of the regulation 19 process.
2:28
Uh and in short order you nothing nothing has ch nothing has changed in
2:34
terms of those residual differences whilst there's uh obviously content there that's
2:40
helpful in terms of you know potential delivery of the site in terms of these sound residual soundness issues that are
2:46
before me that have been presented by Mr. Morton, um, Miss Hamson, those remain to be discussed today. The
2:53
statement of common ground hasn't wiped those away. Yep,
2:59
I'm getting nods. Okay, thank you. I'm going to reflect on on
3:04
some of that, but I'm going to move on and discuss uh the items that are on um my agenda. So, if people uh turn, it's
3:12
I've divided the day into three uh three parts. Part A, uh, I'm going to go
3:17
through how Fgate was identified, impact on the green belt. There is going to be some overlap, um, between discussion
3:23
that we had last week, uh, and probably under matters three uh, last Wednesday
3:29
and matter four in particular to the green belt, but I'm going to sort of drill in a bit more uh, in relation to
3:35
the specifics at um, at Felgate. Obviously, it would uh as the plan
3:41
submitted require an alteration um to the green belt boundary at this location. Uh and I'd like to invite the
3:48
council in the first instance. It's in response to my uh message issues questions 5.1
3:54
uh and 5.2 what the evidence the council has says in relation to the impacts on the green
4:01
belt uh and the potential scope to kind of compensate for that uh through uh the
4:07
local plan. Please. Thank you. Okay. So, the the site was ident was
4:15
assessed sorry through the the green belt study um GRB1 and it was assessed
4:20
under parcel FE2. Um the the document provides a summary of the the green belt
4:26
assessment for that site and identifies the site of having a moderate harm against purposes one to three and low or
4:33
no harm against purpose four. Appendix C of the green valve study um provides a
4:38
bit more detail in terms of how the parcel is assessed and how the parcel performs against each of the purposes.
4:46
It also provides a menu of options for enhancements for the green belt and the surrounding area of each site. Um the
4:52
council considers that this has been incorporated into policy SP8 um in the following criteria which is um criterion
5:00
five um 6 to8 and also within the supporting text um in paragraph 5.24.
5:09
The the allocation is also supported by um inset map 9 which identifies an area
5:15
um an addictive area to the east and south of the allocation which is identified for green belt compensatory
5:22
measures and green infrastructure improvements um to the green belt. Um
5:27
section four of the Felgate sustainable growth area site capacities opportunities paper also sets out the
5:33
relationship of the the site allocation and the adjacent green belt and outlines opportunities to offer offsite um
5:41
compensatory improvements within that wider green belt area identified in set map 9.
5:48
Thank you for that. And I think in previous sessions there's been reference to other uh parcels that were looked at
5:55
in the wider Felgate area. So there's reference to parcels I think really of relevance uh for this session uh FE1
6:04
through to FE4. But just for clarification, it's only parcel FE2 from
6:11
the green belt review that relates to the proposed
6:16
uh growth area within the plan. That's correct. So parcel FE2 relates to
6:22
the area where we expect development to um to come forward within the felgate sustainable growth area.
6:30
Thank you. uh and in terms of the origins of of FE2
6:36
um and whether it was kind of a logical kind of reasonable kind of area um to look at and this kind of goes back to
6:43
had a bit of a discussion or quite a bit of a discussion uh last Thursday about how areas are kind of parcled up for
6:49
green belt um review uh assessment. Does that area neatly
6:57
relate to and reflect land parcels that were put forward as part of the
7:03
strategic housing land availability assessment process or is there um does
7:10
it kind of cut across some of the parcels? How how can you recall Mrs. Lamb how that area was
7:17
identified and drawn up for assessment through the green belt review? Okay. So the the parcel of land FE2 as it is in
7:25
the green bad study and as um shown in the allocation is informed by the the
7:31
green bad study that was undertaken in 2023. Um so as sort of discussed last week um
7:38
in MAT 4 um the parcels were sort of were
7:43
were generally sort of formulated on recognizable and permanent features where possible. Um but that also takes
7:51
into account other wider factors in terms of green belt judgments and that is set out in a bit more detail in the
7:57
council response to MIQ 4.7. Um I think appendix C of um the green
8:04
belt study in terms in relating to to SP8 is is quite transparent in terms of
8:09
acknowledging the boundaries of um parcel FE 2. Um and I'd sort of just
8:15
bring attention to sort of the last um bullet point of that which um states that the southwestern, southern and
8:22
eastern outer boundaries of the site are relatively weak um being comprised of minor water causes, field boundaries and
8:28
farm tracks which offer little in the way of visual screening. However, the southern edge of parcel FE2
8:37
marks the reasonable point against which urbanizing influence of the existing urban area is less notable in terms of
8:44
the distance and containment of existing built env development. Um so basically
8:49
this is the point where the land parcel becomes more open and start to play a greater role with regards to the wider
8:55
purposes of the green belt. the parcels further south of FE2, so in particular
9:00
FE3 and FE4 have been identified in the green belt study um as being high and
9:05
very high harm. So that sort of helps um identify that there is a change in terms
9:10
of the harm within this area of the wider parcel. Um development beyond that point is also considered to have more of
9:17
an impact on the adjacent green belt land. um the urbanizing of the remaining open land up to Newcastle Road and
9:24
increasing containment of remaining more sensitive green belt areas to the west and southwest of the site. Um I think
9:31
the that is sort of acknowledged um and set out within the the policy itself where
9:38
there is quite a an emphasis on creating new green belt boundaries and also again
9:43
within the supporting text of the policy as well. Thank you. So just for my note, Mrs.
9:49
Lamb, you refer to appendix C of which document again was that from? That's the the green belt um study.
10:05
Thank you. And then before I bring in others just with the council again in terms of the outputs of the green belt
10:11
review and we discussed this I think with Mr. Allen from LU um last week. The
10:16
review itself has then when it's looking at um green belt review or green belt
10:22
alterations uh in terms of the wider parcels has then gone to look at more the individual
10:30
um sites presented through the strategic housing land availability assessment within that within that parcel. Um when
10:38
I look at the green belt review um document uh I think my note was um figure 4.5 on
10:47
page 64 um where we start to and and
10:52
accompanying table 4.3 when you start to get into some of the particular individual blocks of land
10:59
within FE2 alo appreciate a high level it's identifying moderate harm against a
11:06
number of the um uh green belt purposes when you drill
11:11
down more specifically actually a number of the parcels within FE2
11:17
um thing I think Mr. Alan alluded to actually it's it's no more than moderate and in a number of cases it becomes low
11:25
or no no harm. If the council wants to say anything
11:30
further to my sort of summary in terms of the the what what should be kind of
11:36
drawn from that that conclusion that should be drawn from that evidence. Um I I think obviously it shows that the
11:43
parcel of land obviously does um have low to moderate ratings overall in terms
11:48
of overall green bell harm and that the the allocation itself therefore um does
11:55
seek to provide development in areas where there is a reduced um impact on
12:01
the wider green belt. Um if there's any further information that required we can obviously um contact um Mr. Allen for
12:07
for further details. Thank you for that. If I can bring in um
12:13
other other people please on this point. So in terms of um harm the green belt
12:19
harm of releasing this site and do want to bring people in. It's the proposed site. It's was assessed broadly as
12:26
parcel FE2. So that's that's the area we're we're looking at. And it said in
12:32
terms of green belt purposes, in terms of checking urban sprawl, moderate harm overall, preventing neighboring towns
12:38
merging, moderate harm. Uh and for safeguarding the countryside, uh moderate harm. I think I'd be interested
12:45
to hear from Mr. Green and for others whether that's kind of reasonable kind of conclusions to draw, whether the harm
12:53
should be considered to be higher. Yeah, in uh in my opinion, you know, the parcels of land. I know this was
13:00
questioned last week. Uh first of all, if you go to page 65 of the of the green
13:05
belt study, uh you'll find that, you know, FA 2 is
13:11
moderate, but all around it is high and very high. And uh I'm just picturing you
13:17
you know I know this was questions last week how you work out the parcels because if you get a if you get a a hair
13:25
in parcel FA3 or F4 does the hair then decide well when I go
13:30
down to FA2 you know that there's less harm it's not I think the whole package the whole of the green the Felgate green
13:37
belt should be deemed as one package and it should be high or very high because it's an abundance of wildlife uh you But
13:44
and it's question about where the wildlife studies uh you know where they are have have they have they been fully
13:51
done. Uh if you also go on to page 63 you have the map
13:56
uh again which is if you look at the felgate green belt you've got FA1 FA2
14:01
which you know FA2 is going to be taken away. Then you've got FA3 and four which is right next to it. And then where the
14:07
amp is you've got uh very high. Now what what's happening and we did discuss last
14:12
this last week it's squeezing the green belt and there's going to be nothing left of that green belt if this development goes ahead uh and the harm
14:20
levels here you know it's it's it's a natural oasis of it's a biodiverse
14:25
natural habitat for lots of wildlife and to parcel it up like that you cannot say the wildlife's going to stay in parcel
14:32
F3 where it'll be safe but if adventures in the F2 or F1 it will not be safe I think it should be put as the full
14:38
package
15:18
Thank you. Uh Mr. Slade next please and then councelor Kilgore.
15:24
Thank you. Um, as as mentioned before, I'm the tenant farmer on there, and it
15:29
just seems to me very strange that this area had previously all been high value
15:34
to the green belt. And it seems to me that it's been devalued after um the
15:42
developers have come forward wanting to build on it and the councils decided that they need the area for houses. It
15:48
just seems very strange to me that it's been devalued just at this time and it always has been high value green built.
15:58
Thank you, Councelor Kilgore. Next, please. Thank you, sir. Um, I think it it it's a
16:06
shame that uh Mr. Allen isn't here today um to further um emphasize the harm that
16:13
that is due to be caused should that parcel be developed. Um he was very
16:18
clear around the openness of the site and I would dispute that further into
16:25
the site it is open it is open from the outset of the site which is on the
16:31
perimeter of Durham Drive um where the suds are. So for many many reasons that
16:36
we're going to come on to um and those particularly identified in the Cavana report that was um around in 2016 and 19
16:46
and another Cavana report that was produced later on I think in 2019
16:52
uh used by the local authority. you know, the booklet that I've got that I live by um states very clearly that it
16:59
has high impact um on on you know that local area but it would bring in and I
17:07
don't want to be premature sir in bringing in all of those reasons that it would be but I think collectively um
17:14
that area is probably the most harmful. um it it starts the breach into the
17:22
green belt whereby the enjoyment um and the benefits from that um actually
17:29
begin. Um and I think you know we we can argue um that the the LU report actually
17:38
favors um no development on Felgate by way of its biodiversity demand um and by
17:46
way of um expressing the openness I think it was par was it 4.15 or
17:52
something like that I can't remember so I have got it written down um whereby it further went on to emphasize
17:59
um the impact and the harm um around that specific area with regards to
18:06
access ingress egress. There are a myriad of things that I'm hoping we will cover in
18:12
detail later on, but I don't believe um for one moment that commencing a breach
18:18
into the green belt at FE2 is acceptable. Q.
18:27
Thank you. Is it Mr. screen again. Yeah. Again, just very quickly, if you go to page uh 276 of the report, uh it
18:35
actually states that the fellgate estates north of the site are clear clearly visible and have an urbanizing influence, but there's a strong
18:41
relationship with the wider countryside, you know. So, the relationship is there.
18:46
And if you go to page 277, the function, uh again, it's purpose three. The site
18:54
is part of the countryside and so contributes to preventing encroachment on it. I I believe there shouldn't be
18:59
any encroachment on it and that's why we want the the whole site withdrawn from the local plan. But I have a concern as
19:06
well over over the road from uh the parcels there's a there's a mining there's open mining and it's been there
19:11
for and the council will probably be able to help us. I think it's well over a decade. Uh you know now with Felgate I
19:20
believe that it sits on the shield as well and what seriously concerned that once they start developing on it that
19:27
will turn into a mining site. That's my serious concerns. Now not only will you have the build later on you'll have
19:33
mining beforehand. And what does that say about the status of the physical and mental health and wellbeing of those on
19:39
the estate when you've got so much noise pollution? You'll have light light pollution. You'll have vibrations.
19:44
You'll have well picture a building site which is about 50 meters from the
19:49
current residents who are really young families. Now you do have a lot of young families. We were an older generation. I
19:56
mean I'm one of the younger ones actually. Uh but you've got you know residents of the estate passing away and
20:02
young families because it is affordable housing on there. young families have moved on to the estate and this will
20:08
have a massive effect on the the physical mental health and well-being of these children and I believe you you
20:14
bring Kate Osbborne's you know you know letters and that in later on but she did say that our area has the highest uh
20:21
lung function difficulties uh in nationally locally and nationally now
20:26
whether that that's not a result of what's going on around Felgate if if anybody knows the estate there's a lot
20:32
of dust and everything at the moment and you've got you know an estate which is being built over the road uh which is is
20:40
having an effect on the massive area in relation to traffic and everything but we will get on to that later on but that's my main concern that it will
20:46
become a main a mining extraction site as well. So just so I'm I'm clear from Mr. green
20:53
and from others. I think the way I'm sort of reading your representations from what you're saying to me is um
21:01
the f the wider Felgate area. I'm talking about the area that's bounded by the A194, the A184 and going across to
21:10
the A19 should should be looked at as a whole. And the the assessment is
21:18
shouldn't arrive at a view that it's moderate, which I think is the council's evidence of the highest degree of harm.
21:24
They're saying it's either high or very high against the the various kind of purposes of the green belt. when I'm
21:30
looking at kind of issues of openness, as I said to people at previous sessions, I've been to the area, alen
21:37
been to Durham Drive. Um I've been to um the kind of the
21:42
uh I'm going to call it the old highway as it goes down to kind of westfate farm that kind of runs from the Mill
21:49
Lane roundabout. So you can look across from there. um been to the kind of um I
21:54
think there's a there's one layby but there's also the kind of the the road that goes down to Lavick Labric Hall so
22:01
you can kind of turn off the A184 and look across. Are people satisfied that those
22:07
particular perspectives would give me a sort of a reasonable
22:14
um kind of perspective and understanding of the wider site and how when I'm
22:19
looking at things like openness and factors like that can Mr. screen and
22:25
then I'll just come back on that. If you if you you'll have seen the new estate which is cropped up over the road from
22:30
uh Falgate the severe difficulties getting onto the on is that Milton
22:36
Gardens. Yeah. What it's got is the exit point would be onto Mil Lane which is we we'll look at this later on but the
22:41
statistics for that road is is overwhelming and they're having difficulties getting out onto the main
22:47
road there. Yeah. Yeah. We'll pick up. I'm just thinking when I want to look at the site um I
22:53
can't go on private land but I can from public vantage points
22:59
refer got four there when I want to understand kind of openness am I going to see enough from
23:05
those particular perspectives to kind of help my my judgment councelor Kilgore
23:10
thanks sir I think there's another aspect as well which is um from uh Cedar
23:15
Drive and from fieldway so that is another aspect and we have residents um
23:21
from Cedar Drive and Lavender Grove um on the head with estate who have made representation too. So the view and the
23:28
openness is is throughout is on every um you know every angle of um that
23:36
surrounding perimeter.
23:41
Thank you. I've made a note of that that location. Thank you um Mr. Morton please.
23:48
Thank you sir. Um just to come back on um and respond to a few of the points
23:53
made there. So you'll be aware um we've got ecology later on in the agenda. Um
24:00
green belts a spatial um matter. Um ecology um isn't of relevance to that
24:06
directly. Um various points made on the level of harm. Um but the evidence before this
24:14
examination is um the green belt review and moderate harm and I think you
24:21
referred to sir table 4.3 which shows that quite a few parcels within FE2 are
24:27
low to no but I think the um the LU methodology is to is to pick up the
24:33
highest harm and then apply that to the to the parcel but just to underline that um some of the parcel uh yeah parcels
24:41
within to our are low um to no harm. And then just on Mr. Green's point about
24:48
mining and you said that was one of your main concerns. Um just to allay that
24:54
from from my client's point of view, there's absolutely no intention um to to mine that site. Um the proposal is um as
25:02
per the the local plan. Thank you. Um whilst you got the
25:09
microphone, Mr. Mort Morton I mean obviously the local the green belt review where I started from has
25:14
identified parcel FE2 I'm trying to recall and recollect a lot
25:20
of material that's in front of me but do you understand how FE2 has been arrived
25:25
at and do you have agreement with that process or should the green belt review have been
25:32
undertaken differently so we're we're we're generally um satisfied with it um Just tracing things
25:41
back um in terms of my client's land. We submitted the land that was available um
25:47
to the schla process. We understand that the council have um undertaken a green
25:52
belt review. We understand the conclusions of it that are before us. Um and we accept um that the land that's
26:00
proposed for housing allocation based upon that evidence is is the land that has the least harm to the green belt. So
26:07
um there's no particular um objection to the uh to the boundary of um FE2 and SBA
26:15
um from from my client's perspective.
26:21
Thank you. And before I just get on to sort of boundaries, the sort of second part of this sort of first item was
26:26
around compensatory improvements. I think Mrs. you referred me to kind of the various parts of policy SP8
26:33
um that the council considers reflects what's in the um the green belt review
26:40
um evidence and I see from paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8
26:46
the council's um matter five um statement where um that kind of flows
26:52
through in terms of that evidence um into the policy. Can I just understand
26:58
it was something that was raised last week and just clarify are there any existing public rights of way
27:07
on this site Mr. Green?
27:14
Well, yeah, it just goes on to one of the questions you had. I believe it was 5.9 in relation to the monton if I'm
27:21
mistaken. It's somewhere in this paperwork and believed in relation to the foot path which is over the road. Uh
27:29
the the bridal path there's a bridal path that runs up parallel to the the fields. Uh and residents have used it.
27:37
We've got photographs of using it even before the 1970s. It's been a a bridal
27:44
way which has been used by members of the public uh for the past 50 years. Uh
27:51
and up until June the 14th uh everything was fine and then pressure was put on
27:59
you know to for for Mr. Alders to fence it off on the instruction of the land
28:05
agents. uh resonance as you can imagine you've walked this path for 50 plus
28:11
years where I rate and me wife and I actually visited uh Durham Cathedral and
28:16
spoke to you know part of the team there and they did uh they did say that they
28:22
would raise it with Lavick uh whether or not they did or not we don't know uh but
28:29
if the path's been walked for 50 years uh I believe that it's is a public right
28:36
away and you know we will be just help me Mr. Green get my bearings
28:44
where where exactly are you referring to? Right. What what you've got is you've got if you came down Durham Drive
28:50
uh that's as a result of the is it being of the path being fenced off. Horses then had to go down there past Durham
28:57
Drive. You've got before the fields in between you've got you've got a gravel path which runs all the way from
29:03
Peterbr. I've got a map somewhere. Uh
29:08
yeah, it's Peter Brilli. It runs right from the bottom of Durham Drive all the way up uh to the AA194
29:15
and it's that that's the bone of contention at the moment because
29:21
uh would say it has been a public bridal way.
29:29
Thank you, Councelor Kilgore. Next, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um I know that you
29:35
reminded us very clearly at the outset that this was regarding um parcel FE2 uh
29:41
only but we can't ignore um in light of uh Mr. Morton's statements there that
29:47
the documentation that has been submitted from um Saviles refers to
29:53
3,000 homes. So whilst there is an acknowledgement of the high or very high
29:59
as the parcel develops um equally we believe that there should be a
30:04
recognition that um the parcel in itself is is high or very high as we've stated
30:11
and with regards to the the bridal path as well we have had um a a look at we've
30:17
had a formal um inspection of that area as bridal path and there is um plans in
30:24
the um immediate future to claim that um
30:29
formally. We do understand that there are other pathways that are design, you
30:34
know, designated on the maps. They've never been formally claimed and we're in the process of of looking at that too.
30:40
Thank you, Mr. Roller Slide and then I'll come to Mr. Morton.
30:47
I'm sorry. I'm I'm going to have to disagree with
30:53
Mr. agree and councelor Kilgawa cuz as being the tenant farmer on there I can
30:58
categorically say that has never been a bridal away or a public footpath
31:04
and it has always been fenced off except where the fences have been taken away by
31:09
various persons unknown. Okay, thank you Mr. Morton please.
31:16
I think Mr. Alder Sled's just just beaten me to it. Um my understanding according to the
31:22
definitive map is there are no public rights of way on the site. Um it's private land um that's owned by Durham
31:30
Cathedral. Um Mr. Alder Slade has made efforts um to secure the land in line
31:38
with his with his teny. Um Mrs. Kilgawa has mentioned um a claim at the moment.
31:46
You know that's that's a suggestion. There is no um claims submitted. There's no um there's a process to go through
31:54
but as things stand today there are no public rights of way on the site and it's private land. Um any access to the
32:01
land is uh is at the request of um Mr. Alders. Um
32:08
I'll I'll leave it at that sir. Thank you um Mr. green and then
32:16
councelor Kilg and then likely to move on at this point I have come across the map know yeah and
32:22
it clearly shows I mean this this is an ordinance there but that's it's got the dot line up up the path and we will we
32:29
have actually met with the environmental officer and I'll be meeting with her again tomorrow and we'll be putting all
32:34
paperwork forward for the claim claim that bridalway as a public bride away
32:41
so ju just very quickly just to come back to Mr. Morton, the um the land does not have to be um in public ownership um
32:48
in order for it to be determined a public right of way or indeed a bridal path. Thank you.
32:54
Okay. Thank you. Just I wanted to I just wanted to briefly explore that because it had been raised last week and I want
33:01
to understand that in the context of then we're looking at compensatory kind of improvements. Um because one of those
33:07
is is around you know potential uh ability to kind of um
33:16
deliver biodiversity improvements which we'll come on to later but also in terms of whether there's benefits in terms of
33:22
improved public access um uh connections. I just wanted to uh look at
33:29
the policy itself as say Mrs. Lamb has referred us to the relevant parts that the council considers uh would secure
33:36
those would secure compensatory um improvements. And then I think Mr. Lamb also referred to in set map 9 which
33:43
shows indicative areas. Can I just confirm with Mr. Morton and Miss uh
33:50
Hampson that the areas that are shown on map nine are under the control
33:57
of um those who are going to be uh at least in the first stages responsible
34:03
for delivering site FE2 i.e. there's a reasonable prospect uh of these
34:10
compensatory improvements being secured if that area remains green belt land.
34:16
So yes, that's the case. Um I think from memory it was appendix two of the
34:22
statement of common ground set out the uh the land ownership position. Um but
34:28
yes, the the land to the south of um SP8 is in the the same ownership. Um Lavall
34:35
Farm Limited and Durham Cathedral um and and the church commissioners and that
34:40
land is available. So just just just to go back to the the
34:45
public rights of wear point. Um obviously as part of development um the
34:52
proposal is to include new public rights of wear cycle cycle wares um through the
34:57
site to connect into um existing um connections. Um
35:04
so um at the moment our position is uh the land is in private ownership but
35:09
through through development public access um to the to the site and the wider area would would be created.
35:20
Thank you. Is there anything further miss you want to add from church commissioners? No. Uh Mr. McBride next
35:26
please. Moner reference the farm track excuse me Mr.
35:34
Morton and Mr. All this are correct. From information from a farm hand who
35:41
worked on the land in the 1950s, that was a farm truck. Always was a for a
35:47
farm truck and it carried on through down to a bridge that went over a water
35:56
course at the what's it called now? Sorry. where the
36:03
the new basin number one is. So that was
36:08
a farm track. It carried on through over the water course at basin number two and
36:15
down so the vehicles farm vehicles could use that land.
36:21
That water course where the bridge was at basin number two
36:28
was buried was put into a pipe and buried which
36:34
went across the estate during the building in the 1970s across the estate
36:40
from the basin number two right away across
36:46
to wellway. So they're quite right in what they're saying. They that was a
36:52
farm truck. Thank you. If I come back to Mr. Green
36:57
on this this kind of I'm still on the issue of sort of wider compensatory improvements. Can I understand it from
37:04
your group and your perspective Mr. green that uh any compensation any improvements in
37:11
terms of public access green spaces etc can't offset or is not able to
37:18
offset the harm you think would arise from development on the FE2 parcels
37:23
there was wider public access elsewhere that that wouldn't be sufficient it's parcel F2 it won't stop parcel F2
37:32
where you you know uh again we discussed this last week there is circa for uh 3,000 homes so it will spread into the
37:40
alternate ones compensatory measures for the felgate green belts you know you've seen it you know any local people will
37:48
have seen it uh I don't think you could ever replace the the felgate green belt
37:56
councelor Kgo go please thank you sir um I've uh managed to
38:02
print off the uh map that relates to the scoping opinion, but it is very useful
38:07
for this purpose. Um, it looks at potentially uh punching through from FE2
38:14
onto Durham Drive. Um, which then creates further concern around um the
38:21
safety of of um residents and the and the area within that that arena. But it
38:27
also further um it's not just in this paperwork, it's in previous paperwork as
38:32
well where um the developer would look to extend the element of green belt and
38:39
create um an open area um before the next parcel if you like. Um effectively
38:48
um the enjoyment of the green belt that our community have enjoyed for so very long will only now or then
38:56
as we hope not be enjoyed by 1,200 homes or those on the frontages um which are
39:03
the larger um more um less dense uh properties. So it's simply moving the
39:10
enjoyment uh from our residents into a further parcel onto the site and and
39:16
that is not acceptable. Um so with regards to biodiversity, I absolutely
39:21
don't think that it can be uh replaced on site. Um I don't think that the residents that are going to be impacted
39:29
in that vicinity will ever see the light of day with regards to any development
39:34
of a positive nature. Um yes, there is identified a foot path through um
39:39
Felgate Estate. It relates to other um mechanisms that they would look to put
39:45
in place, but essentially it would be even further intrusive onto the Felgate
39:50
estate. Q. Thank you. I appreciate another document
39:56
is being referred to perhaps it's helpful to the examination. And what I have in front of me is document HO1
40:02
which is the kind of the felgate. Um I think they call it capacity and opportunities paper or something sim
40:08
similar. Apologies if I'm not quite quite there. Um so I'm keen to obviously
40:15
focus on what's in front of me as part of the the examination but I think I recognize some synergies with um what
40:22
you're referring to to there. Mrs. Uh sorry, councelor Kilgar.
40:28
I'm going to move on from compensatory improvements. I'll give unless anything the council wishes to clarify anything
40:34
further from what's been said. And then just finally under my item two on the
40:39
agenda is around ultimately sort of proposed boundaries were the plan um to be found sound in terms of the extent of
40:47
uh the proposed alteration and then what would remain uh within the green belt.
40:53
Obviously I've got in mind uh national planning policy framework at paragraph
40:59
143 and it's criterion F saying about defining boundaries using uh clearly
41:05
using physical features. I think you referenced Mrs. lamb in in part of
41:10
looking at parcel FE2 there are some boundaries but perhaps in parts of the
41:16
site things are weaker um
41:21
is what's proposed through uh parcel FE2 justified in terms of the boundaries uh
41:28
in terms of the extent it can use existing boundaries together with what the the council or
41:34
the plan sees as opportunities to either strenthe or
41:41
establish new new boundaries that would demarcate development and green belt. Uh
41:48
yes, I think we are confident that the boundaries and parcel FE2 are justified at this point. Obviously using the green
41:54
belt study as justification for that. um you're right to sort of point to um
42:00
document um the opporting opportunities paper and as sort of referenced before
42:06
particularly um section 4.3 which um it sets out the relationship with the
42:11
adjacent green belt. Um so that recognizes that for any scheme on this
42:16
site the key consideration will be the relationship with the adjacent green belt land. Um it's it suggests some
42:24
measures which could help um sort of reflect the the relationship between the built um development and the green belt
42:30
area um including that could potentially be uh suitable for lower density housing
42:36
with generous front gardens, street tree planting um which would front onto the green belt area. Um also the use of um
42:44
trees and vegetation planting to reduce visual impacts and help create a more defensible boundary um along that edge.
42:52
Um and also sort of um ensuring that there is access to the to the natural
42:57
green belt spa um green space as well um and provide opportunities such as play parks and um in the the green the green
43:04
belt adjacent to the site where it would be a compatible use.
43:24
Thank you. And I see in policy SP8 under five uh part five criterion four protect
43:32
and strengthen the remaining green belt by creating new defensible green belt boundaries. Is that one of the key parts
43:38
of the policy Mrs. Lamb that I need to have in have in mind? Uh yes uh I think
43:44
that is very much reflective of the evidence that is set out in the green bath study that there would be
43:49
requirement to to produce those new defensible boundaries um on that site where at present it is slightly weaker
43:56
and it probably a little bit harder to distinguish that.
44:01
Thank you. Are there alternative views on the precise boundaries of the site
44:07
and the approach the council has taken? Mr. Green first please. Yeah, it's just
44:12
basically the the the plan going ahead would be for uh I'll just try and do it like this. You've got the current semi-
44:18
detached houses here and you've got the high density houses going there. Uh
44:23
where's the Yeah area, you know, and you've got a shopping area going, you know, very close to Durham
44:31
Drive. So the residents, you know, who are currently in the semis are going to have the town houses so that they'll
44:38
have nothing, you know. Yeah. They might have to walk through to the middle of the estate where the more expensive houses are, but
44:44
there'll be nothing there. Purely town houses and I think that'll have a seat effect on again the the mental health
44:51
and well-being of everyone concerned. Thank you, Mr. Sheer. Next, please.
44:57
Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Um, I'm obviously speaking as I'm I'm nowhere near up to speed with
45:03
the uh detail of this, but I feel as though I'm speaking for residents that are interested, worried, concerned, but
45:12
aren't actually privy to the detail of all of this. And from what I can see the
45:18
it's compensatory improvements that most people would be worried about and they should obviously be taken in the area
45:25
concerned not anywhere else in the burough and from what I've read the uh
45:32
expected harms should be surely quantified before anything goes ahead
45:39
and not just limited to biodiversity gains and include immediate landscaping
45:45
improvements. I think it was mentioned briefly by councelor Kilawa as well that the there's got to be a serious buffer
45:52
zone between any development anyway in the burough to actually try to protect
45:57
existing residents amenities rather than just allowing developers to trumpet oh
46:04
the wonderful amenity that their new development is going to give whilst totally ignoring and indeed reducing the
46:11
um environment and immunity of everyone else. And again, from what I've read,
46:17
little to no account is usually taken of that. Um and they also developers appear
46:24
to try to negotiate away any compensatory improvements
46:29
during their negotiations with the council as far as possible either on the basis of well it's it's not financially
46:36
viable or conditions have changed or anything like that to reduce the overall
46:43
um things that they have to do or promise to do. And then when it actually
46:49
comes to doing it, they can very often leave the site before those compensatory
46:55
agreed improvements are actually made. And that is basically uh to do with the
47:01
lack of council ability to re enforce things. It's the enforcement that that I
47:07
see as a major problem. And again, that's probably due to the fact that we just don't have um enough experienced
47:15
planners able to follow through because they're going to move on to the next job as will developers.
47:23
So, thank you for that. Thank you. Uh Mr. Sharer, if I can turn
47:29
to others that um I mean turn to the um Mr. Morton or Miss Hampson just on the
47:36
point of uh boundaries defensible boundaries I mean other plan
47:41
examinations it's often pointed to me you know green belt alterations should be
47:48
uh adjusted or clipped to clearly identifiable kind of features um on the
47:54
ground I think I heard earlier Mr. appears to be little dispute about how parcel FE2 has been identified. If I was
48:02
concerned about the defensible boundaries issue, is it a case of well that's a modest
48:09
adjustment if there are bits that are more open than others or if if you want
48:14
to move from this you're going to have to go some way to the next kind of defensible boundary or identifiable
48:21
boundary. So from from my client's perspective, as I said, we're we're we're generally fine
48:28
with with what the council have proposed. Um
48:35
it's quite difficult to break it down into into areas, but um Mr. Alders will
48:40
know that the majority of um the southern boundary of FE2 is defined by a
48:46
farm track and hedro. So that does follow um a feature on the ground. Um I
48:53
accept it's a little bit weaker over towards um the Leam Lane roundabout
48:58
area, but obviously that land needs to be included in the uh in the allocated area to deliver the um the access road,
49:06
the primary access road. Um and as we've discussed, I think the policy itself is
49:12
strong enough um within its wording to secure um new landscape boundary
49:19
planting to to establish a defensible green belt boundary where where they are weaker on the site.
49:31
Thank you. And just going back slightly to the compensatory improvement point
49:37
and picking up from Mr. Sheer's perspective, obviously the policy does seek to deliver a well-connected network
49:44
of good quality green and blue infrastructure provision including walking and cycling. Uh and the plan
49:50
identifies um where that is. Uh would it be necessary for soundness to just have
49:56
the caveat that that should that those areas should be publicly accessible?
50:04
got no objection to that. Sir, I'm just mindful there are increasing numbers of applications where areas are
50:10
put forward for private and not necessarily adopted or taken by the bur
50:15
B or the local authority and then this kind of perception arises
50:21
where that area goes with that development and it's seen as part of their their FFT. Whereas if uh if there
50:28
was a a caveat about making it clear, it will be publicly accessible.
50:33
I think that's the intention. Um and to promote inclusive communities
50:39
um would require public access to those those areas
50:45
and that can be secured through the development management process
50:50
um through section 96 obligations etc. uh which will deal with um um
50:57
maintenance as well.
51:03
Thank you. I'm not hearing from any necessary resistance where I wanted
51:09
to put publicly accessible in as a caveat or clarity within the policy. No, that could be done. Yes,
51:18
Mr. Green next and then councelor Kilgore. Yeah, just just very quickly know in the
51:23
area as as I do just like to correct Mr. Morton on the fact that there's currently crops grown in those field.
51:28
It's not just a gravel path and hedro. And uh you know in a final statement on
51:34
this I' I'd say by creating the new healthy community what they're on about you'll totally decimate the existing
51:39
community for decades to come uh with building filth and pollution.
51:46
Councelor Kore. So thank you. Um I would also dispute um
51:52
the wording around the primary um exit or or ingress. Um the fact that there
51:59
the plan demonstrates that where the shops where the the medical facilities
52:05
where the school is is intended to be cited that I would I would submit that
52:11
that is actually going to be the um the primary access. Um and and furthermore
52:18
to that if we're looking at inclusivity as Mr. Green has just referred to um how
52:25
can it be inclusive when the higher density properties um above uh Durham
52:31
Drive not only higher density but also higher in height um that doesn't create
52:38
um an inclusive environment and equally I think we need to be really realistic around our existing residents accessing
52:46
um footpaths, cycleways etc within something that has already been
52:51
shielded. off and and very clearly depicted as a very separate village in its own right.
52:58
Thank you. Thank you. We'll come on to I think some of the issues that are raised there um
53:05
later on. I'm just mindful and just want to bring people back to what's in policy SPA what's being sort of set out as a
53:12
strategic policy and we'll come on I think as part of the final part of today's discussion about how this then
53:19
all fits with other things that the council wants um is seeking to do through supplementary
53:25
uh planning material um as well before we take um a midm morning I just want to
53:32
briefly touch on uh item three of my agenda I appreciate it was part of
53:37
matter three when we looked at the spatial strategy and I'd asked the council and others then about the
53:43
principle of just a large single development in this case uh principally
53:49
for housing being part of a uh a sound um approach and I've raised my mass
53:56
issues questions 5.3 and 5.4 for just how putting sort of the green belt issue
54:03
to one side just the origins of how this kind of option came forward and when the
54:09
council kind of first looked at it and assessed it um Mrs. Islam. I think this has been a con something at Felgate has
54:16
been a kind of consistent from the regulation at least the regulation 18 plan back in June 2022.
54:23
So this has been a a consistent area that the council's been looking at
54:29
certainly for recent plan making. Yes, that's correct. Um so the the land
54:35
south fell gate has been identified as a large uh green bat release since um the the regulation 18 2022
54:43
um document. Um but the consideration identification of the site sort of goes
54:49
um earlier than that in terms of the sustainability appraisal and the the 2019 um sustainability appraisal which
54:56
included an an area of search um in terms of identifying potential suitable
55:02
areas within the burough um as to to where that could potentially go. Now
55:07
obviously that option wasn't taken forward at that point um but that sort of laid the foundations in terms of the
55:13
land south of Felgate as being the the area most suitable um for that to happen
55:18
within South Tinside. Um I think sort of going back a bit a bit further than that
55:24
as well in terms of the land south of Felgate and how that's been assessed. Um it was sort of first assessed through
55:29
the strategic land review document that the council undertook and published in 2018. Um so this was an an
55:35
evidence-based document that the council undertook which looked at development potential of land parcels across the
55:41
whole of South Tides within the main urban area and within the the green belt as well. Um it it wasn't a plan. It was
55:49
purely an evidence-based document to help inform the plan um progression of the plan at that point in time. Um but
55:56
no longer forms part of the the wider evidence base for the the plan that's in front of examination today. Um the the
56:04
street land review it was consulted on back in 2016 and I think at that point um the land south of Felgate had been
56:10
sort of carved up into three um land parcels. Um following that consultation
56:16
um there was a a we look reooked at the methodology um in the strategic land
56:22
review itself um and taking into account um different um methodologies for for
56:27
green belt um um updated evidence base for other studies as well and that resulted in um the land south of Falgate
56:36
um being carved up again into more parcels. So it went from three parcels up to 13 parcels at this point. Um based
56:43
on the the the various methodology. Um from that point that has sort of fed
56:48
into um the various schlars that have taken place in terms of plan preparation
56:54
and again that has been informed by green belt studies that have been undertaken by the council in house. um
57:00
most notably the in informing the the 2022 um regulation 18 where we've gone
57:07
from the 13 parcels down to five at that point based on the green belt methodology. Um I think also just note
57:15
that all those parcels that have been considered um through the development of the plan they've all been subject to sustainability appraisal um in the sight
57:22
specific um assessments that we've undertaken which are in that folder along with other other documents as
57:29
well. Um so we consider that the the land south of Elgate has been thoroughly considered at all stages in the plan
57:36
process and has resulted um with the land parcel that's in front of us today which I say it's been informed by the
57:41
the most latest evidence base that we've done. Thank you. C can I just briefly clarify
57:47
with the council that paragraph 512 in response to my matters issues um
57:52
question 5.3 when you said you says here you originally assessed a series of smaller sites which were found to be
58:00
unsuitable I don't know if you're able to just expand just on that point is it
58:06
how that kind what the unsuitable yeah so those smaller parcels were refle
58:13
a reflection of the SL law as Mrs. Lamb touched on. Um so obviously you know
58:19
that was outdated evidence that um was reflected in the law at the time and
58:25
then as we've modified the boundaries going through the process um yeah the assessments have
58:32
have been modified in in conjunction with that.
58:39
Thank you. We'll come on to uh some of the issues uh specifically around the
58:44
site. We discussed last week it kind of you know the overall strategy where
58:49
there are potential benefits from a single large site that need to kind of be factored in uh and I think I was
58:57
directed to paragraph 73 of the national planning policy framework
59:02
but of now is an appropriate time Mr. CBR or whether it comes more when we kind of look more detail at part C
59:08
around delivery. Um this kind of balance and choices that
59:14
need to be made around whether the benefits of releasing a larger site for
59:20
the supply of homes versus some of the potential kind of risks or factors that
59:26
need to be considered around that and whether Falgate is potentially too risky
59:32
a location. through previous matters last week, we
59:38
set out our position. So I think it I think at this point we're content that you're aware of our position. Um so
59:44
yeah, I think specific elements this afternoon is probably relevant from our viewpoint.
59:52
Thank you for that. I said at the start of this morning, I think I'm reasonably clear from most people on my um
1:00:01
left that uh there's there's no there's no alternatives here. It's not a case of
1:00:07
whether it's a single site or smaller sites or smaller parcels. Neither option
1:00:13
is uh suitable or reasonable um for this plan. But obviously, Mr. Green.
1:00:20
Yeah. Uh, I kind of see how you how you can have the top of Durham Drive as
1:00:26
being fine to build on, you know, in relation to flooding and traffic, but just right next to it 10 m down the
1:00:33
road, you're then saying that area is unsuitable because it floods green belts and traffic. That's what I can
1:00:39
understand. And if you go to the uh the Schllo report 2024, page 46,
1:00:45
that's clearly identified. You've got a long list of uh sites on Felgate and it's not just small parcels, it's large.
1:00:53
It's it's large pieces of it. And it's if you go down from uh
1:00:59
uh S SFG072 all the way down to uh SFG84.
1:01:08
All of them are are not suitable for development except for parcel uh G073.
1:01:15
And I can't understand how how that can be logical because the water can flow down through the whole estate which it
1:01:22
does. If you visited Dur Drive, you'll have seen the state of the road due to surface water even though I designate as
1:01:28
having 0% surface water problems. Uh but that highlights it. Then if you also go
1:01:34
to uh
1:01:42
uh right uh sorry there's so many reports here this what I've been having trouble getting uh
1:01:50
the felgate and headworth I cannot pick all right how I'm going
1:01:55
now the site selection topic uh and if you go to appendix three which
1:02:01
is falgett 2025 updates. Again, if you go all the way down from page 18 to
1:02:08
page, have you managed to get that? Have you?
1:02:13
Uh, it's got the site searching topic paper. Yeah, it's fating headlock 25. If you go
1:02:18
down from page uh page 18 and if you continue down
1:02:25
you'll see reject site, reject site, reject site. Then then SFG075 comes up
1:02:33
and then below that you've got eastern parcel land south of Fgate reject sites.
1:02:38
Uh western parcel land south of Falgate reject sites and it goes on. I could go on forever but it goes all the way down.
1:02:45
And I can't understand how you can say this bit's okay to build on and this bit isn't. All of it is unsuitable to build
1:02:50
on. And we and we'll, you know, put our case forward for the the access road onto Durham Drive uh later on this
1:02:57
afternoon because I believe you're picking that up later on this afternoon. Road traffic data. We'll we'll see where it might be this
1:03:03
morning, but we'll we'll see what progress we make. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Okay.
1:03:13
Thank you, Mr. the slide please. Thank you. Um just um as this site
1:03:21
selection thing was uh was explained there by Mrs. Lamb. Um
1:03:26
I think I may I may not be correct in the what I was informed um was that
1:03:35
within the council they were looking at all these separate sites within the burough but shall I say the more
1:03:40
affluent areas of the burough just said stick it all on fell gate that's how I believe the site was picked and I've
1:03:46
been informed of that thank you just briefly come back to the
1:03:52
council before we take the midm morning break um in terms of the site selection
1:03:57
process and um the way the kind of wider fell gate area has been identified or
1:04:04
looked at. I mean obviously I'm focusing on being uh assured that the site that's
1:04:12
put in the plan itself is sound and to some extent I'm not looking too wider
1:04:17
than that in terms of why other sites have been rejected. I don't know if the council would just want to briefly come back to the point around Mr. green in
1:04:25
terms of whether there has been a kind of a clear demarcation between the suitability of
1:04:32
the land within site FE2 and wider land at um the Felgate area
1:04:39
being sort of rejected or potentially sort of unreasonable kind of sites or were they reasonable
1:04:46
options but they just haven't been taken forward and that's where the the sort of reject kind of conclusion comes from.
1:04:53
Yeah. So they were assessed as reasonable options through the essay. So that's how come ended up in the site
1:04:59
selection topic paper. Um in terms of suitability obviously the sch looked at a lot of evidence including physical
1:05:06
limitations, landscape impacts, access um and the green belt study is one of
1:05:11
the parts of the evidence base that has fed into that. Um so obviously some of
1:05:16
the the schlaw um outcomes reflect some of the green belt outcomes.
1:05:25
Thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to take the midm morning adjournment. We're just going to about 10 past um 11. I'd
1:05:32
like people to be back in this room at 25 11 and then we'll be on item four on the agenda and moving on making
1:05:39
progress. Thank you.
1:22:34
Okay. Okay. It's now 25 11, so I'm going to resume uh the hearing sessions into
1:22:40
policy SP8 at Felgate. And I said uh I would return and we'll pick up item four
1:22:47
on my agenda. This is asking whether additional land should be safeguarded at Felgate. We picked this up uh we picked
1:22:54
up the wider point at matter 4 uh last week. Um but I'm mindful of some
1:23:01
some of the background uh particularly in relation to um the Felgate area. Can
1:23:08
I first ask the council uh to draw from its response to my matter issues
1:23:14
question 5.5 why it considers safeguarding is not necessary for soundness
1:23:21
um at uh Felgate and in particular I think the council's point around
1:23:27
securing compensatory provision
1:23:32
please did you see 5.5
1:23:39
Oh, question 5.5. Sorry. Question 5.5. Yep.
1:23:53
Yeah. Um you will recall last week I gave you a general response uh on the
1:23:59
issue of safeguarded land and um what what is required really in terms of
1:24:05
criteria that should be met um if uh land is to be safeguarded.
1:24:12
Um and I'm not going to repeat those submissions here but if anyone wants to hear them I think it was on day four uh
1:24:18
when we were dealing with this particular uh topic. So the same considerations apply here,
1:24:25
but more particularly um and without having to reread what's already
1:24:32
um uh before the examination in terms of our uh answers to MIQs
1:24:38
um the intended purposes of the remainder of FE2 clearly uh in terms of
1:24:45
its mitigation in terms of compensation works etc. it will be completely
1:24:50
inappropriate to safeguard that land for further development and it's not something which uh we are proposing.
1:25:02
Thank you. Uh Mr. Shadow Raven you say it's um not appropriate. I mean in terms
1:25:08
of the MPPF and compensatory provision that has to be in green belt. It it
1:25:14
can't be in safeguarded land. It has to be in green belt.
1:25:19
uh if you want compensatory improvements provision uh for altering the green belt
1:25:25
that compensatory improvements have to be within green belt remaining green belt land so safe safeguarded land
1:25:31
wouldn't qualify to meet that part of the MPP no it wouldn't y okay
1:25:40
thank you um before I come or invite Mr. Morton if there's anything further he wishes to
1:25:46
say in relation to um what he told me last week at matter 4.
1:25:52
Can I just also bring in national highways Mr. Finch because I think your organization responded to this question
1:25:59
around whether additional land should be safeguarded and it might sort of just flow into just more generally whether
1:26:06
further development took place at this location. From the highway, national highways perspective, the way I'm
1:26:13
reading your reps is there might be some concern about understanding wider impacts on the strategic road network.
1:26:20
Uh thank you sir. Only that um this site was not assessed at the time. We assessed all sites cumitive impact and
1:26:27
this was not taken into account. Um you know we would reserve the right to review the traffic generation and
1:26:33
whether any further improvements were required to the to the SRN.
1:26:43
Thank you. I'm obviously mindful safeguarding doesn't necessarily it's not sort of releasing uh saying
1:26:50
particular quantum of development in this particular plan period but I understand
1:26:56
yes I mean it's very close to the 184 we would need to look at the impact at excuse me at white mar pool probably
1:27:04
depending on where the access was for any safeguarded land
1:27:10
before I bring in others I said was going indicate to Mr. Morton is anything further you wish to say same response
1:27:16
either to my MIQ 5.5 picking up your general points you made made to me last
1:27:22
week on safeguarding sir that's it um I'm I'm generally happy
1:27:28
to leave our submissions on safeguarded land to to those that I put forward at M four um just to just to pick up the
1:27:36
point you made just then sir um safeguarded land doesn't allocate um the
1:27:41
land for development um you know it safeguards it for longerterm development after the plan period and I think
1:27:47
generally um the infra infrastructure test there is one of reasonable prospect
1:27:53
um rather than identifying all the specific um infrastructure improvements
1:27:59
now it's um the PPG talks about a reasonable prospect that they could be delivered at the point envisaged um but
1:28:07
I'm happy to leave our position on this matter as per my uh matter for submissions
1:28:13
I picked up the point earlier. I've obly got to apply myself to compensatory improvements being within Green Belt. So
1:28:19
further land was safeguarded at uh at Felgate.
1:28:25
Is it would you accept that compensatory improvements would need to be provided elsewhere and could that be done within
1:28:32
remaining green belt lands that could reasonably be tied or controlled to the
1:28:37
Falgate sites? Uh so I I do take the point that uh the
1:28:44
MPPF um does say that compensatory has to be in remaining green belt and if if
1:28:49
the land was safeguarded that that would be an issue. So I do accept that point sir.
1:28:56
Thank you. Bringing others I think we discussed last week Mr. Green and councelor Kore safeguarded has
1:29:02
particular meaning. It's it's safeguarding for you development needs in the longer term. It's not
1:29:10
Mr. Green, you'll be you'll be pleased. You know, just a brief paragraph. Yeah. You know,
1:29:16
going on from last week, except exceptional circumstances haven't been proven for the green belt release for
1:29:21
this local plan for the development. That's, you know, they want to go ahead, let alone safeguarding for further
1:29:27
development. Every everything screaming don't build on the Falgate Green Belt. Uh reports to the cont are in my opinion
1:29:34
in accurate. And this was highlighted on many occasions last week when the council were taking them back for for
1:29:39
consideration. Uh and again I I'll say that the Felgate
1:29:46
Greenville as a whole needs to be removed from the local plan. Yeah.
1:29:51
Councelor Kilgore please. Thank you sir. I I think just adding to that is um obviously we um agree with
1:29:59
the local authority in this regard in that um we do not want to allow any
1:30:04
further um land to be safeguarded or otherwise um on that site. Um I'm just
1:30:10
referring back to my own letters from uh National Highways addressed to the local authority in 2022 um and the more recent
1:30:19
um highways letters from uh Mr. Finch and um Sunny Alley I believe um around
1:30:26
the critical nature of um the need for the infrastructure to be in place um
1:30:33
potentially before any occupation. So I think for me to even consider looking
1:30:39
beyond the position that we're at now, we're already um I believe able to
1:30:44
demonstrate the harm with regards to traffic and infrastructure now, let
1:30:49
alone safeguarding any land. And I'm glad that Mr. Finch is nodding um because I think we have some significant
1:30:57
concerns on that network that um the brilliant work that's been carried out at Testo's roundabout at Downhill Lane
1:31:04
etc. They are brilliant and they've met their need. However, the need for the millions and millions of pounds to be
1:31:11
spent, where would that come from? Because I read something last night where it says that the local authority
1:31:18
um and highways England or National Highways as it is now would be required
1:31:24
um to find funding. Now, I wish anyone luck with regards to this current state
1:31:30
and in finding funding on this scale. It's, you know, I don't want to be um,
1:31:35
you know, kind of the doctor of doom. However, it's not going to happen. You know, I think um the developer um is
1:31:43
going to be um let loose of that responsibility and I don't believe that that's appropriate. Thank you.
1:31:49
Okay. Well, we'll come on to that further points in the agenda. Mr. Finch, I don't know if we can pick that up later, but
1:31:55
yeah, I certainly will come back to that. I'd just like to say that um
1:32:01
my comment was that we would want further information regarding the release of green belt. I'm not saying I
1:32:06
agree with it or disagreeing with it agree with it. Currently I have no information to to support the impact of
1:32:12
that. Well, we'll pick up highways white mar pool later in the agenda. So if it's a
1:32:18
point related to that, there's plenty of time on the agenda for that later. Okay.
1:32:24
Thank you for your submissions on um safeguarded land. I'll take those into consideration with what I heard um last
1:32:30
week as well. If I can move on to item five on the agenda and this is impact on uh West Falgate Farm. I release I raised
1:32:38
this at my MIQ uh 5 um
1:32:43
uh 7. Uh this is really a reflection of
1:32:48
various representations that are before me that have been made in terms of uh
1:32:54
the role and value of the farm. um to the local community. This has been picked up in the correspondence I've got
1:33:00
in front of me from the local MP, that's Kate Osborne, uh the MP for Jarro and
1:33:05
Gates Head East. I think there's two things I just want to um explore as part
1:33:11
of this item of the agenda in terms of um
1:33:17
firstly degree of harm uh that would arise from
1:33:23
people referring to the farm or the loss of the farm as a a uh community asset
1:33:28
and what that what that potentially means. uh and also as a kind of a working farm
1:33:35
uh and the loss of um farmland. I think if I can just clarify with the council
1:33:40
and this isn't pretty I'm slightly jumping around but it's sort of related
1:33:46
it's your response to my MIQ 5.6 Six. The way I understand it is the council's
1:33:52
taken a kind of precautionary approach. You can't split out or you don't have the data as to whether land is either 3A
1:33:58
which is best and most versatile or 3B. So you've kind of taken a view that we
1:34:04
look at things at three and assume if I can call it the worst case scenario that it falls you when we're assessing the
1:34:11
impact of sites. We've kind of looked at grade three land
1:34:16
on a kind of consistent basis that there would be some harm.
1:34:22
Yeah, that's correct. So through the sustainability appraisal um basically um the data set that was used indicated
1:34:28
that the the land in Southside was um grade three but didn't distinguish between whether that was 3A or other
1:34:36
alternatives. um to in support of the MIQ um responses, we have provided the
1:34:41
map um from defer magic maps which does identify some relatively small parcels
1:34:46
of threeear land on the site. Um but like I say, it's it's particularly small and and to to the north of the site.
1:35:03
Thank you. Before I bring in uh anybody in terms of site promoters, so can I
1:35:08
understand from the community uh and from others, I think Mr. Green, you
1:35:13
describe Westgate Farm as a beehive of activity and a true asset.
1:35:19
Yeah, anybody who knows the area, I mean, I'll go into this in more detail. Uh just questioning the the crop value,
1:35:24
the value of the land. Uh we've got on here, this is site isn't it's from the Schlaw report. uh and it's the land of
1:35:32
south of Elgate which is the one we're talking about. This site is an area for mineral safeguard and has an agricultural grade of 1 to three and it
1:35:40
goes on to say the site sits within the green bell corridor which which we know uh but yeah uh West Felgate Farm I mean
1:35:47
where where do I start? Uh it's it's embedded in the community. It's not just it's not just
1:35:54
it's supported by the whole community but it's a community within itself as well. So it's the form the delivery
1:36:00
steel are a community within a community. Uh what's going on? Bear with us.
1:36:08
Uh yeah, we've already done the crops. Yeah. So you know the council's saying it's grade three which you know it
1:36:16
indicates that it it is it is good quality land. uh and you know lava in
1:36:22
the in the lava statements uh AXM28 S8A it's in our view with a very
1:36:28
substantial soio economic and other benefits benefits to the area of developing the site for a sustainable
1:36:34
community but it's by far outweighs its agricultural use uh and the 60% of the
1:36:40
of the of the land allocated to non-food growing uses. the horses, you know, the
1:36:46
horses use it as livery. Uh, and if that if that gets concreted over, there'll
1:36:52
not be anything. I mean, how much of the land will be used for crops if the development goes ahead?
1:36:59
As I say that the Felgate, I mean, I don't even need that. the Falgate community.
1:37:05
Uh, sorry. We've we've walked our children up it. Uh, we woke our grandchildren up in it. And just walking
1:37:12
up that landscape, it's it's amazing. It's got everything. It's got the horses grazing. It's on a
1:37:18
night time. You've got the bats flying past you. Uh, you know, you've got all forms of wildlife. We've seen birds of
1:37:23
prey up there. The farm itself, it has lots of activities on which which our
1:37:29
community goes to, you know. So they've got the likes of the had a dress event in March which you know children of of
1:37:35
the Felgate community were involved with. Uh last August there was a there
1:37:40
was activities going on the fields you know it it's so it's so essential to the
1:37:46
the physical mental health health and well wellbeing of of the entire community because that walk takes takes
1:37:53
your mind off everything. you know, you've got life strikes. Uh,
1:37:58
and it it does so much for you. Uh, you know, it's it's it's so hard to it's
1:38:05
it's so hard to explain. I mean, you've seen it. You know, if you look across that landscape, it's it's got to be one
1:38:11
of the best landscapes within within South Tide. Uh, I'll give you I'll give
1:38:18
you you know the I'll mention some people you've got and Natalie and she doesn't mind us using her name. She's
1:38:24
got two horses, you know, stable at the livery. And what they're asking is, uh, what happens? What happens to them? You
1:38:30
know, it does so much for the community. Our daughter, uh, is she's got aspirations. We actually met her
1:38:36
daughter during the dress event back in March and she was brilliant. She won the she won her age group and she's got
1:38:42
aspirations to go to the Olympics in in years to come. and that actually had uh
1:38:48
that had four people uh at the British Dress Arch team of Quest event, you
1:38:53
know, recently and you know the aspirations of those kids and to take
1:38:59
that away from them and they've got nothing uh you know it's you're taking
1:39:05
away that community to be and what she said ourself or she says or does this
1:39:10
make because they've got to then restable the horses somewhere. We've got no idea where and does it make it only
1:39:17
it would be so expensive to relocate them. Does does that make horse and events and riding only available to the
1:39:24
wealthy because you know Jarro is is a deprived area. It's a severely deprived
1:39:29
area. Uh and you'd be taken so so much away from them. I mean a lot of them are
1:39:36
are healthcare and during the co epidemic
1:39:46
If you want to take take a moment, Mr. Green, and come back to you and let others speak and come come back to you.
1:39:52
Thank you. Perhaps if I can hear from Mr. um older Slade next, please
1:40:07
for a start. I mean, they're busy doing these ecology surveys at the minute. uh and all they needed to do was come and
1:40:13
ask me about that in the first place. And what I practice there is basically
1:40:19
what you call regenerative agriculture, direct drilling, um to improve the soil,
1:40:24
which improves the bugs within the soil, which improves the wildlife. And uh that's been going on for about the last
1:40:31
15 to 20 years. And the wildlife on that farm now is completely different to what
1:40:36
it was 20 years ago. Um, we use, as I say, direct drilling, the
1:40:42
using organic manure, cover cropping, etc., etc. Um,
1:40:49
I've got a list of all the wildlife on here. You got hair, roadia, skylock, lap ring, little owl, tony, owl, shorty,
1:40:55
owl, cuckoo, curl, kingfisher, new v, gray, partridge, lin, white throat, stling, tree, sparrow, house sparrow,
1:41:01
chaff, gold crest, ren, dunick. That's only a small percentage of what I've actually seen on there regardless of
1:41:08
what the survey is produced. That's fine. We've got biodiversity ecology later on the the agenda. What
1:41:14
I'm probably keen to explore here is there are representations from the local
1:41:20
say, you know, this is a a valuable asset. I want to understand is it yeah accessible to the public? Can anybody go
1:41:26
onto the farm in that sense? Is it limited to as uh Dave was saying about the um about
1:41:35
the delivery the during COVID there's a lot of people who've got the horses on that yard are
1:41:42
um nurses health care pharmacists and honestly they could go onto that
1:41:49
farm during COVID when everybody was locked up and I used to go around and a lot of
1:41:56
them were in tears. because it could get out the house and say to the horses.
1:42:02
So that just needs to be noted. And uh I noticed in one of the reports that one
1:42:08
of this lot put in um that it said it is um it's not a community asset, it's a
1:42:14
business. Well, it is a business. But is not
1:42:19
Sunderland football club or Newcastle football club a community asset? And it's also a business.
1:42:28
Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Kilggo, please.
1:42:36
Thank you, sir. Um, I'd just like to reiterate while Dave composes himself.
1:42:41
Um, the value that it has. Um, I think what we've not said, and I know Mr.
1:42:47
Alders probably won't, that he's the fifth generation farmer on that land. um he has a son that we're hoping daily
1:42:55
will will take that over and and let that continue to flourish. We had a as a
1:43:01
local authority had a Pegasus crossing put in to the other side of the road. We very recently experienced um the horses
1:43:09
um having to come out onto Durham Drive which is dangerous for them but it's also dangerous for others. And when you
1:43:17
look at um the smaller children using uh the livery as well, that's not something
1:43:23
that they can continue to enjoy. Um we've also um have uh Felgate Ponds
1:43:30
where we have a family of swans and various other beautiful wildlife. We've
1:43:35
I think Jeff, if you mentioned it, we've got a kingisher. You know, it is absolutely thriving. We have some
1:43:41
amazing volunteers. I know there's some of them here today um who care for that those wildlife as if they're their own
1:43:48
actually and it is a beautiful environment. Now just because that isn't
1:43:53
included in the developable area it is removed from the green belt. It is owned by a different um owner the land to the
1:44:01
front where the lowest numbers of Durham Drive are are cited. Um that is to be
1:44:07
taken out according to the local plan out of the green belt as well. although stated that it won't be developed. Um
1:44:15
that is is a matter for us here today as well. If it's taken out, it's opening um
1:44:21
that that opportunity up. I was talking to one of the volunteers at break and they mentioned we've got a a big metal
1:44:27
gate where you access um the ponds in order to facilitate the the care of of
1:44:33
the animals. um that would be um compromised by way of the the access
1:44:40
route around there too. Um there's a huge amount that we could go into and I
1:44:46
know you've seen it in our reports. So it's it's not really for us to go over but I do think that putting together
1:44:55
when we're looking at the risk of harm and we're saying that this is moderate. It couldn't possibly be in isolation.
1:45:03
um the moderate um marker is is not valid anyway when we look at um traffic
1:45:09
etc which I know we're coming on to and biodiversity as well it is very high or
1:45:14
high and yes I know Mr. all has mentioned around it being a business. It doesn't feel like that to us. Thank you.
1:45:28
Thank you for that. Allow others to come come back in. I
1:45:33
appreciate this is a sensitive um matter. Um I will give Mr. Morton the
1:45:40
opportunity on behalf of certainly your your clients obviously read what what
1:45:45
you've said and there's any further you want to add that I haven't already got before me.
1:45:52
No sir I think you you've got a position on this. Um bringing it back to your your two your two points. Um firstly the
1:45:59
degree of harm there is no public access to the site. It's in private ownership.
1:46:04
Um Mr. Alder Slade is a tenant. He runs a commercial livery and the access to
1:46:11
the site is associated with that. Um loss of farmland I think um the council
1:46:17
have answered this point. Um MPPF paragraph 174 requires it to be weighed
1:46:23
in the round in the balance and they've done that as part of the sustainability appraisal.
1:46:38
Okay, I come back to Mr. Green and Mr. Old was laid before I I move on from point five on the agenda, please.
1:46:46
Yeah. Yeah, thanks. Councelor Kilgaw touched on the ponds. you know that the ponds are an abundance of wives in
1:46:53
themselves but the although the ponds aren't directly affected by the the parcel of FE F3 F2
1:47:02
any building work that's you know occurs within 50 60 mters of it is going to
1:47:08
devastate the whole lot it will devastate the whole lot uh and yeah
1:47:14
sorry uh and just going back to you know some comments from from some of the residents You know, I was talking about
1:47:21
Natalie whose child, you know, aspiring to the Olympics. She says, "We don't stop dreaming and exploring because we
1:47:28
grow old." Uh, we'll grow old because we stop dreaming. The dream the dreams and
1:47:34
aspirations of the livery and local community must remain our West Belgate Hall. Sorry. Uh, and there's a Sylvia
1:47:42
dad who says, "This walk has helped me when my grief has been too much. It's given me the chance to clear me head and
1:47:48
shed shed a few tears along the way. I found it by accident when I moved here three years ago. So sad that money comes
1:47:54
before people's mental health. And can I just say make make a final uh statements. You know uh investment isn't
1:48:01
just money to re you've got some investors who put an awful lot of money into it. I've invested in shares in the
1:48:06
past. I lost on them. That's that's investment. What we invested in
1:48:12
investing on Felgate is the children's future and the aspirations of our children and that cannot be taken away
1:48:17
and replaced by monetary value and no matter what they say that the the cannets replace you know the investment
1:48:23
we're trying to put in our children's future. That's why we're here
1:48:29
Mr. Olay please. Yeah thank you. Um it it says here the
1:48:36
um impact on West Falgate Farm. I'm hoping that also means the impact on the
1:48:41
tenants on there as a family. Um just to reiterate, I'm the fourth generation of
1:48:47
my family to be lucky enough to be have the tenency of West Failgate Farm. My
1:48:53
son will be the fifth generation. It's an agricultural holdings act secure teny. So theoretically my son has
1:49:01
security of tenure for his life as well. Um
1:49:08
As I understand it, the land is classified uh by the council as 1A but by another independent as 3A and 3B
1:49:16
flood risks um which will require certain flood prevention measures to be taken into account um by the developers
1:49:25
um if it was um successful in being removed by from the green belt. But
1:49:30
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is within your remit to require
1:49:36
that all Suds and flood um testing is done before any um planning application
1:49:45
is submitted. I think you can uh ask for that on on your report. Um
1:49:55
that's if it gets removed from the green belt, which I certainly hope it don't. Um, I would beg you to ask for all that
1:50:03
to be done before a planning application is granted because as my understanding
1:50:09
is that even if they put in a planning application if it's removed from the green belt and is given outline planning
1:50:17
um on the results of Suds, they can serve me notice to quit just by
1:50:23
obtaining outline planning without all these Suds tests. uh and that means that our tendency is gone and finished. So
1:50:31
yes, if it's got to come out the green belt and yes, if it's going to get be developed and yes, if all the studs test
1:50:37
prove fine, that's fine. Um well, it's not fine, but it it's it's the best of a worst case scenario. Um but if they may
1:50:44
notice quit on a outline planning, um that means that we're gone. then it it
1:50:50
could then end up that um the site could be financially unviable or there could be problems with the flooding and it
1:50:56
cannot be done but our tenency is then gone. Okay, thank you.
1:51:02
Thank you for that. Um I'm mindful obviously one of the tests around uh
1:51:08
looking at site allocations is deliverability. um
1:51:15
mindful that there are kind of separate sort of sensitive commercial matters but is there anything that I'm going to ask
1:51:21
Mr. Morton in the first instance and whether it's from the church commissioners
1:51:27
anything here that's going to inhibit delivery in terms of either tenency or
1:51:32
covenants or anything else. Uh I can give a short answer to that sir. No. Um as Mr. Ro the SL said um
1:51:40
notice can be served um upon planning permission. I think the tenency says um
1:51:46
the site needs to be vacated in 3 months of of notice being served. So um the
1:51:51
short answer is no.
1:52:13
Thank you. Very briefly, Mr. Green, and then I'm going to move on. Uh ju just very briefly in in relation
1:52:20
to the uh public access of the sites, you know, uh do you need to account Mr. Al is a tenant farmer on Labric Hall
1:52:26
Limited. uh when me wife and I visited the the dean and chapter of Durham we spoke to
1:52:33
one of the the high ranking guys in there and he says you know uh that I'll just read this word for word uh there
1:52:39
will be following up with the cathedral's agents that's labor farms limited the potential approach were
1:52:45
discussed concerning the gravel path so so the the the gentleman who's high up in the dean chapter of Durham who
1:52:52
actually own the land was telling us basically he'd sort it out for I'm hopeful we we have a possible a positive
1:52:59
response for you this afternoon. So I totally I totally dis I totally dispute
1:53:05
what Mr. Morton seen in relation of the public access of this eight.
1:53:10
Thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to move on in terms of the agenda. I've got written material in front of me from
1:53:16
various people. I've heard what people have had to say about the impact on West Falgate Farm and I'll consider that um
1:53:23
in terms of my uh report. I'm now going to move on to part
1:53:29
B of my agenda. It's item six. We're now going to get into transport. So, I don't
1:53:34
know if there are other people are going to join the table. So if we can just facilitate that because I want to hear
1:53:41
from council's teams and others
1:53:57
[Music]
1:54:41
Okay, we're going to start item six. Before we do, I just wonder, Mr. Shadow Raven, if for the benefit of people in
1:54:48
the room and people who watched the subsequent recording um who's now joined
1:54:54
us uh from the council's team, please.
1:55:01
Good morning, sir. My name is Matt Clifford. I'm a senior planning policy officer and I lead on the infrastructure
1:55:07
delivery plan. Hi. Hi and I'm James Quigley from sister
1:55:14
supporting Southtown side council on transport issues.
1:55:19
Good morning sir. My name is Trevor Mill. I'm the strategic transport lead at Southtown Council.
1:55:26
And then for um Lavick Hall Farms please. Vanessa Egleston from I transport
1:55:33
representing Lavick Hall Farm and Durham Cathedral. Thank you. who now suspect transport is
1:55:39
going to take us through to lunch and may indeed carry on after lunch because I understand it's uh significant uh
1:55:48
issue for certainly for the local um community. I think we'll come on to uh
1:55:53
the position of national highways as well in due course but I'd just like to start with um
1:56:00
something that isn't roads related. It comes back to the principle of alterate principle of looking at green belt
1:56:06
alterations. uh ensuring that where that happens they are locations that are well served um by
1:56:12
public transport and it was my um matters issues question 5.8
1:56:18
uh in terms of um whether that would be the case uh in relation to um excuse me
1:56:26
in relation to felgate. I think this also dovetales in with national planning policy framework paragraph 73 that says
1:56:33
when looking at larger scale development again we should be looking at locations that can be supported by um a genuine
1:56:41
choice of transport modes wonder if I could first at this stage invite the council in response to my MIQ 5.8
1:56:50
just to set out how it's looked at this uh in terms of public transport for falgate please. Thank you.
1:56:56
Thank you sir. The council's position is that the current baseline uh situation
1:57:02
is that Felgate is well served by public transport and the allocation will build
1:57:07
on this and lead to betterment both the public transport provision and also
1:57:13
active travel opportunities. The response to MIQ 5.8 8 sets out the
1:57:21
existing public transport provision including table one which provides an overview of current bus services.
1:57:30
Very importantly, the council is actively liazing with Nexus regarding
1:57:35
this allocation and bus service provision. And it's anticipated that the allocation
1:57:42
will act as a catalyst to improving bus service provision by increasing demand.
1:57:50
Another advantage of the proposed allocation is the closeness of Felgate
1:57:56
Metro station and paragraph 5.35 of the council's MIQ
1:58:03
5.34 response sets out the connectivity of the metro station which includes to
1:58:10
major major regional centers.
1:58:16
It's also important to point out that frequency for the metro service is set to improve
1:58:24
with a new fleet of trains coming into service and that will provide a double improvement.
1:58:31
There will be greater frequency and more standing room. So that will thereby help to address capacity issues.
1:58:39
and policy SP8 includes requirement for the enhancement
1:58:45
of active travel opportunities.
1:58:51
An applicant would be required to submit a vision-led transport assessment and a
1:58:56
comprehensive travel plan. So that will need to be in line with both MPPF and
1:59:03
Department for Transport Circular 0122.
1:59:09
The applicant's transport assessment will also need to demonstrate compliance with local plan policy SB26,
1:59:17
delivering sustainable transport, which requires the development to support
1:59:22
sustainable transport and improve accessibility. Thank you.
1:59:48
Thank you. I can just kind of unpick um some of those kind of theme um by theme.
1:59:56
Uh in terms of kind of bus uh provision is that in this area is that something
2:00:02
that's kind of commissioned or overseen by Nexus? Do they have responsibility
2:00:08
for the services the frequency of those services? Mr. M.
2:00:13
Thanks sir. Um in terms of the bus operation within the borough um Nexus serve as the passenger transport
2:00:20
executive for the Tanware region. Uh whereby following bus deregulation um it's a mix of commercial operators
2:00:26
namely stage coach and go northeast with Nexus then supporting that with secured
2:00:31
services. Um further to this Nexus also managed the metro service on behalf of
2:00:37
the Tanware local authorities. Um and then they also assist the council in
2:00:43
terms of the shields ferry operation for your own benefit. Thanks. Thank you. And in terms of obviously got
2:00:50
the the council's details on the current routes where they go is shown on map two
2:00:55
of the council's um statement for this session in terms of potential extra
2:01:01
provision whether it's Mr. Clifford or Mr. mail just to kind of help me in terms of local
2:01:07
um geography at that scale. Where are some of those kind of new or
2:01:14
potential routes connecting to? Is that cross into Gates Head and
2:01:21
down to is it would that be down to Washington?
2:01:27
Thanks, sir. Yes. Again, I think it's a it's a recognition that in terms of the Felgate area as a whole, there is a
2:01:33
probably strong desire to get access into Huitt um which forms part of the interchange facility um namely in Gates.
2:01:40
But that said, I believe there is strong recognition of the ability to transfer between modes at this proximity. um
2:01:48
probably less so in terms of Washington, but that said, if the investment comes forward as part of the Washington Loop
2:01:53
line uh which we referred to on Friday, uh there is a strong chance of potential
2:01:59
um stations at Fallsby Park um and recognition of bus services that can provide connectivity there as well.
2:02:06
Thanks.
2:02:14
Thank you. We'll come on to Metro in a moment, but just from um Clifford referred a moment ago to kind of vision
2:02:21
a vision-led approach. I mean, given the location of this site from a public
2:02:27
transport perspective and notwithstanding where the Felgate Metro Station is, I
2:02:32
mean, is is
2:02:45
The mayor has gone on record that she wishes to exercise the suitable transport powers to bring forward a
2:02:52
potential franchising scheme uh within the northeast that would actually bring buses under full local control and then
2:02:58
the ability that to therefore make justifiable concerns and raise issues as
2:03:04
to where improved accessibility is required. Currently under the deregulation market there is the
2:03:09
inability for local authorities to do that other than the voice of nexus. So we hope by the mayor executing them
2:03:15
powers um we may have more of a say in where future buses will will operate.
2:03:21
Thanks. So something that could be comparable to
2:03:26
what's happening in Greater Manchester. Exactly that, sir.
2:03:37
Thank you, Mlesson. Mrs. Egles, before I bring in others,
2:03:43
Just to build on what Mr. Mail said, a development of the scale that we're talking about at Felgate, it's not
2:03:49
unusual for that to be supporting new bus services and extensions to existing bus services and for the catchment
2:03:56
that's afforded by a development of that scale for that to to provide a real catalyst and a real boost to existing
2:04:01
public transport provision in the area as well.
2:04:07
Thank you. So, turn to my left. I don't know if people want to sort of break
2:04:12
things down by buses and then metro. Um
2:04:38
I don't think that we can honestly say that the the mode of transport that will
2:04:45
be operated from that site will be anything other than in the main by car.
2:04:50
Um I would imagine given the um nature of the properties, the value of the
2:04:56
properties um suggested that they will be car owners. The bike racks at the
2:05:02
metro station are very rarely used. I think I've probably only seen one or two bikes um stored there in all of the time
2:05:09
um it's been there. um Finsby Park Metro is on the opposite side of the 184. It
2:05:17
isn't directly linked. We didn't get that link um that we were hoping for. Um
2:05:22
so I don't think we can make any promises at all and and going into that more broadly around the infrastructure
2:05:31
of the road network which I know we'll go into in more detail. um it's not there and and the critical point around
2:05:37
this is it unless it's delivered in advance of the very start it's not deliverable um in all means and I I
2:05:44
refer back to that same map because it's really helpful is that the the network through um from um FA2
2:05:53
is is a brand new network which which actually kind of imposes on the Felgate
2:06:01
estate as we now know it it's not complementing it appears to be keeping
2:06:07
that very exclusive, very separate with the buses. I mean, I think we have three buses that circulate um the estate. And
2:06:16
I did check in with a resident who uses them regularly. Um yeah, they're not greatly used. I have no aspiration that
2:06:22
they're going to be any uh greater used with the development um at FA2
2:06:28
potentially or FA2. Um also the area around the shopping um the potential
2:06:34
school the potential GP access that is again the onus is on Felgate Estate as
2:06:40
it stands to serve those mainly used in highly populated potential areas. Thanks
2:06:47
sir. Thank you Mr. Green please.
2:06:52
Yeah this one's a bit longer than the last one. Uh yeah, I've got two
2:06:58
documents in front of us here which I believe weren't made part of the local plan and going on to uh you know
2:07:04
costings infrastructure. Uh it it says here uh this is from national
2:07:11
sorry this is from JSIV. It says by 2032 and this takes into account all of the new infrastructure that that say they're
2:07:18
going to put in place but there's no costings for it. Uh by 2032 however the network is forecast to experience
2:07:24
significant queue and this is 2032 particularly on the A194 A184 White Pool
2:07:30
junction and the A90 northbound approaching Garro junction local road
2:07:35
delays are seen particularly along the A194 Newcastle road. So not only does it come down from White Mir, it goes to
2:07:42
Milane roundabout, it goes to Lindesborn roundabout, it continues all the way into South Shields. Yeah. uh the
2:07:48
majority of the congestion is addressed by including the A1 941 A4 white pool
2:07:54
that's the right way right by 2037 the network is forecast to experience severe
2:08:00
queuing and I can I suggest you access these documents if you can please because it does explain a lot
2:08:05
particularly on the A19 between Linds and Jarro junctions and consequently adjacent local roads such as the A185
2:08:11
and Newcastle road the key constraint is the capacity of the time tunnel uh the
2:08:16
second One is from National Highways and it's dated the 1st of June 2022. It's noted that the projected the projected
2:08:23
costs are for indic indicative purposes only and that a proper cost estimate will be required during the detailed
2:08:30
design process. As such, we withhold comment on the indicative project costing provided within the IDP. Now
2:08:37
going on to buses and the metro. Uh yeah, you know, this side I think I can
2:08:43
excuse uh you know because the probability is that none of them are out of the area.
2:08:48
This site a lot of them are within the area. They know the problems that we have on on the the major roads around
2:08:54
South Pide. Uh you know there was going to be a plan Middle Station to alleviate
2:09:00
much of the problem from the estates that has not got fun. It's included in the local plan. It's not going ahead. Uh
2:09:07
most people on Felgate do rely on cars because it's essential traveling. If any of you take your children to after
2:09:14
school activities or anything like that, you're going direct from work, you're picking up, you're dropping off. It is
2:09:19
essential travel. In the vicinity, there's a gymnastics, Monton gymnastics
2:09:24
community, which is massive in that absolutely brilliant. There's pick up and drops drop offs here throughout the
2:09:29
the day, which creates severe tailbacks. Uh, and how many how many of you would
2:09:35
pick up your your children from gymnastics and drop them off by public transport?
2:09:40
Uh, that's the reports. Uh, yeah. Can we go on to uh the traffic local plan? I think
2:09:48
we've got items six and seven on the agenda here. So, at the moment, I'm just looking at
2:09:53
item six around public transport and then item seven we're going to add to the road.
2:09:59
Sorry. uh the metro frequency whether it's new trains or not it cannot the the
2:10:04
frequency cannot be increased because it's actually the main line is is a British rail line as well so that will
2:10:10
not happen just because it's a new train it doesn't increase the frequency the buses uh if if you know anybody knows
2:10:17
the felgate area there is going to be an access road coming from the new estates onto Durham Drive which is a 20 mph uh
2:10:25
residential road with 17 sets of speed humps and three local schools in the vicinity and the thriving having
2:10:30
gymnastics club. It's a ring road around the estate which Yeah. you get buses every hour. Yeah. The main problem is
2:10:37
though, and I I I did hit on this last week. There's two major onoffs from the road. There's one onto the A1 194 which
2:10:44
is severely congested daily. We have pictures. You'll see it in my appendices on on on my hearing statements. The
2:10:50
secondary exit is via Felgate Avenue and it comes to a junction and National Highways may back us up on this. Once
2:10:56
the A19 backs up, people start coming up towards that junction. It congests from the A19 side. On the opposite side, you
2:11:04
have a single lane, which we hit on last week, a single lane uh metro bridge. It
2:11:10
creates severe congestion. Now, what I'm saying is you might have the buses every hour, but those buses don't run the
2:11:15
timetable because they can't get through the sheer amount of traffic or it's gridlocked because of the A194 and it's
2:11:21
gridlock because of the Felgate Avenue, Mont Lane junction backing up right through the the Metro Bridge. It's a
2:11:28
total standstill. And this this development, you're not talking, you
2:11:34
know, the people aren't going to use if they're going to use the metro, they're going to actually they're talking about
2:11:40
actually putting a an extension onto the metro car park. Now, what does that tell you? So, those people from the estate
2:11:45
and from the surrounding areas need an additional extension to the car park. Yet, they're saying they're not going to
2:11:51
use the cars. Of course, they are. you know uh and there is part in these
2:11:57
reports there is part of which actually states I I'll have to come on it the pro proposed
2:12:04
the proposed parking extension at federal failgate metro station may increase the need to travel on the SRN
2:12:10
the strategic road network by car and therefore we should be consulted on any relevant feasibility study for this
2:12:16
scheme the additional car spaces are likely to result in traffic increases at either the A19 Lindesvon junction which
2:12:23
national highways up you know the road infrastructure it's always full up you know because it backs up from the time
2:12:28
tunnel uh so the additional car park spaces are likely result in traffic increases at either the A19 Lindesvan
2:12:35
junction or the A184 A19 motorway which is severely congested every day we would
2:12:40
suggest that the IDP should consider active travel solutions which are but realistically they're not going to it's
2:12:47
it's essential travel and the the plan development would add if You're talking
2:12:53
1,200 houses. They're actually going for 3,000 eventually. You're talking an extra 2 to 3,000 daily, you know, cars
2:13:01
coming on not only the 20 mph residential road around Felgate, uh, but also trying to get onto the A194 would
2:13:08
be traffic Armageddon. Okay. And and I do recall that there was and you know this this wasn't included in
2:13:13
the this was included in the local plan. There's a local site which is on the A194 as you head towards South Shields.
2:13:20
It was the old Simon side arms. They were going to build from memory uh I think it was about 14 houses. It got
2:13:26
rejected at planning because they were going to go put an access road onto a a residential road at the back of it. Now
2:13:32
that was for 14 houses. This is for 1,200 houses. Quote 3,000 houses. You
2:13:38
know it it just will not work in this area and it'll put this the entire community at risk in relation to road
2:13:44
safety. Now one more quick thing. There is data available which was carried out in uh March of this year which I had
2:13:52
asked for it to be going to CAF meetings and I was informed on June the second that it will go to the next CAP meeting
2:13:57
to highlight the frequency of road traffic on on the A194. I've got parts
2:14:03
of it and it indicates and I I would like that that's I would like you I'm going to come on I'm going to come
2:14:08
on to that Mr. Green later on. Yeah, it's it's a call every.7 seconds on the road. If
2:14:14
we can hear from Mr. Jira next please. Well thanks actually I feel my thunder's
2:14:21
been almost completely stolen by the previous contributors. The ideal world and the mitigations and
2:14:29
the improvements are sound fantastic but again actually implementing them is going to
2:14:35
be very very difficult. I'd also say things like the idea of walking and
2:14:41
cycling from any new development in winter. I don't think that's practical at all.
2:14:47
Uh and any cut through onto Durham Drive from any new development would be a
2:14:52
disaster in my view because Durham Drive is already, as I'm sure you've seen, clogged with cars where drivers have to
2:15:00
give be prepared to give the right of way. And I've been involved in incident where a driver wouldn't give way. We
2:15:07
were on the right side of the road. He came through regardless from a congested side of the road which resulted in an
2:15:14
impass. We couldn't reverse because there was other people behind us and eventually that had to go via the dash
2:15:20
cam to the police and he was prosecuted for it. So already we're starting to see
2:15:26
incidents where it's just not safe anymore. So I totally amplify and echo
2:15:32
what the previous uh contributors have said and hope that something can be taken into account.
2:15:38
Thank you. Thank you. Um for I'm going to come back to the council and others if there was
2:15:46
anything specific they want to respond to as part of those um exchanges. One of
2:15:51
the things I do want to just explore a little bit more with the council is part of the policy requirement in SP8
2:15:58
is about convenient segregated, safe and high quality bus pedestrian and
2:16:04
cycle routes. Um I recall from Nexus's
2:16:10
rep representations on the plan they support bus you getting bus services
2:16:15
into this site but kind of question whether there's a scope to kind of improve bus kind of connectivity in and
2:16:24
out of the site and whether that's reasonable or or realistic at this this location.
2:16:36
So it's something Nexus have certainly considered. Obviously um at this stage I don't think they can
2:16:43
make a firm commitment for commercial reasons. It will depend on viability but
2:16:49
it's certainly something that's under consideration. Thank you. Any further points on public
2:16:56
transport accessibility, Mr. Mail? Yes sir. I think it's important to raise
2:17:02
about the performance of Nexus um in terms of the metro. Um I think obviously it wasn't made aware at the time of our
2:17:09
submissions but Nexus have recently been successful for a new signaling system at a cost of £450 million. So that will be
2:17:15
coming into operation in the next 5 years. A lot of the works will be off off site. I know that there's also
2:17:22
reliability issues associated with the network rail line in that in terms of a lot of the outages that take place on
2:17:28
the line. The the opposition. Well, councelor Kellgawa was right. Sorry. So,
2:17:35
councelor Kgawa was right to say that obviously at times there is implications with regards to the network rail line.
2:17:41
Um these new trains that are coming into operation now there's no need for them to be on overhead cables. They are
2:17:46
actually battery powered as well. So that should in in fact improve matters when the metro line does come to a
2:17:52
standstill. unfortunately on that stretch between Pil and Sunland.
2:17:57
And in terms of the policy in this site, it specifically references the Felgate um metro station uh in the policy in
2:18:04
terms of enhancing access and facilities uh for pedestrians and cyclists. I've
2:18:10
been referred to a proposal at Mill Lane. Was this site ever predicated on
2:18:15
Mil Lane having to come forward? Has it always been sort of envisaged that it's
2:18:21
it's its relationship will be stronger to the existing Felgate station.
2:18:28
Sir, the site isn't predicated on Mil Lane having to come forward. Uh Milane
2:18:33
is still very much a strong aspiration. Uh I believe it's in the regional uh
2:18:40
local transport plan. um milen coming forward would be beneficial
2:18:46
to the site because it would take some of the demand away from White Mar Junction. Um but in terms of um public
2:18:56
transport use um we would envisage residents of the new community
2:19:03
uh the obvious station for them to use will be Felgate Metro station.
2:19:09
So if I could just come back to um the point you asked about connectivity, I would also um make the
2:19:16
point that it's possible that existing services could be diverted to run through the site. It wouldn't
2:19:22
necessarily have to be a new service.
2:19:30
Thank you. I've got nothing further I wanted to raise on public transport. So I'm going to move on to item seven
2:19:36
around road um issues and we'll probably this will take us both sides of the
2:19:42
lunchtime at German. I mean the general point and questions I've raised at my
2:19:48
item seven is whether safe and suitable access um to the site can be achieved. I think I've got very much in mind
2:19:54
national planning policy when framing um this question and um parts of the um
2:19:59
agenda. Um Mr. screen, you helpfully described to
2:20:06
me how the road network in the area works last week, so I don't need to uh
2:20:12
so I've got that and I've made a a note of that in terms of um how the existing
2:20:18
Falgate area kind of acts accesses either on the A194 or across the um the
2:20:23
A19. The plan is supported by uh a good
2:20:29
degree of transport evidence. I won't go through it all. There's a lot of documents as I think people are are
2:20:35
unpicking and realizing that sits behind this, but principally there's a traffic assessment I think in 2023 around the
2:20:43
local road network and the 2024 um strategic road network um forecast um
2:20:50
report. I think in followup to just my um matters and issues question 510,
2:20:57
I sort of first ask the council that's Mr. Clifford and possibly others and
2:21:02
then I'll turn to National Highways uh to explain why the work that's done
2:21:08
to date should be um considered robust before I invite others who will have
2:21:14
undoubtedly an alternative view. So is it Mr. Clifford first? Yes. Um well the work should be
2:21:21
considered robust because it was undertaken well firstly the strategic road network report was undertaken
2:21:29
uh by the council in partnership with national highways and it was agreed with
2:21:35
national highways and obviously the specific actual transport modeling was
2:21:41
undertaken by um transport consultants as such uh with you know strong
2:21:49
credentials. Um and the local road network study was also that was undertaken on behalf of
2:21:56
the council was also undertaken um by um transport consultants.
2:22:04
Um do you wish me to go into the sort of um current baseline situation or or was
2:22:12
that a different question? It's probably helpful just at this stage
2:22:18
because I think we'll be coming back to Mr. Green in terms of some of the data he's appended to his his statements. I
2:22:25
think that'll be helpful now. Mr. Cliff, yes, please. Okay. Well, survey data was collected at the end of 2022.
2:22:34
Uh traffic trends were assessed at that time and as I've indicated, this
2:22:39
approach was agreed with National Highways. The 2022 counts are within the last
2:22:47
three years. So that's acceptable in terms of the industry standard for data
2:22:54
acceptability. The strategic road network report which
2:22:59
is IMV2 was undertaken in partnership with national highways and using a model that
2:23:06
was was jointly agreed.
2:23:12
The baseline position was agreed to allow the study work, so that's the strategic road network and the local
2:23:18
road network studies to proceed and all committed development. So that's to say planning permissions were
2:23:26
included on top of the the 2022 transport flows.
2:23:35
Can I just add to that please sir to say that all of the um the models that we use the junction models um that we use
2:23:42
within the um assessment were validated against uh Q length data that was recorded at the same time. Um the trip
2:23:50
rates that have been used in the assessment were uh robust and were taken from the TRIX database following the
2:23:56
industry standard. Um they are there's a further uh level of
2:24:01
of robustness if that's a word within that. um because they weren't we didn't
2:24:07
follow the vision approach at that stage and we started to do some of that more
2:24:13
recently.
2:24:24
Thank you Mr. Quickly just on that point I mean you say you didn't follow the vision-led approach did you make any
2:24:29
kind of allowances for modal shift initially uh in the work that was done
2:24:35
we didn't it was a robust assessment but as obviously over the last couple of years that um that visionled policy has
2:24:42
become more pronounced um we have sort of reflected on that subsequently so
2:24:47
some of the later work we've done which I believe has been submitted to you um
2:24:52
has tried to then reflect on by reducing those trip rates as opposed by using the visionled approach.
2:25:01
Thank you. I turn to Mr. Finch, please. Uh thank you, sir. Um Mr. Clifford's
2:25:09
already covered most of the points I was going to uh to to state. Um uh I would
2:25:15
agree that the the base model uh is based on um sorry the base model uh was
2:25:22
agreed with updated traffic flows 2022. Excuse me. We've referred to these in
2:25:29
the evidence pack that we've submitted for you. So I don't intend to go through through you and bore you with with that.
2:25:34
Uh however I would like to say that it was a very robust assessment at the time
2:25:40
uh since the circular came out in December uh 2022 0122.
2:25:47
We are now looking to push the visionled approach and reduce the need to travel especially by car. So we will be looking
2:25:54
at walking, wheeling and cycling. We have assessed the whole of the
2:25:59
network. We did not assess this as an individual site. We assessed the whole of the network to identify what
2:26:05
improvements were required. We identified a improvement southbound
2:26:10
on the A19 and improvements for White M pool were required at the end of the plan period. Now that's quite difficult
2:26:17
to assess. Sorry, we we've agreed the assessment for the end of the period to give an exact time of when these
2:26:22
improvements are required is quite difficult because it's subject to the scale of and location and as development
2:26:29
comes forward. However, the white may pool scheme can be broken down into several smaller sections and we are
2:26:37
currently working with the local authority to a grant agree a rough time
2:26:42
frame of when they are required. However, as I state, that will be picked
2:26:47
up as part of the detailed transport assessment submitted with the planning application and we will have a better
2:26:53
understanding of the exact timing whether that's required now before development comes forward or whether is
2:26:59
anything else they can do in the as an interimate measure.
2:27:05
Thank you for get sort of too too into the kind of the the detail of white mar
2:27:10
pool just in general terms Mr. Finch thinking about an evidence base that's kind of proportionate and reasonable for
2:27:16
kind of plan making. I mean notwithstanding where things are currently going in terms of vision le
2:28:03
to reduce the need to travel as I stated but at this stage we are happy that suitable mitigation can be provided
2:28:09
within the plan period [Music]
2:28:15
thank you I don't want to get sort of too into the detail of white mar pool we're going to pick that up as part of
2:28:20
the agenda I wonder if I could come at this point to Mr. Green first and then
2:28:25
to Mr. Olders Lake because I think your appendix three to your statement. Mr. Green, you've provided 2025 traffic
2:28:32
data. If you just help me in terms of the source where you've got that data from and where what you think we need to
2:28:39
do with it as part of the plan, the the data was carried out because you know it's bang up the date on the A1 194
2:28:46
uh and the council will have access to that. I I was informed that it would go
2:28:51
forward to the cap on June the second that it would go forward a presentation to do with the data would go forward to
2:28:57
the next calf meeting which would have been July the 10th last week and it would have been July the 12th for the
2:29:04
heaven calf meeting. Uh that wasn't that wasn't the case but the the data shows uh it
2:29:09
sorry Mr. W just Yeah, just take me back a step so I just understand. No, that's okay. Um
2:29:15
just what is that data? Where did you get it? Where where have you got it from? Yeah, it was carried out in March this
2:29:23
year. Yeah. And it was, you know, it's massive. I I couldn't print everything off. Uh and what it does is I asked via
2:29:32
an FYI uh for for some of the information and it indicates that on the
2:29:38
A194 between 7:00 and 8:00 there's 2568 vehicles, which equates to one vehicle
2:29:45
every 71 seconds. And now that's if I remember, you know, I mean it was a while since I passed me test, but I know
2:29:51
the two second rule. There's there's far too much traffic on that road already. There's going to be an access road going
2:29:57
the A1 194 crosses the Millane roundabout and there's going to be an access road from the new development
2:30:02
onto the Millane roundabout and we'll go on to that soon because the Millane itself uh is is you know you know that's
2:30:11
very heavily congested. But in relation to the local plan traffic assessment
2:30:16
report 2023, if you put in A19, well, it doesn't relate to the A194 Milane
2:30:22
roundabout. I can't find it. I mean, you guys might be able to find it. It associates to Millane itself. It
2:30:28
associates to White May Pool. It associates to Lindesf. But the one smack bang in the middle where the access road
2:30:34
from this new development will go on to isn't included. You know, million which goes off, it is heavily congested. 120
2:30:42
130% you know uh you know but it doesn't it doesn't mention the A194 million
2:30:47
roundabout for some reason. Uh now if you go on to page eight of the local plan traffic assessment funding for all
2:30:54
of this uh 1.21 uh 1.22 and 1.23 there's no funding you
2:31:01
know and you know there's nothing uh national highways will be you know on this one uh 1.21 warn uh further
2:31:09
infrastructure measures are currently being investig
2:32:12
Because going west
2:32:18
down to zero.
2:32:36
Um just in terms of the actual survey um when we provided the information to Mr.
2:32:42
agreeing on request through the FOI. It was projected that that was part of network management duty and exercising
2:32:48
the right to monitor traffic around the principal road network of the borough. This was simply to inform and make the
2:32:55
council aware of where we get requests from utility companies to make intrusions on the on the carriageway. So
2:33:01
the results of that said survey combined with the other roads that were tested alongside that, it was merely a traffic
2:33:08
count that Mr. green refers to but it had no bearing or no influence on the local plan trip generation models that
2:33:14
we've we've we've completed. Thank you. So so before Mr. Quigley
2:33:20
comes in. So it's it's effectively count data that's count data to infirm how much the
2:33:25
network's being utilized and where we get requests from indeed utility companies and our own works departments
2:33:31
as to where we possibly consider relevant to make that type of application to to serve to
2:33:38
utilize the carage way and do utility works. Mr. Quigley, did you want to come in on
2:33:44
Yeah, I just wanted to sort of address a couple of those points, please. Um, so in terms of the uh developments that
2:33:51
have come forward within the vicinity of the 194 over the last few years, obviously our base our
2:33:57
base model is a BS plus committed model. So the committed being the developments that were committed during the during
2:34:03
that period those have been those have been rolled out and they the traffic associated with them is included in the
2:34:09
base situation. That's that one on um Mil Lane obviously
2:34:15
the the Millane junction uh has been assessed as part of the strategic road network assessment uh report the joint
2:34:23
study with national highways. Um as part of that study we coded in to the model
2:34:29
um a junction improvement um which came from some of the earlier
2:34:35
work that the uh cyper waters had done to uh demonstrate that the traffic
2:34:41
associate where with the development would be a would be able to access the network the 194 successfully and that's
2:34:47
that's included in the evidence that we provided um as part of the strategic road network assessment. Um
2:34:57
yeah, thank you. Um Mr. Eglesson, please.
2:35:05
Just to note, sir, that um yeah, I was going to make the point that Mr. Quiddley did that the um assessments
2:35:11
have been undertaken by the council and national highways have taken account of those developments that have been built out in the period since the count data
2:35:18
was collected in 2022 and the and the original data in 2018. But also just to note that we had a look at the data that
2:35:25
um Mr. Green had submitted and it does actually show that the flows on Lem Lane on the A194 have reduced um since those
2:35:33
that were counted on that same section um in 2018.
2:35:40
Just on just to back that one up um we've done some high level review of the um TADU database which is a sort of a
2:35:48
traffic count database just on various parts of the network in South Tide and
2:35:54
that's demonstrated that the traffic flows remain lower than the 2018 2019 levels um generally across South Tide.
2:36:04
Thank you for those. I'm going to move on before we take the lunch adjournment
2:36:10
to um my some agenda about really related
2:36:16
to this in terms of the policy requirement to take site the site access from Mil Lane and from Durham Drive.
2:36:22
Before I do that, was it was it a point on the modeling? Councelor Kilgore.
2:36:27
So, just a just a quick point. Um we asked for some um data with regards to house building just the other day and it
2:36:34
would look if the figures are accurate and our assessment from the the further years from 2022 that there would have
2:36:41
been 237 new homes built kind of in and around that area. So the heavenjaro area that
2:36:49
will be impacting. So whilst I'm not um suggesting that the figures are wrong, I
2:36:54
think there needs to be a recalculation because there can't be less.
2:37:00
Thank you. Um I'm going to deal now with Mil Lane Durham Durham Drive.
2:37:09
Sorry, can I come in with a with a quick one on uh when the traffic data was actually put together? It was just after
2:37:16
co uh and it should be noticed this is just from 2.21 of the traffic assessment
2:37:22
report. Uh national data is available which demonstrates that level of travel are incre increasing. However, in south
2:37:28
plaid that consider that to remain lower or comparable with precoid levels forecasted traffic has not occurred.
2:37:34
That's severely incorrect. You know the information they've got the figures together just after CO. So obviously
2:37:41
things were returning to normal. Uh so at that time when they collected the figures it's it's massively increased
2:37:48
since then. Thank you
2:37:54
Mr. Quigley. Sorry I was just going to say on that um so at the time when the counts were
2:37:59
undertaken we surveyed a period around either side of the when the counts were
2:38:04
undertaken which demonstrated that the flows at that period was stable and that we had reached a sort of postco um
2:38:11
situation. And just to say again, just to repeat what I just said there, the tattoo database demonstrates that the floors remain lower than they were in in
2:38:19
the pre-COVID period. Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms
2:38:24
of the agenda. Um so the proposed site access in terms of the policy requirement uh is to be achieved from
2:38:32
the Millane roundabout and from Durham Drive. Um the policy itself uh other
2:38:38
than the Mill Lane roundabout does not provide any detail or specifics about exactly where on Durham Drive the uh
2:38:46
connections would be made. Uh obviously there is evidence in terms of indicated
2:38:51
earlier the Felgate site capacity and opportunities paper but I'm mindful that's just an indicative layout at this
2:38:58
stage. It's not the detail, but can I just understand if we do a mill lane
2:39:03
mill lane roundabout first, the principle of accessing onto that uh roundabout, is that underpinned by our
2:39:10
evidence that that would be a a safe and acceptable uh point of access? Uh
2:39:18
is that junction at the moment uh operating over capacity? And if so, has
2:39:25
the council through its consultants identified any kind of interventions that would
2:39:31
either make the situation better or not worse? Mr. Clifford,
2:39:38
in terms of how uh Milane was assessed, it was assessed as Mr. quickly uh
2:39:43
indicated through the strategic road network report and the model demonstrated that the
2:39:51
traffic can exit the site and that the current operation of the junction is
2:39:56
satisfactory. um to ensure that the assessment of traffic impacts at Mil Lane Junction was
2:40:05
robust. The strategic road network assessment didn't send any traffic onto to Durham
2:40:12
Drive. And just to explain that a bit more uh in terms of why Durham Drive was
2:40:17
not modeled in either the strategic road network or the local road network assessments
2:40:24
um as the council didn't envisage that much traffic would use it basically
2:40:29
because uh primarily uh to allow for permeability for public
2:40:35
transport and also an alternative access for emergency services.
2:40:43
Uh Durham Drive is also subject to a 20 mph speed limit and has extensive
2:40:51
traffic calming which is likely to discourage further users. So that's the broad overview of of the
2:40:59
uh approach. Um, as you rightly point out, um, we haven't
2:41:06
specified where the the access onto Durham Drive would be, though there is an indicative layout in the
2:41:12
opportunities paper.
2:41:18
Thank you. Um, if I turn to, um, Mr.
2:41:23
Egleston next, please. We've provided some submissions um
2:41:29
earlier in the plan process which set out the proposals for access um into the
2:41:34
development site and access is primarily expected to be taken from the mil round
2:41:40
milane roundabout and as you said sir um the existing junction itself isn't um
2:41:47
doesn't have the sufficient capacity to accommodate um the development. So what's proposed is a significant
2:41:52
enlargement of the junction um and that would create a a sort of um signalized
2:41:58
gyatory um with additional arms coming into the new development itself. Um that
2:42:03
that work was undertaken as a sort of preliminary exercise to to feed into the local plan um submissions and and all of
2:42:10
that work will obviously be updated as part of any subsequent planning application. But the council um and
2:42:16
their consultants did pick up that junction arrangement the the enlarged junction um and that was used as a basis
2:42:24
um within the strategic road network model and that has been taken into account. So um the capacity of that
2:42:29
network would be significantly improved as a part of the development and the assessments that have been conducted by
2:42:35
the council um to date show that there there's um sufficient capacity um and
2:42:40
that that more than mitigates the impact of the development on the A194 corridor as
2:43:04
Thank you. And in terms of a before I bring in others, a potential improvement to or the necessary improvement to the
2:43:10
mill lane roundabout, has that been factored in and profiled? Does the
2:43:15
council have the evidence as to when that's needed? And I think Mr. Green has
2:43:22
queried previously how things are likely to be funded. Would the Mill lane
2:43:28
roundabout improvement be holier developer contributions or are there other things
2:43:35
that the council is is thinking about for that junction? Uh in terms of upgrading the roundabout
2:43:41
sir, it is identified within the infrastructure delivery plan and the priority given to it is critical. Um so
2:43:50
it would it would need to be de delivered at a very early stage to provide satisfactory access to the site.
2:44:04
In terms of funding, I think we would envisage that that would be the developer section 106 contributions.
2:44:23
Thank you. And and I can cross reference back to the infrastructure delivery plan, but is there a cost that's been
2:44:30
identified and associated with that project?
2:44:44
Whilst Mr. Clifford's looking into that, Miss Zaggleston, it is our intention that we would
2:44:51
deliver the access into the site from Mil Lane, sir. So that would be part of the development
2:44:56
costs. Just the the term deliver the access
2:45:03
including any works that are necessary to the roundabout itself. Yes, that's right, sir.
2:45:17
Thank you. We'll pick up broad headline uh viability later.
2:45:24
Mr. C, happy I'll leave you with looking into that now and I'll hear from others and we'll come back to you. Y
2:45:30
Mr. Green, please on the on the Mill Lane roundabout. Yeah, as I said earlier, there's no
2:45:37
actual I can find in the in the traffic assessment, the nearest I can find is Middle Lane. And if you go to the local
2:45:44
plan traffic assessment 23 3.51 uh and middle lane is a road which goes
2:45:51
directly off the Millane roundabout up to the A185. If you have a look at the cap capacity
2:45:58
of that, that's nowhere near satisfactory. It's way way over. Uh, have you have you got that have you
2:46:03
managed to get that one up there? 115%. Uh, which is is way over. Uh,
2:46:11
so I I can't understand, as I say, I can't understand why there hasn't one been actually done on the Million
2:46:16
roundabout itself, but that's the closest I can get to Middle Lane. And in relation to uh the funding of the well,
2:46:24
the Million roundabout itself, the developers are saying they're going to put an extra arm from the new development up to White May Pool. How
2:46:30
does that help the road the A194 down to Lindesvorn and into South Shields? It doesn't, you know, it just doesn't make
2:46:36
sense. What the the the the entire focus of all of this is on the White Mool
2:46:41
roundabout. But what the developers are forgetting is in the planning is that there's a lot of traffic which heads
2:46:47
down into South Shields from the Million roundabouts. Uh and also in relation to funding,
2:46:52
there's there's there's there's more infrastructure going to be put in at White M pool and I'd just like to ask
2:46:59
the council's opinion on you know uh who there's a parcel of land up at the top
2:47:04
where white mool where there's going to be a new uh so I'm going to cut in that we're going to talk about white poolool separolog
2:47:13
I just I just can't I can't understand with the over capacity of mil lane itself you've got it's both ways
2:47:19
so you've got coming onto Millian and coming off Milane. Million itself is at a standstill and coming in both
2:47:25
directions. Thank you councelor Kilg.
2:47:32
Thank you sir. Um just to add to Mr. Green's submission there I just would I
2:47:38
actually welcome the the note from Mr. Clifford there that this is a critically needed amendment. um the development
2:47:47
site itself. I'd like to know how the developer looks to be able to contribute
2:47:53
to affordable housing to contribute to the mitigation for biodiversity
2:47:59
and fund the roundabout. Um it and I'm glad you clarified sir around access
2:48:04
onto the site because that could be taken as the road and the regeneration of the road that is currently kind of a
2:48:11
track road actually. Um so I'd like to know that um it needs significant
2:48:17
enlargement and what I would say is the schools in that vicinity and I'm chair of St. Joseph's Catholic Academy is that
2:48:23
that school is well it's at capacity and it's and it's you know we're looking to
2:48:29
further that as well and Hebins school is is building momentum too. So all of
2:48:35
those increases which regards to school intake and things like that coming from Mil Lane onto the middle lane roundabout
2:48:42
will need to be factored and they're increasingly um you know that the data and and the buildup of students is year
2:48:48
onear. Thank you. Just uh for my benefit and
2:48:55
sort of local geography this obviously the Milane roundabout is onto the A194 at this point. Is that part of your
2:49:01
network Mr. Finch or is it that part is part of the local road network?
2:49:06
No sir, that's part of the middle lane roundabout. It's part of the local road network. Nothing to do with me luckily.
2:49:14
Just wanted to clarify. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Clifford please.
2:49:19
Yes sir. Just to respond to your earlier point. Uh there's an indicative cost in the IDP for the Mil Lane roundabout
2:49:26
improvements and that indicative cost is1 million pounds.
2:49:39
Um, Miss Ham, is it Hamson? Yes, Hamson. Um, I just want to come back on the point around viability
2:49:45
there. Um, we have undertaken our own independent viability assessment which
2:49:50
takes into account all of those factors which have been mentioned and which demonstrates that the site is viable and
2:49:55
deliverable. Thank you. Before we take the lunchtime adjourment, the second part of
2:50:03
uh criterion uh 54 of policy uh SP uh 8 also refers to
2:50:13
vehicular access from Durham Drive. I heard earlier from Mr. Clifford that when the council's been looking at this
2:50:19
as part of modeling, I think there's been a uh more of an expectation that this would be serving in terms of
2:50:26
emergency vehicles bus. I mean the policy doesn't say that. So presumably the way the policies worded would still
2:50:34
um enable a secondary point of access or other points of access onto Durham Drive
2:50:39
for for all vehicles
2:50:44
as as it's worded. it would. So, um after considering the evidence, which we
2:50:50
can do this afternoon, um you go away and you think actually we ought to qualify it, we can do that as a
2:50:56
modification. Thank you. Before I reflect on that
2:51:02
further, can I just check with Labric Hall Farms whether you see
2:51:09
and then I'll come back to Mr. Quickly the policy operating in in that way is
2:51:15
access onto Durham Drive being exclusively for emergency vehicles and
2:51:21
buses or primarily for emergency vehicles and buses.
2:51:28
I think we see the primary access onto Milane on onto the 194, but um and this
2:51:34
followed from the the work that the the council had done on the initial master plan was that um some minor secondary
2:51:40
access would be permitted onto Durham Drive. So, um the emphasis would be that that is an active travel and public
2:51:47
transport corridor um and would cater emergency vehicles, but that um that there might be the possibility for some
2:51:52
local trips to also happen um onto Durham Drive as well. That's something that will be tested through um the
2:51:59
planning application process and through a a detailed transport assessment. So um we haven't got a a
2:52:07
a firm conclusion on that yet, but but certainly that's what we'd understood was the intention.
2:52:12
Yeah, sorry. So I was I was late there and um and put me dober up. Um yeah, no, the intention is is that it will be open
2:52:18
to general traffic. Um it's not just an emergency and um uh and bus access
2:52:24
route. Um what Mr. Clifford I think was saying was from from the purposes of the assessment
2:52:30
we've assigned the traffic to the principal road network to ensure a robust assessment of the junctions on
2:52:37
the principal road network which we consider to be um appropriate for this for the for a local plan assessment. Um
2:52:43
but we see the value in having that route through to allow for the
2:52:48
internalization of trips to the to the area um between the allocation and the
2:52:54
existing um uh the existing development. So some of the uh other uses that are
2:52:59
included within within the allocation the school and the community facilities the community facilities that have been mentioned um on the other side of the
2:53:07
table um we want to try and en encourage the internalization of trips between those to reduce the travel on the um on
2:53:14
the external network. Excuse me. Thank you Mr. Green and then
2:53:20
M councelor Kilgar and then I'm probably taking the lunchtime break. Thank you. Yeah, I just go on again. Uh, you know,
2:53:28
we're kind of what we have clarified there that the access road on the 20 mph D drive road isn't just purely for
2:53:34
emergency vehicles. It could be for up to two or 3,000 vehicles daily. Uh,
2:53:40
the the other access road is on the 194 which already says is congested daily.
2:53:48
So it would either bring it to gridlock or people would start using areas around
2:53:53
Felgate as as a rat run uh which is which is why I asked for all the traffic data in the first place. But basically
2:54:00
with the the primary access on the 194 and the secondary access onto Durham Drive it would it would be total
2:54:08
gridlock you know. Okay. Councelor Kilgal please.
2:54:14
Thank you sir. Um I I would like to concur with with Mr. Green there, but what I think we fail to forget I fail to
2:54:21
remember is is that the new tri station is built in heaven in in Monton. So its
2:54:27
access it wouldn't take an ambulance to travel around the estate to come in on
2:54:33
Durham Drive. It will absolutely use um what is being termed the primary access
2:54:39
um on the the 194. Um I think we're looking at flow when we're looking at
2:54:44
the strategic uh network as well. Any any arm off onto um the new development
2:54:51
being uh called the primary access will slow the flow. So so all of the
2:54:56
congestion that Mr. Green's mentioned will only be slowed even further because of a further offshot if you like with
2:55:03
regards to traffic management. However, that will be and actually the the rat
2:55:09
run, I would agree, would potentially be through the existing Felgate estate, but
2:55:14
equally potentially through um the new development that is proposed coming off
2:55:20
Durham Drive and through Durham Drive and out onto what they call the primary network. Thank you.
2:55:28
Thank you for that. I mean, I have been to the area. I will go back once having heard this evidence again to look at
2:55:34
kind of the highway conditions on Durham Drive, the surrounding road network. So,
2:55:39
thank you for those um contributions. If there's nothing further from the council in terms of Mil Lane or Durham
2:55:47
Drive, no. In which case, we'll take a lunchtime,
2:55:53
excuse me, a lunchtime adjourment. Now, ordinarily to date, we've been allowing around about an hour for lunch.
2:56:00
Um, let me test an alternative. Uh, if I said 45 minutes, is that acceptable to
2:56:09
people in the room? It's reasonable. Still a reasonable lunch break. Just gone 5 1. Um, oh dear, I've been in
2:56:17
difficulty with clocks previously. My track record here is not good. 10 to
2:56:22
two. Thank you. We'll be back at 10 to two in this room.
3:40:38
Okay, it's 10 to two, so I'm resuming these hearing sessions into the examination of the South Tinside local
3:40:44
plan. Um, people may have used mobile phones during the lunch break. So, can just
3:40:49
gently remind everybody to ensure mobile phones are put back on their switched off or silent modes um please.
3:40:56
And I would like to pick up um my agenda still broadly under item seven, but I'd
3:41:03
now like to turn to the White Mar um junction situation. Um I'm quite clear
3:41:10
from the evidence that's been presented to me through the council's infrastructure planning work and through
3:41:16
the submissions from National Highways. This is one of the two areas when we're
3:41:21
looking at kind of the cumulative growth of the plan. This is a junction uh based
3:41:27
on the evidence uh that will need some form of intervention
3:41:32
uh during the plan period. Can I invite whether it's the council or
3:41:38
national highways just very briefly in the first instance just kind of give us the examination just an overview of what
3:41:46
will be require what potentially is required at the um the white mar pool
3:41:54
uh junction.
3:41:59
Thank you sir. So the strategic road network report INV2
3:42:05
tested what we call the full scheme. So that's um all of the various
3:42:12
component parts. That's the full scheme which the estimated cost is 40 million.
3:42:20
Um a further study white mar pool threshold testing
3:42:26
scenarios report which is document reference post sub23
3:42:34
has now been undertaken to refine this evidence and that provides
3:42:41
scenario-based interim solutions to identify the proportion of overall local plan demand that can be accommodated at
3:42:50
white junction through incremental delivery of the various elements.
3:42:57
So the study did not include a vision-led approach to trip rates, but
3:43:03
it demonstrated that the full scheme can be incrementally delivered with the
3:43:08
first phase not being required until 2032.
3:43:13
And the assessment shows that scenario five, one of the individual components of the
3:43:20
full scheme, east and south arm widening can deliver 80 to 90% of all local plan
3:43:28
demand or around 2,765 homes for an indicative cost of 7 to10
3:43:35
million pounds.
3:43:48
comprises what?
3:43:53
Okay. Um yeah, so um Mr. Clever's just asked
3:43:59
me to explain that the the full scheme um is made up of um various elements as
3:44:05
he's described. Um there's improvements on the eastern, southern and northern arm and then also works to the
3:44:12
circulatory carriageway. Um the incremental work that Mr.
3:44:19
as um as referenced um we
3:44:24
again in the model we I don't have detail do you want me to go into this but we coded in just the east arm ran
3:44:31
the model identified a level of development that we thought was achievable at that stage then we added
3:44:37
in you know another arm reran it and so on until we got up to the the agreed position which we agreed with national
3:44:44
highways as part of the uh statement common ground of the full scheme and therefore We've allocated um based on
3:44:50
the number of trips through the junction, we've allocated a level of development that uh equates to that
3:44:56
level of trips through the junction.
3:45:08
Thank you, Mr. Quigley. Can I just clarify is does the improvements to the White Mar pool junction involve any kind
3:45:14
of new bridge or rebuilding or replacing some of the existing A18?
3:45:19
So the final the final phase the um where the bulk of the cost comes from is
3:45:25
when we um there's currently a mound in the middle of the roundabout which holds up the bridge. Um the intention would be
3:45:32
in the final phase that the mound would be uh removed and it would be supported in in in with conventional you know
3:45:39
posts which are that then that frees up space to allow us to do works on the circulatory carriageway. So that is the
3:45:46
that is the bulk of the scheme cost but it doesn't need to come in until the
3:45:51
end of the the different scenarios.
3:46:10
Thank you. I appreciate uh as I heard last week when we was discussing the Wardley site um Mr. Finch obviously this
3:46:17
is Can you claim ownership of White Mar pool? Is that part of your network or is
3:46:22
it I'll take this one sir. Okay. Um we've worked extremely closely with the
3:46:29
council over the several years. Um there was a joint study to look at what
3:46:34
improvements required to all of the network. Um strategic road network as
3:46:40
I've previously mentioned the the work looking at how we can break it down into
3:46:45
phase delivery is interesting. Um I in principle agree with it. However, we've
3:46:52
now received further information as previously mentioned looking at um the visionled approach which will push some
3:46:58
of these improvements further. you know, kick the can down the road a little bit. We're also working uh with them looking
3:47:06
at the potential to bring forward variable message signs. The the way the
3:47:11
the way the junction works is it's very peaky in the northeast. It's not a
3:47:17
traffic problem during the day for all day. It's a morning peak hour. Do we
3:47:23
spend hundreds of millions of pounds trying to tackle that problem for a 20 half an
3:47:29
hour a day problem? What we got? Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Finch. Can I just double check is it is it just
3:47:34
exclusively the morning peak or do you expect both morning and evening peak and evening? Okay.
3:47:39
And so we're looking at the looking at how we manage that problem. National highways have changed the view slightly
3:47:45
in that we will accept some delays on the network. it is no longer um uh
3:47:51
making sure that the we uh we just take all the development we have to mitigate everything. However, we do stress that
3:47:58
we've got to make sure that it maintains uh to operating safely at all times. So
3:48:05
we are also looking at the um possibility of providing some variable message signs towards Finsby um as we
3:48:12
were discussing on Friday to warn that a uh queue is ahead. There is a queue to
3:48:20
the roundabout. You will always get a queue as you approach a roundabout in the morning in uh whether it's in the
3:48:25
morning or evening peak hour. It's how long that queue is. So there are other alternatives. However, we do agree that
3:48:32
the full scheme that's being proposed will mitigate the impact of the local plan.
3:48:39
I can't agree at this stage exactly when the in measures are required. I keep
3:48:46
referring to scale and location of development because you can build further away from it. Excuse me. And it
3:48:51
might not be required. However, between now and when you come back, I'm sure we will have agreed with
3:48:58
the council some indicative dates and then any transport assessment supporting development would need to pick that up
3:49:04
as part of its planning application. Thank you. Just so I'm clear at this
3:49:12
this moment in time, Mr. Finch notwithstanding statements of common ground that you've entered into into the
3:49:18
council with the council is it the position of national highways that you want additional time to look at the
3:49:25
threshold report and the outputs. So we did agree originally a statement of
3:49:30
common ground. We're still happy with that. However, further information has been submitted with regard to the
3:49:36
visionled approach which will alter the timing of when improvements are to come
3:49:42
forward. We will discuss that with the council uh during the summer recess of
3:49:47
this EIP and we'll have something for you when we get back.
3:49:56
However, in principle, we are happy that the full mitigation is I'll stress is acceptable and mitigates the local plan
3:50:03
and is within scale with the right scale for the plan making process. However, we've not quite agreed the timing of it
3:50:09
yet. Okay, just so I'm clear from National Highways before I come back to the the
3:50:15
council on this. I think you said a moment ago um Mr. Finch that I think you agree in principle in terms of the we
3:50:23
call it the phased or the incremental approach that the council's kind of been exploring and testing in terms of the
3:50:30
burden of um improvements that junction proportionate to the local plan growth.
3:50:38
I don't take it you're stepping away from that. You just want further assurance
3:50:44
about what the when the trigger point is. So we provided in the evidence pack some
3:50:50
breakdowns of the drawings for you so you can see what improvements. If a site was to come forward to the
3:50:57
north of White Mool, it would have more of an impact on certain legs. We've got to understand what the council
3:51:03
understands going to how they understand development is going to come forward. Once we have an understanding of that in
3:51:09
principle, we can come up with some dates of when we think the improvement should be in place. However, if all the
3:51:16
development come forward comes forward at once, then all we would look to for all the improvements to come forward at
3:51:22
once. Thank you. Before I bring in others, if
3:51:27
I invite the council on this point, Mr. Shadow, I was just going to say um that um
3:51:34
so National Highway is happy in principle with the four mitigation scheme. We're happy in principle the
3:51:39
development can fund it. It's not going to be need the four scheme is not going to be needed right until the very end if
3:51:45
if even then. Um, national highways have in their possession now some further um,
3:51:51
information from us in relation to a vision approach and what impact that might have still on delaying the need
3:51:57
for the implementation of these measures on which they're going to come back. So we we can work on the premise that there
3:52:03
is a workable scheme and it's fundable. So far as uh the timing of interventions
3:52:09
is concerned that will very much turn on um on the SPD which is to be produced
3:52:18
and also uh any master plan that's required um upon which all reserve matters will
3:52:25
need to be based if it's an outline application and that master plan uh which will have
3:52:31
to be approved as part of the development management process. uh will identify the phasing of
3:52:38
development where that development to take place and therefore inform national highways as to what interventions are
3:52:45
needed and when. Just want to be clear from both the council and national highways when you
3:52:52
reference you both referred to the full scheme. Now I'd be inclined to interpret
3:52:57
that as the 40 million pound um solution
3:53:03
or is it an alternative? visit the 7 to10 million pounds that Mr. Clifford's referred to as potentially being a more
3:53:10
sort of cost effective way of getting most of the benefit. Mr. Finch first.
3:53:17
Thank you, sir. The the scheme the full scheme was referred
3:53:22
to it which is including the alterations to the central gyator which is as um Mr.
3:53:29
Quidly says is the expensive bit that was based on a very robust assessment originally as part of the
3:53:36
modeling. Since then we are now looking at reducing the need to travel in line with
3:53:43
the current circular that may
3:53:48
reduce the overall amount of mitigation that's required. However, we've not
3:53:54
reviewed that information as yet. We are confident that there is a scheme that
3:54:00
can be delivered um based on the robust assessment that
3:54:06
may come down a little bit once we've looked at the revised um proposals.
3:54:13
Also, that's a very robust cost. It includes a lot of risk as that scheme
3:54:20
will be designed up. You would design the risk out and would I would expect that cost to come down considerably.
3:54:29
Thank you. I I'll hear from others, but um hear from Mr. Quigley and then I'll
3:54:35
I'll come back to the council. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, just to sort of um
3:54:40
try and clarify some of that. So, the the full scheme, the 40 million pound scheme has um that position has been
3:54:48
agreed with with National Highways as as a scheme that will facilitate all of the local plan.
3:54:54
the incremental testing work um sought to identify what could be achieved by
3:55:01
smaller elements of that and more um and more cost- effective solutions. As Mr.
3:55:07
Clifford had said the east and and south arm which is a 7 to 10 million cost we
3:55:14
thought it got about 80 to 90% of the local plan development away. We have
3:55:20
subsequently as I said at the start we haven't been using visionled
3:55:25
trip rates for this. So the work that we've been doing more recently has been
3:55:30
trying to use those u visionled trip rates and that is is demonstrating that
3:55:35
we can get 98 plus% away just off those two schemes the east and south arm again
3:55:41
at that 7 to 10 million cost obviously substantial um reduction in the cost
3:55:48
that work I don't believe has yet been submitted to yourself which obviously it's we could do if you want us to do
3:55:55
that Um, and I don't believe National Hours have had an opportunity to comment on that
3:56:00
yet either. Yeah.
3:56:06
And in terms of where that additional work might take us, I mean, my inclination would be an update to the
3:56:13
infrastructure delivery plan. I think I think that's absolutely right.
3:56:20
Um and um um we we we can discuss what information needs to be circulated uh
3:56:27
once National Highway has come back to us on on the stuff we've given them so
3:56:32
that we can come back to you to the examination with an agreed position and any further data which you
3:56:56
Thank you. I mean that would obviously keep the door open to come back to the fellgate matter as part of stage two
3:57:03
hearings. Um obviously what I've got in mind from previous plan examinations other plan examinations is when we we'll
3:57:09
come on to this at the end of today when we start looking at kind of delivery or anticipated delivery at Felgate
3:57:15
is it going to come forward it caught by any potential critical infrastructure
3:57:22
uh requirements that need to be delivered within a certain time. So if there is further dialogue that can kind
3:57:28
of help inform that hopefully provide assurance that what's anticipated to
3:57:34
happen certainly if there anything is being assumed within five years from plan adoption there's either the
3:57:40
infrastructure capacity or we know what's needed within that particularly that very short term it costs X and
3:57:48
there's a reasonable prospect that either the development can cover that cost or we're looking at another
3:57:54
mechanism including including section 106 or highway contributions. Yeah, absolutely.
3:57:59
Where I want to get to. Yeah. And stage two will deal with that and and also the wording of the policy
3:58:06
which may need to be modified to accommodate any of those contingencies.
3:58:17
Thank you. I will bring in others. I was going to ask I mean it is a point that Mr. green has raised um in terms of how
3:58:24
much this all potentially costs and I appreciate that's still probably to be uh refined um
3:58:32
further depending on kind of modeling. So, I think from what I'm hearing this
3:58:38
afternoon, I'm not uh overly focused on the ultimate 40
3:58:44
million pound um cost that's kind of been assigned to this, but it might be a
3:58:50
cost that's slightly less in terms of potential funding for this.
3:58:56
Is the anticipation that it's wholly for development to cover that cost? Are
3:59:02
there any other potential sources of funding whether it's the road investment strategy or anything else that can
3:59:09
assist on that point? Should I hear from Mr. Mail first and then Mr. Finch? Thank you sir. So in terms of how we
3:59:16
foresee this to be possibly funded is the if you're not aware the regional mayor has recently identified and
3:59:23
announced a regional transport plan. uh we as a council have submitted the interim proposals at White Mar for
3:59:30
consideration in that plan under a transport pipeline of schemes. You will
3:59:35
refer on Friday I made reference to the fact that the regional mayor is likely to secure or has secured 1.85 billion
3:59:42
pounds worth of investment starting from 2027 to 2032.
3:59:48
Whilst there's a lot of announcements around Washington Loop and the 900 million pounds to support that, we
3:59:54
firmly foresee this as being a regionally significant investment program um as a scheme and we would be
4:00:00
looking to secure investment from that regional mayor's portfolio of investment.
4:00:07
Thank you. Thank you. So that's within part developer contributions as well. Yeah.
4:00:16
Well, I will get my head around this in the fullness of sa certainly. Yeah, that's the northeast
4:00:22
combine authority regional transport plan and there is a transport pipeline that's been identified as part of that.
4:00:30
Thank you, Mr. Finch, please. Uh, yes, I can confirm, sir. There's currently no no road investment strategy
4:00:37
funds identified for for any schemes in this area.
4:00:49
And just to check in on that, Mr. Finch, no new road investment strategy on the
4:00:55
horizon or process that this can we've we've had a very successful
4:01:01
partnership with the council over the last 10 years. We've delivered uh
4:01:07
testos. We've delivered lane gain lane drop on the uh tine tunnel approach and
4:01:14
we worked with them to get the improvements for mil lane roundabout because they had the benefit for
4:01:20
national highways. We'll continue to seek funds to try and deliver things. As I say, we've been
4:01:26
successful in the past. However, currently there's no funds on the horizon. We don't understand from
4:01:33
government yet what funds we're going to have to deliver anything like this.
4:01:38
Thank you. Thanks. It was just a point of reference regarding the interim scheme that James
4:01:44
referred to. The council was successful uh precoid for national productivity investment funding. Uh this allowed for
4:01:51
a raft of improvements on the approach to white mar pool. Um it delivered a a filter lane on the approach to turn
4:01:57
right onto the the felon bypass. uh we implement this the scheme after the covid period and I think it's been
4:02:04
operational around about sort of 18 months if not slightly longer. So we inter implemented an interim scheme on
4:02:11
the backdrop of that joint working arrangement with national highways. Thank you.
4:02:17
Okay, if I can bring in others then please on the white mayor pool uh junction specifically Mr. Green first
4:02:23
and then councelor Kilgore. Yeah, just just with this scheme, uh HS2
4:02:29
comes to mind. Uh nobody knows how much anything's going to cost. Uh I'm just going to 316 on the infrastructure
4:02:36
delivery plan, strategic road modeling. Uh Mr. Clifford uh and a couple of other
4:02:42
people have been saying that it's coming in towards the end of the scheme. But on 316, strategic road modeling undertaken
4:02:48
by national highways has also identified that interim improvements at the A194M
4:02:53
and A184 White May Pool round of uh junction will be required in the short term including for example improvements
4:03:01
to the northbound and westbound approaches. So that goes against it being towards the end of the term.
4:03:06
That's uh in the short term. So that's going to be it's going to be needed sort
4:03:12
of immediately. Uh and I I I believe that the lead up to White M pool and
4:03:18
going back to Durham Drive is going to be put in immediately anyway. That that's the plan to put those those uh
4:03:23
you know in that infrastructure in straight away. And scrolling back down to uh 32 3.21 of the infrastructure
4:03:32
delivery plan. Again, it goes on, I'll not read the whole lot. It goes on about funding, but nothing's this may may kick
4:03:40
the can down the road. In the meantime, that development is going to go ahead and kick the can down the road. You're
4:03:46
not only going to have to have, you know, all the traffic that's also, and this is a point we missed earlier this
4:03:51
morning. All the traffic from all the big developments in South Shields comes up to your 194 to the Millian roundabout. There's a massive
4:03:57
development old hallway currently being built in South Shields and there's no
4:04:02
funding there. You know, I mean, you know, the council's saying that come from there. They're saying no, it's not
4:04:07
us. It's not a plan. It's it it is it's it's I think Mr. is it Mr. Finch had
4:04:14
said it's kicking the can down the road now you know yeah there's 1.6 billion of
4:04:19
funding which the mayor says is going to come into this area but 900 million of that spent in this area already and
4:04:25
they're not going to put any more into it. They've had the Testos uh you know a junction which was a major building and
4:04:31
it's brilliant but again it backs up and the money is not going to be there and
4:04:36
in the meantime the developers if they got permission would go ahead with the build and you're also talking about
4:04:42
construction traffic as well. I think I think this is being there left out of it as well where it is the construction
4:04:47
traffic get in and come out and you know but yeah I mean funding it's just not there it's just not there.
4:04:55
Councelor Kgo, please. Thank you, sir. Um, I think we've got a
4:05:02
a couple of questions um certainly from residents initially. Um, would White Pole improvements be needed if Bald and
4:05:08
Clean and Witburn sites were developed and if the policy is to be modified in any way, would it have to go back out to
4:05:15
consultation? Um the points that I would like to make are
4:05:21
around the kicking the can down the road, the messaging signs at the the
4:05:26
date at which this plan was produced and the date at which we've been asked to restrict um our representations on is
4:05:34
with regards to the MPPF September 2023. So for me I think bringing in the
4:05:41
vision-led figures now is is probably
4:05:46
outwit um of of what we're looking at currently. Um I notice on um the
4:05:53
examination and public evidence pack from national highways that they note that collision clusters exist around the
4:06:00
circulatory and the southern approach on the A194M. Common causations include poor lane
4:06:07
change maneuvers, carelessness, sudden braking, fatigue, failing to look properly, and general distractions. Um,
4:06:13
it it goes on and and there's a huge raft of information that I've literally put in red because it is really
4:06:20
concerning what I'll I'll go back to um
4:06:26
the extent to which the developer is prepared to fund because in my opinion I
4:06:33
I wouldn't be funding something to assist the entire local plan if that was
4:06:39
coming out of the um the build profits. I I don't think I I think we need to go
4:06:44
back again because my feeling would be that it would be the arm developed into
4:06:51
the site. Um so I'm not convinced that that would involve any amendments to the
4:06:56
roundabout. Um, and furthermore, I think every bit of evidence that we've seen,
4:07:02
these vision-led figures, we can't just chop and change and move the goalposts
4:07:09
around what will fit to make this development um, come forward or viable.
4:07:15
I understand that development, you know, planning law now is in presumption of favor uh, of development. We're talking
4:07:22
about green belt policy here where we're establishing exceptional need to develop
4:07:29
and I don't think we've got exceptionality here that would prevent
4:07:34
these these implications not coming into place until the you know kind of the
4:07:39
back end of the development with regards to NECA. Um, we know, you know, I
4:07:44
welcome any support from our mayor in in regards to funding, but I think as Dave
4:07:49
Green has says, we've had our fair share thus far. Um, and and I'm not quite
4:07:55
confident that given the metro expectation um that that is going to marry up
4:08:01
because that infrastructure isn't necessarily tied in to a mil lane um
4:08:07
metro station that we're not going to get. Um so I'm really dubious about the
4:08:13
projections and also in the this uh document it also states that at the high
4:08:19
end it would cost 50 million uh not 40. So I think we're really looking at
4:08:28
forcing um the most minimal impact or minimal input to develop what could um be seen
4:08:36
as a 3,000 home development. and I'm not convinced that this is an accurate
4:08:42
reflection or that vision led is really worth the paper it's written on if I'm
4:08:47
honest at the moment realistically. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Um a
4:08:53
number of points there before the council national highways want to pick up some of those. Can I invite um
4:09:02
Mr. Egleston again before I bring in national highways from the uh the site promoters perspective please?
4:09:09
Uh yes, I just wanted to pick up the point that um the recent work that the
4:09:15
council has been doing which um talks about the incremental implementation of
4:09:21
the works then we're very supportive of that and and what that actually shows is that it it's not a a big bang solution
4:09:29
that actually the works that are recommended at White Pool can be implemented in several phases over
4:09:35
several years and can incrementally release developments within the local plan and and it is worth noting that
4:09:42
actually that scheme is there to mitigate the the full local plan and indeed the the reports that um the
4:09:50
council has submitted as part of the evidence shows that it more than mitigates for the impact of the local plan. It actually results in a
4:09:57
significant betterment over and above that which would have been the case if those works wouldn't have been in place
4:10:02
even allowing for the traffic that's generated by all of those local plan developments. Um and I think that
4:10:11
we welcome the you know that information that the the visionled work is is going to be submitted in the near future and
4:10:17
and that's something that you know we'll be very keen to have a look at but but actually um in the document on the
4:10:22
threshold testing that was released um two or three weeks ago then actually as Mr. Quigley said then that shows that up
4:10:28
to 90% of the local plan based on the current robust estimates which um Mr.
4:10:34
Vinch said, you know, they're robust trip rates. They don't allow for um any of the vision aspects. Um we've already
4:10:41
got with part of that scheme and and a significant proportion of that scheme um in terms of the works to the southern
4:10:48
and eastern arms of the junction actually just the works on those two arms alone would deliver over 90 up to
4:10:54
90% of that and and by the sounds of it well over 90%. um wants some of these
4:10:59
aspects in terms of looking at what the opportunities for more sustainable travel modes um which again fits fits
4:11:06
comfortably within what national policy recommends both from national highways and and in the MPPF
4:11:13
and oh just the final point was just that um Mr. Finch did mention that the costs are are likely to come down from
4:11:18
from those that are set out in the IDP as opposed to um going up.
4:11:24
Mr. Finch, please. Uh thank you. Thank you, sir.
4:11:29
Um, I'm beginning to regret using the phrase kick the can down the road. It's not quite what I meant.
4:11:36
It just the improvements, the timing of the improvements will need to be assessed in light of the the vision
4:11:44
approach. Visionled approach came in in December 2022. So, it's not new.
4:11:49
However, the initial work to do all the modeling which takes time was actually
4:11:55
um uh undertaken prior to us starting that approach from national highways. Um
4:12:04
the infrastructure delivery plan we see as a live document. This will continue to be discussed with the council of when
4:12:12
the improvements are identified. Um and I would see uh the the the transport
4:12:18
assessment advising well that comes in with the planning application advising that and and we will be able to update
4:12:24
it. Thank you. Um,
4:12:30
councelor for for pick up as one of the councelor Kilgore's point. I give the opportunity
4:12:37
to the council. I'm going to come back on. Um, well,
4:12:43
there's obviously the both both points. There's one point I'm interested is around the proportionality.
4:12:51
Obviously, we're here talking about Felgate today. Uh, and I think there's probably a
4:12:58
a anticipation or connection being made that because white may pool junction is
4:13:04
close to uh Felgate Felgate is going to be covering the cost of improving this
4:13:09
junction but as a point's been made this junction needs to be improved cumulatively to to accommodate the
4:13:16
cumulative impact of the plan. Now I don't know if the council's had a view for its IDP or whatever process know we
4:13:23
we think that the Falgate development is going to largely cover the cost or wholly cover the cost of this
4:13:28
development or whether there's some thought process to whether cumulatively other developments are going to
4:13:34
contribute to the to the cost. Thank you sir. Uh the view we take is
4:13:42
that the upgrade to like Marpool roundabout
4:13:49
um this development will cover a proportion of that cost but not
4:13:54
necessarily the whole cost because obviously it will not um be exclusively
4:14:01
the cause of impact on that on that junction.
4:14:10
Sorry. Yeah, if I could just say that the assessment, the local plan assessment was a cumulative assessment
4:14:15
where all of the um all of the individual allocations were
4:14:21
tested individually. So therefore there are there is a cumulative uh impact from
4:14:26
a range of developments on white pool.
4:14:31
So essentially um other allocations will be expected to make a proportionate contribution towards the highway works
4:14:39
um which are necessitated by local plan growth.
4:14:58
Thank you. you and the second point I think was raised by or the first point raised by councelor Kilgore was around the kind of is it valid at this moment
4:15:05
in time to start thinking or applying visionled sort of a vision-led approach uh and how
4:15:12
those figures um might be derived and I think I heard earlier there's been no sort of assumptions around
4:15:19
modal shift necessarily applied the modeling I think it's Mr. Finch described earlier as robust which I
4:15:25
tried to say was a worst case scenario but I think he was quite uh firm. I just stick to the phrase robust
4:15:32
obviously is in the department for transport circular. It's it's not or it
4:15:37
wasn't in the MPPF against which this plan has been uh assist for soundness.
4:15:44
Um if I was thinking about potential main modifications to put something in around visionled approach to transport
4:15:52
in uh policy SP8 in particular for this development.
4:15:58
It sounds like the evidence might be there to support that.
4:16:03
Yeah. G gone of the days when we simply provide capacity to meet congestion and
4:16:09
then that capacity is exceeded yet again because people are encouraged to use
4:16:15
um those modes of transportation like the private motor car. The emphasis now
4:16:20
is on a change in that culture and one one of the aspects is of government's
4:16:29
uh intervention here is to change uh expectation and and and
4:16:36
um habits. The point about having an allocation as large as this is that you
4:16:42
can actually influence travel patterns and and travel behavior.
4:16:49
um by what's known as internalization. That's making sure that people have
4:16:55
access to local services to meet their everyday needs without having to use a motor car and access to other modes of
4:17:02
transport. So um I think once once those figures have been digested and we come
4:17:09
back, we can then look to see how best we can incorporate any policy changes in
4:17:15
order to um give expression to that um objective.
4:17:23
Mr. Quickly just as one final thing I do think it's appropriate that we look at it in the vision approach because that
4:17:29
is the prevailing policy that we are working to and that is the policy that the applicants will be expected to
4:17:35
follow when they roll out their developments during the lifetime of the plan.
4:17:42
Mr. Zleston, I just wanted to point to a reference in
4:17:48
the um council's threshold testing report um par 116 which does acknowledge
4:17:54
the fact that there will be a need for um further modeling of individual developments um such that um their
4:18:02
specific impacts can be tested and and that's what will be undertaken as part of any subsequent planning application
4:18:07
um when this comes forward so that we can actually establish what the effects are of and impacts of Felgate are um
4:18:15
sitting alongside what the cumulative impacts of the whole local plan are. So um going to your point about proportionality then um that that's
4:18:21
already acknowledged within their document in terms of yes we're talking about phased implementation of of infrastructure but and and that relates
4:18:27
to um implementation of the scheme in particular but it but it does also reference the fact that um individual
4:18:32
developments will also need to um come forward and show what their own individual impacts are such that that
4:18:37
can then be um set out and phased alongside um that the infrastructure phasing as well.
4:18:44
Thank you Mr. Finch. Thank you sir. Um there is some emerging
4:18:49
guidance um on the visionled approach. Um however national highways are waiting for it to be signed off by DFT. So at
4:18:56
the moment it's been a long wait. Um we will look at reducing trips looking at
4:19:02
how we can encourage the trips to be reduced. However um any applicant will need to back it up with some evidence to
4:19:09
support why we have a reduced trip number. This may be by the improved bus
4:19:14
services, metro walking and cycling, but we will need evidence to support it. It's not just a we now accept lower
4:19:21
numbers. There will be evidence behind it that will be submitted as part of the transport assessment.
4:19:28
Councelor Kar and then Mr. Green, please. Thank you, sir. Um, just to come back on a on a couple of points. Um, Mrs.
4:19:35
Egleston did say um unless I I misheard that they would cover the costs of that
4:19:42
um that uh construction um full stop. Um
4:19:48
that there was no uh mention of aortionment or anything like that. So that that is that gives me uh some
4:19:55
constonnation. Um I think with regards to what will be neglected as a result.
4:20:01
So a developer, no matter how big or small, if if the investment is going to
4:20:06
be in the infrastructure or around the infrastructure, what is the impact on
4:20:12
affordable housing? What is the impact on biodiversity net gain? Um we're not
4:20:18
interested in credits. We're interested in maintaining and retaining the site as
4:20:23
it is. Um I'm not comfortable around and and I don't blame anyone for that. I
4:20:29
think we're in a really difficult position, but I think that there seem to
4:20:34
be no definitives at all and it's all, you know, if if if and I don't think we
4:20:39
can base um our our responses on on may. Thank you,
4:20:46
Mr. Green, please. Yeah. Uh just going on funding, you know, uh
4:20:53
Mrs. Egleston, you you know what you mentioned funny, but it's not guaranteed either when there's one house down or
4:20:58
whether when the 1,200 or the three houses or 3,000 houses are built or 1,200. Uh you know, the funding isn't
4:21:07
guaranteed. So you you could find that you built the houses and then the infrastructure just isn't there. And the
4:21:12
other thing was Gates Head Council's the statement of common ground. Did they mention that they weren't going to put any costs I believe towards any of the
4:21:20
infrastructure at White Maple? I mean I I kind of find I've got that many reports open on me on me thing. I kind
4:21:25
of find the gates said statement of common ground but I believe you know from last week they weren't going to
4:21:31
contribute to it. Uh and the other thing is I mean there's this there's a piece of land just off White May Pool uh which
4:21:39
I believe may not be owned by Labric or the church commissioners. Uh now as in the case which will be here as town end
4:21:46
form would developers uh would the funding authorities be held up to ransom for this land? You know if that piece of
4:21:52
land isn't owned by either of them uh would they be held a ransom for it and would that then be an escalation of the
4:21:58
costs again? I believe it you know well Lavick can answer that one but I
4:22:06
believe there's a little piece of land a little parcel there which isn't which isn't owned by either of them. Now the
4:22:12
statement of common grounds that put out the other day uh that I'd like to uh statement of common ground from labetal
4:22:19
does not state who owns this piece of land. Can the confirm whether the land is for sale or and whether an actual
4:22:24
cost is cost has been agreed and contracted by the owner of the land.
4:22:30
Thank you. Can I turn that around the other way possibly for national highways or the council in terms of I think Mr.
4:22:37
Finch you referred to the the scheme that's in the evidence pack. uh provided
4:22:42
by national highways. Is that wholly within highway land? Can you recall or advise?
4:22:49
I think, excuse me, I think it requires some land from Lavick Park on the approach, but I
4:22:56
it's very close. I can't tell from the plan I've got in front of me, but I'll take that away and confirm for you, sir.
4:23:03
Is anybody able from Lavick Hall far? I mean, I've got the statement of common ground. Uh, and I think it's the second
4:23:09
plan that's appended. Um, nice and colorful, but it does show sort of other land, including land very close to White
4:23:16
Marool. Labric Core Farm Limited doesn't control
4:23:22
the the field that's immediately in the northeast quadrant of White Marool round about it, but it does control the land
4:23:28
that's beyond that. Um, so
4:23:34
that position. Yeah. in terms of the scheme then as Mr. Finch said that it's it's difficult to see where um where
4:23:41
that sits in in terms of boundaries. We've only got the drawings that are on the the council scheme but certainly when we've looked at um their scheme and
4:23:47
overlaid it on um a topographical base that we've got ourselves which we've been looking at for for other aspects of
4:23:53
the site then um it does appear that the the scheme on the the widening section to the north that would fit within third
4:23:59
party land. there may need to be some um reworking of some of the the alignment of the footway provision around the that
4:24:05
quadrant as well. Um but yeah, it looks that it's that there's a good potential
4:24:10
that that could be fitted in within highway land in that um that quadrant um and it isn't land that's needed from
4:24:16
Lavore Farm Limited um on that approach. Okay, before I come back to Mr. uh
4:24:24
Finch, Mr. Quigley. Yeah, just on that scheme, I mean it's a an indicative scheme to demonstrate the principle of
4:24:32
local plan delivery. Um potentially when you know you you could
4:24:37
come to do the detail design in more detail, you might be able to look at that and address those issues. Um so
4:24:42
that kind of you know addresses that point but also just to reiterate we we
4:24:49
from the work we're currently doing we believe that the south and eastern arm can deliver 98% of the plan with
4:24:55
divisionled trips. So there's sort of two two potential answers to that question
4:25:06
Mr. Finch. So I am confident that the northbound approach can be constructed
4:25:12
within the uh highway boundary and we also understand the westbound approach
4:25:19
and the relocation of bus stops can be provided within the the highway boundary. We're talking of a very slim
4:25:28
slim slither of land just on the radius
4:25:33
um in the uh northeast sector of the roundabout. Uh as I said earlier, I
4:25:38
would just have to have go away and and check on that whether that is within the highway boundary because it's not clear
4:25:44
on these plans. I apologize, sir.
4:25:49
Thank you. If if I can uh I I take the point where we're dealing with sort of
4:25:54
fairly sort of high level strategic matters. This is a strategic policy. But I think if Mr. Finch wants to
4:26:02
look into that and come back, that would be helpful. So I'll leave that. I I would say that if it if it is as close
4:26:08
as it is, we would hope we would be able to redesign it slightly to avoid any
4:26:15
third party land. But I can't give you a um confirmation of that at this stage.
4:26:25
Thank you. Very briefly before I move on, Mr. Green. Yeah, it's just I'll tell you exactly where the piece of land is
4:26:31
is the way pool roundabout and it's right here where they actually want to build the infrastructure.
4:26:38
Yeah, I don't know how you can design around that. It's there. And if I own that piece of land, I'd certainly hold everybody to ransom. So I'm looking at
4:26:47
this is a plan that's provided as part of the statement of common ground. Here's the white mar pool roundabout.
4:26:53
It will be that little I think I believe it would be that little piece of purple there. Yeah. And it's worth it. It's you
4:27:00
know you're talking about 40 million for the way pool infrastructure but this could be held at ransom. Could buy 10
4:27:05
million 20 million. I know what I do. But yeah, thank you.
4:27:17
Okay. Excuse me. The action is left with Mr. Finch to help assist on this point. I've
4:27:23
taken the general points around, you know, let's uh this could be a matter of detail for later um consideration. But
4:27:31
um Mr. Egleston, finally on this point before I move on. Just just to reconfirm on that point sir
4:27:38
that our belief is that when it's overlaid on an updated topographical survey then there is a good chance that
4:27:43
we can bring the ski that the scheme can come out of third party land on the approach to the roundabout um and with
4:27:49
some redesign of the footway as Mr. Finch said um and I just wanted to clarify the point that um councelor
4:27:54
Gilgore um the question that she posed um earlier on then um in responding
4:28:00
earlier on yes the development would be required to to pay for the costs of the access into the site from Mil Lane and
4:28:06
and that's our intention that that would happen the discussions that we've just been having about the proportionate costs and and the contribution towards
4:28:12
the scheme uh relate to the white map element of the scheme. So that was just the distinction between those two pieces
4:28:18
of infrastructure. So just just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Okay. So finally on transport
4:28:24
please heard what had to say about various kind of uh highway uh issues.
4:28:30
Just very finally it was my matters and issues question 515. There have been various statements of
4:28:36
common ground that the council's entered into as reference earlier to Gates Head but also for the national highways.
4:28:44
Uh and my reading from those statements of common ground is there are potential
4:28:49
they're small but there are potential modifications to the wording of policy um SP8.
4:28:56
Uh so the first one I've registered is with Gates Head. Uh in terms of the council's I think
4:29:04
response is to propose deleting where appropriate from criterion five
4:29:12
5B. So it would read incorporating convenient segregated safe and highquality bus pedestrian and cycle
4:29:20
routes.
4:29:35
No, it's in a statement of common ground. I think I'm just checking in to just make sure we're yeah that we're
4:29:42
and then with uh national highways I think the council is suggesting a new bullet point 53e
4:29:49
that development contributes to the provision of a high quality bus service. I think that goes back to my point
4:29:54
earlier about the potential of bus being part of the visionled a visionled approach.
4:30:01
Um
4:30:13
and then just coming back to bullet point five five of um policy SP8.
4:30:23
I think again this is with National Highways. It's my understanding this is this is more
4:30:29
uh clarification.
4:30:36
I think I got it on page seven of the statement of common ground with national highways.
4:30:53
Sorry sir, I just didn't have it in front of me. Um, yes, we're um we continue to to work
4:31:01
with them to to agree. As I say, the infrastructure delivery plans a live document. We've sent them to come
4:31:08
ground. We are happy to to make these amendments. They've been discussed with the council.
4:31:28
Thank you. I'm going to draw a line under transport. Um I'm going to move on
4:31:35
straight away to flood risk which is item eight on the agenda. I suspect
4:31:40
there'll be some new pe new people at the table.
4:31:45
Excuse
4:31:55
me. Whilst that's underway, just to pick up from where we um
4:32:01
in terms of what we were discussing on that final point, I fully understand and take the point that the council
4:32:08
uh and its consultants and national highways obviously looking at the threshold testing further around the
4:32:14
White Mar um junction. I'm not going to ask the council now to give me a
4:32:19
timetable for when that likely output is, but I am keen on Thursday this week.
4:32:26
I think I've got it as a sort of an administrative session uh will be just with the council and the program
4:32:31
officer, but publicly uh accessible, viewable.
4:32:36
I will want to understand what the kind of the road map to stage two could look
4:32:42
like and time frames. I think this will be part of that consideration. So there's a bit of time between now and
4:32:47
Thursday to kind of think about when this is when this could be done. I I'll
4:32:53
leave it there now. I'm not asking for
4:33:06
we very much depend upon um Mr. Finch and his colleagues coming back to us
4:33:11
with an indicative time scale as to their response which we
4:33:17
can then tie up. Um are you able to advise Mr. Finch and
4:33:24
colleague are you around for like the next 48 hours to to leers with the council?
4:33:30
Not necessarily in this room. I'm not. So we have received the revised
4:33:36
documents as I mentioned earlier that they are being reviewed at present. I will we will provide um information back
4:33:42
to Mr. Ali and then he will share it with the council. I would expect that if not the end of this week but by the end
4:33:49
of next week. Oh that's very helpful. That's very helpful. Thank you.
4:33:54
Sorry. Can I just Is there anything else you require me for or can we run? Can I go?
4:34:00
No. Uh my mind does my mind can drift off in all sort of weirds and wonderful ways but I think I'm now drawing a line
4:34:07
under transport. We are going to move on to risk. If there is anything Mr. Finch, I'll obviously relay that through the program officer. Okay. Thank you.
4:34:16
Okay. If I can turn to item eight on my agenda and it's flood risk. Um this has been raised at various sessions
4:34:22
previously in relation to the principle of looking at Felgate. Mr. Green has mentioned this on several occasions and
4:34:29
provided photographs uh that are appended um to his uh statement. I'm
4:34:34
also aware from wider reading that this is obviously a a significant issue of concern uh for uh
4:34:43
local um residents. Obviously the principle of planning uh is to avoid development going into the areas of
4:34:49
highest flood risk but also to ensure that where development does take place it doesn't increase the risk of flooding
4:34:56
um elsewhere on this that not increasing the risk of flooding national policy obviously
4:35:03
encourages the use of sustainable urban drainage systems to manage surface water runoff so it's controlled
4:35:10
um and it's often presented as part of planning uh casework that um drainage
4:35:17
systems, managed drainage systems can actually improve uh the rates of runoff, which might sound uh counterintuitive
4:35:25
when you think this is an open piece of land if developments on there. It follows that, you know, there's going to
4:35:30
result in more more runoff and more more risk of flooding. I'd just like to uh start with the
4:35:37
council, please. As I say, it's my MIQ uh 5
4:35:43
um 5.16. And just to check with the council, as I understand it, your evidence is that the
4:35:50
whole of this site is within flood zone one, the area of lowest flood risk.
4:35:57
Yes, sir. uh strategic a level one strategic flood risk assessment was undertaken
4:36:03
and that found that the site was in flood zone one in its entirety.
4:36:10
It also found that the risk from surface water flooding was low and
4:36:17
that is reflected in the environment agency flood maps which show the site
4:36:22
100% in flood zone one and it's also reflected in the fact that the site passed the sequential flood test that
4:36:30
was undertaken.
4:36:51
Thank you. And in terms of the level one strategic flood risk assessment, this was produced in 2022 and then sort of
4:36:59
further updated in 2023. So that's the most
4:37:05
recent upto-date flood risk strategic flood risk assessment level one.
4:37:12
That's correct sir.
4:37:20
And you've mentioned Mr. Clifford obviously by reference to environment agency mapping.
4:37:27
I've been reading the material around the plan. Have the environment agency or the local lead flood flood authority
4:37:34
objected to the local plan on flood risk grounds at any stage in relation to the
4:37:40
spellgate site? No sir, there's been no objection from the environment agency in relation to
4:37:45
this site.
4:37:52
Thank you. Now there are uh two water courses that uh cross uh the proposed uh
4:38:01
fellgate site. Monton burn and calf close burn. Just to check neither of
4:38:07
those in themselves generate a higher sort of flood flu um
4:38:14
river water course kind of flood risk in terms of flood zone two or flood zone three.
4:38:24
Michelle Hog, service lead for environmental protection. So certainly within the area that we're talking about
4:38:31
in according to the flood maps, there's no um flood zone B or anything around
4:38:37
that location. Um but obviously um water courses that is flood zone B sort of
4:38:44
downstream. Um but in terms of when you're um directing surface water flu
4:38:51
surface water from the site, you're you're following existing drainage patterns. So there's the ability for um
4:38:58
when you're developing a site to retain um surface water within the site and
4:39:04
obviously um discharge that green field runoff rates. So essentially um you
4:39:10
mimic those natural drainage patterns so that you wouldn't then be increasing
4:39:15
flood risk down downstream um from the site. So that's something that can be
4:39:21
mitigated um within the site.
4:39:28
Thank you. I mean there is various evidence before me uh in relation to I
4:39:34
mean it's it's photographic evidence in the main that shows uh I'm being invited
4:39:41
that it shows flooding uh related to these two water courses
4:39:47
within the Felgate area. I mean as a so just a a baseline
4:39:53
situation I mean is that is that accepted there has been flood risk because obviously flood mitigation
4:39:58
measures have been in put in place adjacent to Durham Drive.
4:40:04
Yes, that is correct. So there is a flood mitigation scheme that was installed um in 201 well sorry it
4:40:12
started in September 2014 um and was completed in December um 2015 um but in
4:40:20
respect of the water courses they present no flood risk to residential
4:40:25
properties um or infrastructure um some of the the pictures um that show
4:40:33
that flooding um happened after a very intense um period of heavy rainfall. It
4:40:40
was one of our wetest um since 1836. So you'd had a significant period of rain.
4:40:47
Um so obviously that was reflected in those pictures um that we got those
4:40:52
water courses naturally fall and rise with rainfall. Um but it's not
4:40:57
presenting any flood risk to the properties um that's within um the
4:41:03
burough. Okay. [Music] Thank you. U invite Mr. Green first.
4:41:10
Obviously you've provided kind of various evidence with your your statement.
4:41:15
Yeah. Uh yeah flood flooding downstream when fellate
4:41:20
floods this this occurred that the flood defenses were put in in 2016. They were complete in 2016.
4:41:27
Uh we did highlight this within all of our statements that uh accurate reports
4:41:33
were removed by the council prior or during the consultation period. But I
4:41:38
just go on to you know uh what Mr. Clifford says uh actually if you if you go on the sequential flood test report
4:41:46
felt down as 0% uh for flood for surface
4:41:52
water and 0% flood risk. Now, last February 24, there was there was a a lot
4:41:58
of rain. The park flooded and the park the park remained closed for about 3 to four months with with sewage concerns.
4:42:07
Uh in February, sorry, in April on April the 9th, 2024,
4:42:13
it wasn't over a prolonged period. It was in one afternoon. Uh and what happened was, you know, pictures speak
4:42:19
louder than words. If you want to go on on my appendix or I can just show you a picture. Uh Jeff's form. You'll not
4:42:26
you'll not be able to see it. Better off on the appendix. Jeff's form flooded. We've got video evidence that it's Yeah.
4:42:32
Yeah. Uh picture one was in Mr. Alderl's form. It's severely flooded. We have got
4:42:38
video evidence of that. Picture two is mountain gardens which is currently getting built over the road. That is
4:42:44
mountain lakes. Uh picture three was a foot bridge on uh half close which was
4:42:50
underwater. Uh, picture four was I can't quite make
4:42:55
I believe that was by the metro station. Uh, picture five,
4:43:01
uh, it was further downstream. But what happens is what happens is when Felgate floods, it goes through Cros, which is
4:43:08
the foot bridges underwater. It then goes to an area called the Robin Hood, which is it's always flooded. It goes
4:43:14
through there, floods the Robin Hood. This is Primrose. It then carries on to Primrose Nature Reserve. Uh it then
4:43:21
carries down to bead ward which floods. It's just below the cemetery. And then
4:43:26
what happens is it heads to the T but because the T's tidle it then pushes it all back up again. So you it then comes
4:43:33
back up again and it's there's major sewage concerns as well because the the
4:43:38
overflows are opening on when there's a little bit of rain. I mean they were open for forgive the downpour yesterday
4:43:44
afternoon but yesterday morning they were open with just a little skirting of rain. uh they will have been open again
4:43:49
on that afternoon because there was a a massive amount of rain. But to say that there's no there's 0% flood risk is just
4:43:57
just forcible to be quite honest. Uh and if you go on to the sustainability uh
4:44:04
appraisal report 5.21 21 Monton burn and cough close burn uh lie within areas of
4:44:10
flood zones. This is a council report. 3A or 3B. Five of the uh 54 Felgate and
4:44:16
Headwood sites are expected to have significant negative effects in relation to strategic essay objectives. I don't
4:44:24
know what the objective is, but basically what they're saying is we're not a flood zone one where a flood zone
4:44:29
3A and a 3B. Everybody knows it. Uh and you know there's no way you can skirt
4:44:36
over it because the evidence is is there. Uh it's pictureal. It's in it's in the council reports and also the the
4:44:43
the reports the statement of common grounds from Lavick and the church commissioners also go on the fact that
4:44:49
it's level one flooding. It's it's not level one flooding. So those report those statements of common ground are
4:44:54
totally incorrect. It's based on a level one which is is totally forcical.
4:45:00
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Green. Before I bring in Mr. McBride and others,
4:45:07
obviously I'm mindful that various parcels and areas of Felgate have been assessed through sustainability
4:45:14
appraisal. Um, is Mr. Green directing me to the parcel that's
4:45:22
been allocated or are there other parcels of land at the wider Falgate area that are flood zone 2 or contain
4:45:28
parts of flood zone 2, flood zone 3?
4:45:35
So I believe Mr. Green is not referring to parcel SFG075
4:45:41
which is the site which the council is proposing for allocation. So I believe
4:45:47
he's referring to other land which may be in the broader FEL area but is not the site which is being proposed for
4:45:53
allocation. I I will I'll look I'll look further
4:45:58
into that. Um Mr. Green. Can I hear next from Mr. McBride and then councelor
4:46:03
Kilgo, please? And then I'll come back to the land promoters.
4:46:09
Uh I'm speaking as a resident. Uh basically what I'm going to tell you
4:46:17
now is I lived direct directly opposite the proposed Valgate sustainable growth
4:46:25
site SP8 for many years. I've seen this area flowed many times
4:46:33
and I believe that allocating this land for housing without a full and honest
4:46:39
assessment of the food risk puts both new and
4:46:44
existing residents at unnecessary risk.
4:46:51
The sequential test version two dated the 4th of January 2024
4:46:59
confirms the Felgate site lies entirely within flood zone one.
4:47:06
No significant risk from surface water flooding. The
4:47:11
test is passed. This conclusion is built on incomplete
4:47:19
and unreliable data. The 2011
4:47:24
PFA highlighted major concerns with the quality of
4:47:31
historical flood data it was based on. It stated that flood records were
4:47:40
collected and recorded in an inconsistent manner,
4:47:45
that precise locations and extent of flooding is unknown,
4:47:51
and that gaps in the flood data may hinder the identification of accurate
4:47:58
flood risk areas. It also pointed out that records varied in quality between
4:48:06
departments and were often based on how individual officers chose to record
4:48:12
them. In other words, the evidence base
4:48:17
was patchy at best. The second cycle PFR
4:48:23
reviewed during 2017 used an addendum to update the council's
4:48:31
the PFR risk assessment published in 2011.
4:48:37
It recorded there is no changes to our assessment since publication of the
4:48:43
ongoing PFA s since the publication of the original
4:48:49
PFR in December 2011 that have added to or
4:48:55
changed our understanding of significant flooding risks in the South Tide area.
4:49:02
No flood events have occurred since publication of the
4:49:08
original PF report in 2011.
4:49:14
As a result, major major local events, including the 2012 flood that affected
4:49:23
175 homes on the Felgate estate, were officially ignored.
4:49:29
Information In the 2011
4:49:35
PFR forms part of the evidence base, evidence base used to support the
4:49:42
sequential test for the proposed site.
4:49:51
The site clearly, sorry, can I just take me a second? The
4:49:57
site has a clear history of contributing to major flooding in the area. The land
4:50:02
in question plays a d a direct role in surface water affecting the felgate
4:50:08
estate which has flooded repeatedly over the years. In 2005 there were multiple flood events
4:50:15
all recorded by south tide council. In 2012, South Tide Council and North
4:50:23
Umbrean Water jointly reported 175 homes on the estate were affected by
4:50:30
flooding. That means Felgate accounted
4:50:36
for 44% of all residential properties affected
4:50:41
by flooding in the Buddha on that day. Flood and coastal management strategy
4:50:50
2017 2022 section 3.2 historical flooding
4:50:56
identifies Felgate as an area that was affected by internal flooding
4:51:02
in December 23 and February 24. served as water again breached the defenses
4:51:09
with standing water on de development fields and over topping onto the roadway
4:51:15
at Dunham Drive. The 2014 surface water management plan
4:51:23
specifically lists Felgate as a hot spot. It directly attributes the cause of
4:51:30
flooding of surface water runoff from the agricultural land, the same land now
4:51:36
being proposed for development. These aren't rare or hypothetical risks.
4:51:42
They well documented and recurring events affecting real homes.
4:51:49
Existing flood defenses are already stretched. Adding housing will make it
4:51:55
worse. After the 2012 flood floods, the Felgate awardwinning flood scheme was
4:52:02
completed in 2016. It cost2.5 million pounds
4:52:11
and include the installation of attention basins particularly basin 2
4:52:16
near Durham Drive to manage surface water enough from the fields.
4:52:23
But even with the scheme in place, the situation still is fragile. In periods
4:52:30
of heavy rainfall, basin 2 regularly over tops, flooding the nearby farm
4:52:36
track and encroaching onto the road on Dunham Drive. The field behind the basin
4:52:42
are often covered in standing water.
4:52:48
This tells us two things. The current system is only just coping
4:52:53
coping as it is. Introducing hundreds of homes and driveways, all non-permeable
4:53:00
surfaces will increase runoff significantly and put even more pressure
4:53:05
on those defenses and the storm and foul sewer system.
4:53:12
To make matters worse, no regular maintainance of the of the defenses has
4:53:19
taken place since the scheme was completed. Basin 2 is now overgrown and has been
4:53:27
turned into a habitat for NES. That may be fine for the wildlife, but
4:53:33
is not fine for the flood management. There's no control of surface water
4:53:39
discharges from the proposed development site and both drainage networks simply
4:53:44
cannot cope. It clearly impacts on the car flows burn during periods of heavy
4:53:50
rainfall. The site has already contributed to
4:53:55
major surface water flooding including events that affect almost half the
4:54:00
estate. The flood defenses in place today are already under serious pressure and are
4:54:07
not being maintained. The storm and foul sewers clearly can't cope during periods
4:54:13
of heavy rainfall. I am asking you today respectfully to
4:54:19
recognize that this site cannot be considered for safe housing.
4:54:25
Historical information and photographic evidence available alone must cast doubt
4:54:31
on the accuracy and reliability of the assessment.
4:54:36
Due to the issues I have raised reference the 2011 PFR and the second
4:54:42
cycle review, I request an independent review is carried out on both documents.
4:54:52
And just reference to what the the young lady said about the the land flooding
4:55:00
because of rain storms in 2010. There was a major incident
4:55:07
of flooding caused by the thawing of the snow and that is the I've posted
4:55:15
photographs for you to see. There's quite a few more photographs. It's not
4:55:20
just rain. it affects and it's quite
4:55:25
numerous times there's a lot more historic evidence that I've pointed out there. There's a lot more historic evidence which you you have in me
4:55:35
representation. So that basically that's all I've got to say and thank you very much for your time and taking serious
4:55:43
and very real concerns to our community. Thank you. Thank you much bride.
4:55:51
Can I now invite councelor Kilg anything further you wish to add to what either Mr. Green or new points that Mr. Green
4:55:58
or Mr. McBride haven't covered? Yeah, thank you sir. I think that's a both of them are a very hard act to
4:56:04
follow. Um so if we look at the assessment carried out by LU it reports
4:56:10
at 5.26 26. A large proportion of the Felgate and Headworth um area contains
4:56:16
green infrastructure corridors um which cover most of the area in particular just over half of the site options are
4:56:22
expected to have significant negative effects due to the proximity of these corridors. So that
4:56:28
is this sorry K Luc have done a number of documents with the council you over to just
4:56:34
I will give me a heads up on which one yeah it's the sustainability appraisal report
4:56:42
sorry sir um essentially what I'm I'm trying to note is is that as as I think
4:56:47
um Mr. McBride mentioned as well is that the loss of any green infrastructure
4:56:54
there will just heighten the level um of flood risk. But just to say that as a
4:57:00
lay person and I mean that most genuinely I looked up the very basic maps um for flooding and it came up they
4:57:08
were blue shaded. So most of which were blue along the water courses and um a
4:57:14
lot of it was dark blue which uh refers to uh greater risk. So it is absolutely
4:57:21
uh not at level one as as we would expect and also from that very same map
4:57:28
that I keep referring to. the on the site opportunities that was produced by Lavarik. There aren't any um attenuation
4:57:36
um measures uh recorded on there at all. Um and I just would love to know if they
4:57:42
would expect the SS that we currently have to manage a development of at least 1,200 homes. Thank you,
4:57:50
Mr. Olade. And then I'll come to the site promoters and then back to the council.
4:58:07
beg you pardon. Uh just as a um carrying on um as has been explained um about the
4:58:16
the level of um flooding that has been experienced regardless of what the
4:58:21
council say has um it shows the problems that exist on the site and I'd just like
4:58:30
to reiterate what I asked earlier. Um I believe it's within your powers um to
4:58:39
um request a thorough flood investigation um before any planning applica if it's
4:58:47
removed from the green belt before any planning application uh be submitted um
4:58:52
let alone granted um because as I've said that it is possible as I understand
4:58:59
in certain circumstances for planning application to be put in And then they'll say um outline planning be
4:59:07
granted uh on condition that these s tests etc are carried out. But if they
4:59:13
then get carried out because when outline planning is um granted that
4:59:20
means the landlord can then serve me notice to quit. But the if the out if
4:59:26
the outline planning is then granted on submission of the um the flood risk and the flood risks then says it's not
4:59:34
viable uh or it's not economically viable or there's going to be problems with the site I have then been served my
4:59:40
notice to quit and the development then might not go ahead but I have then lost my teny.
4:59:46
Do if you follow my gist and where I'm coming from. I do. Yeah. Made made a note of that at the earlier and another reminder for my
4:59:54
notes there again. Mr. Mr. Okay, I'm going to invite um
5:00:01
the site promoters to come back on this issue of flood risk and I think it comes to the council. I probably think we're going to leave I'm going to be leaving
5:00:08
this room. I don't think there's going to be any agreement. I think on this side of the room you quite clear the flood risk is such that you don't think
5:00:14
the site should be um be developed but I'm now going to hear from those who might take a a different view. Um is it
5:00:22
Mr. Morton first? Thank you sir. Um so just to put to bed
5:00:28
this issue of what flood zone the site's in. Um I'm looking at the environment ay's flood map. Um I think as you've
5:00:36
picked up sir the site is in flood zone one.
5:00:42
Um, just going back to Mr. Green's photographs. Um, and it's, you know,
5:00:48
helpful that he's pinpointed where the, uh, where the photographs are taken from,
5:00:54
all of those photographs are in the flood zone. So, in flood zone two and three. So whilst I appreciate this side
5:01:01
of the room won't like what I'm saying that is functional flood plane and that is the land doing what it's designed to
5:01:08
do which is to catch water and stop damage to uh properties.
5:01:16
Um and on that note, NWL have have confirmed to us that since the Felgate
5:01:22
flood alleviation scheme was completed, there has been no flooding which is
5:01:27
defined by um damage to property. Um since that scheme was completed, Mr.
5:01:33
McBride referred to various um flooding incidents and I jotted down
5:01:39
2005 2012 2014 and obviously sir that was before the
5:01:45
fellgate flood flood alleviation scheme was completed and just to reiterate
5:01:50
since it was completed there have been no further um records of flooding recorded by NWL.
5:01:58
just to turn to um surface water um
5:02:03
Mr. uh windship um coming after me. But uh my view is policy SPA does include
5:02:10
provisions um to provide um a surface water mitigation strategy. Um and when we come
5:02:17
to put a planning application in will be held to account by the LFA and NWL and
5:02:22
we'll need to make sure that discharge into the burns is at greenfield runoff rates with an allowance for climate
5:02:29
change and urban creep. So we we won't make um discharge to those burns any
5:02:36
worse than exist and in fact and Mr. Winship can come in and there's some some betterment.
5:02:41
Um so my view is that the policy sound and the wording in their sound.
5:02:47
Thank you. Before I hear from Mr. Winship, Mr. Morton, one of the themes that uh issues that comes through from
5:02:54
local kind of community representations is concern about what's going to happen to the existing mitigation scheme that
5:03:02
you referred to which I think it's next to Durham Drive. I think will it be retained? I see the policy itself,
5:03:08
policy SP8 refers to protecting existing sustainable drainage systems. I take
5:03:14
that to mean the council very much had this in this in mind but they might want to confirm clarify that's the case but
5:03:22
there is a concern that development in this area could lead to the loss of that existing mitigation
5:03:28
scheme. I appreciate we're not looking at a detailed design or layout at this moment in time but um perhaps you could
5:03:34
talk to that as well. Thank you. Thanks sir. uh the existing mitigation
5:03:41
scheme NWL have already confirmed that we can't touch that. So any development would have to be outside of those
5:03:48
parameters because it does what it does. So I think the the policy is if it's not
5:03:54
broken don't fix it. So we're going to leave it where it is. the um a couple of
5:04:00
points on and you actually picked up drainage when you manage drainage
5:04:05
properly can actually be better than it currently is. Currently the drainage on
5:04:11
the site is unmanaged. It's it's unfocused. It goes wherever it goes to. But once we develop the site we will be
5:04:18
required to under the northeast lead local flood authority suds guidance
5:04:24
we'll have to look at where that drainage is going to. We'll have to mimic as close as possible those drainage paths. We will then have to
5:04:31
reduce those flows to not only green field runoff, which is the lowest form
5:04:36
of runoff from the site, but actually the first 5 millimeters of rainfall on
5:04:41
that site has to stay on the site. And again, not all of the areas on the site
5:04:47
will be impermeable. Sorry, there'll be driveways that will
5:04:52
be impermeable. There'll be parking areas that will be impermeable. They will all form part of the the the S
5:04:59
strategy for the site. And actually, it's generally accepted and I think you
5:05:04
you commented again, sites that are developed with a proper drainage strategy actually give betterment to all
5:05:11
of the areas around them in terms of drainage and surface water management.
5:05:17
There's a there's another couple of points about um
5:05:23
the play park area being contaminated with um well I understand from NWL that
5:05:28
there was a lot of crossontamination connections because it's a separate system of drainage in that area. So
5:05:35
there shouldn't be um any foul drainage appearing in the service
5:05:40
water system. It's it's likely as a result of bad drainage practice carried out by locals i.e. any builders who've
5:05:47
made wrong connections to systems, NWL have a policy of patrolling those areas
5:05:52
and checking to make sure that there isn't any any issues like that. So that that shouldn't really be a huge problem.
5:06:01
Is much else really in the uh in that list? Thank you. Uh Miss Hog, please.
5:06:09
Yeah, I don't think I've got much to add because I think um person over there has just relayed some of what I was going to
5:06:15
say. Um but just to pick up on Mr. McBride's um comments about the preliminary flood risk assessment.
5:06:23
Obviously, we were aware of the flooding incident in 2012. I've worked here um at
5:06:29
the council since um 20 2012. Um so it wasn't emitted from that report because
5:06:36
of because of um we didn't know about it. It was admitted because there was very specific guidance that we were
5:06:43
asked to do asked to report in our addendum. Um so it was to look at
5:06:49
clusters and it was significant flood risk because then that gets reported to the European Union. So just to pick up
5:06:56
that it wasn't an emission it was and as well in between those two reports um
5:07:03
you'll note the dates 2011 and 2017 there was no longer any significant
5:07:08
flood risk to Velgate because in between we' done the the development scheme um
5:07:15
in conjunction with Numbraan water um so obviously we'd mitigated um the surface
5:07:21
water flood risk um and just to make um my colleague aware. So the surface water
5:07:27
flood scheme um is is actually in conjunction with um Northumbrain water and southside council. Um so obviously
5:07:35
um you know we as lead local flood authority um would apply um restrictions
5:07:42
and obviously um protect the existing asset of the flood scheme. Um so that
5:07:48
you know we we would we would seek that the sustainable urban drainage scheme um
5:07:54
on the site is with like doesn't impact on that um flood scheme. our team worked
5:08:00
really hard um to get those protection measures um for the residents of Felgate
5:08:06
um and there's no way we will do anything to compromise um those existing
5:08:11
assets um so certainly you know as already identified within this um you
5:08:18
know the documentation that's been presented is that the strategic flood risk assessment obviously requires um
5:08:26
that the they would need to undertake a flood flood risk assessment. As part of that um they would have to consider
5:08:33
offsite um flood risk as well. Um which is obviously you know we will provide
5:08:39
all the information that we have on the scheme. So that for a process um can be undertaken um and whatever that flood
5:08:46
risk assessment identifies you know they will um developer would have to incorporate into their sustainable urban
5:08:54
drainage scheme. But as colleagues already said, you know, the first 5 mil we would expect to be retained um on
5:09:01
site. So, you know, there will be sort of um that that amount um already that
5:09:08
would be of benefit. Um I think um just the only thing to add
5:09:15
would be just um obviously phase one um of the there was two phases of the
5:09:22
felgate flood alleviation scheme. Um it was done in conjunction with NFR water.
5:09:28
Um there was significant um drainage improvements done on this state. Obviously the detention basins um were
5:09:36
designed to in in intercept the drainage um ditches um but also farmland runoff.
5:09:44
Um but obviously there was also a phase two that was carried out within the state um and the the the features that
5:09:52
the Felgate community now have you know are in line with you know what you would
5:09:57
see on a new development. So essentially what's happened is the surface water drainage on that estate has been
5:10:03
retrofitted um to bring them up to um standard um you know and it's something
5:10:09
that's a real success I would say given that we've not seen any flooding um in
5:10:15
the last 10 years um thanks thank you for that I think as I sort of
5:10:20
tried to indicate earlier I don't think there's going to be agreement on this I think there's different views uh on
5:10:26
flood risk keen to move on to kind other uh items of the agenda, but there's
5:10:31
anything any new points on flood risk that haven't been
5:10:39
aired to date. So, can I start in in an order of councelor Kilgore, Mr. Green,
5:10:44
Mr. McBride? Thank you, sir. Just two quick questions. Um what else will be negated
5:10:52
as a result of the cost of the um flood defense scheme that will need to be
5:10:57
incorporated? Um and a question from a resident, why risk developing this site
5:11:02
um when there are sites in the plan where there is no or or significantly less risk than this one? Thank you,
5:11:10
Mr. Green, please.
5:11:16
And then nobody's mentioned the calits that actually run under the estate. Uh then also the the parcel land in
5:11:23
question where they're going to develop is actually on the followings be flood plane. It it comes from the other side the white may pool and it comes onto the
5:11:29
estate and the pictures that that were actually that Mr. Morton referred to
5:11:35
were downstream from where the building site would be. All the flood, all the surface water was coming downstream into
5:11:41
the burns at the bottom which was severe surface water and you know
5:11:47
the the residents on Fal feel that you know in order to push the plan through the council are trying to disguise the
5:11:53
actual facts. Uh between I mentioned this last week between 23 and 24 there
5:11:59
was 17 gully claims carried out on the entire estate as the plan was trying to
5:12:04
be pushed through by the council. Now bear in mind it got rejected on two occasions. One of the the the primary
5:12:10
reasons was flooding not just on Felgate all the way downstream when they were
5:12:15
trying to push the plan through between 24 and 25. The the gully cleans were 805
5:12:20
times. I've got that on an FI that's actual. Uh so you know they were trying
5:12:26
to disguise it to show that there was no flood risk on Felgate but that that to me that's the only explanation I can
5:12:32
come up with as to why they did so many gully cleans and they were actually carrying some out in 2:00 and 3:00 in
5:12:38
the morning. Uh I've got that in your one of your uh appendices Mr. Green. Yeah. So yeah I
5:12:45
understand why you've provided provided that data. Mr. McBride was a no.
5:12:52
No, I think it's been covered. I was just one thing uh about the 2011 report.
5:13:00
You know, that's so honest to tell you they haven't done a very good job, but they're still using it. It hasn't been
5:13:07
revised. Now, I would have expected that you would revise something as bad
5:13:14
as that. If if you're going to tell somebody that yes, we've produced something here. It's not very good, but
5:13:23
in 2017, we have to re review everything. You would have revised that report and you would have identified we
5:13:31
have identified what we've for recording we've now created a new system
5:13:38
the the 5.3 about how they defined significant.
5:13:44
They still haven't given you any information of how they've defined defined significant.
5:13:51
That's one of the main things they use to not have to introduce the DEPRA
5:13:59
criteria if X number two 200 people affected by flooding. So if they don't
5:14:06
identify significant correctly, they don't identify this a significant flood
5:14:11
risk, they don't have to fetch the DEFRA information in we have 175 homes
5:14:19
affected on Felgate estate 200 people in the DERA assessment
5:14:25
be it becomes a harmful uh assessment. it becomes significant
5:14:31
but they haven't they're not identifying that. Do do you understand where I'm coming
5:14:37
from? I do. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. That's but that's to be honest I'd love to see
5:14:43
the council when to make statements like that is to review and give fresh
5:14:50
documents not old documents. The 2011 document is still alive. There's nothing
5:14:57
in it to mention the adonement. It's just the original document from
5:15:03
2011. It's the you go to it, you don't know there's an adonement unless you you
5:15:09
go on a computer and you you find the adonement. Very poor uh
5:15:16
work producing documents this the council in my opinion. Thank you.
5:15:22
Thank you Mr. McBride. Okay, I'm going to draw a line there on flood risk. I'm going to move on to the next item. Thank
5:15:29
you for those who've contributed specifically on on that point. I'm going to deal with item nine. Then we're going
5:15:34
to take a brief mid-after afternoon adjournment and then hopefully conclude the Felgate discussion before 5:00. Um
5:15:43
so part of the requirement for the uh for the site is to provide a local
5:15:48
center and a primary school. This was my MIQ 517 and just briefly understand uh from the
5:15:56
council the justification for seeking a local center
5:16:01
and a primary school at this location. Mr. Clifford.
5:16:07
Thank you, sir. The provision of a local center acting as a community hub for
5:16:12
social and community infrastructure is viewed by the council as fundamental to
5:16:17
the creation of a new sustainable community. The policy sets out this will include
5:16:24
opportunities for health provision, retail facilities, and a new primary school. Opportunities
5:16:32
for health provision will meet the needs of residents within the existing community where there is currently
5:16:38
limited health care provision as well as new residents. The policy also requires local retail
5:16:45
facilities which will add to the sense of the center being a hub for the
5:16:51
community. Regarding school places,
5:16:56
the assessment in the infrastructure delivery plan clearly shows there is a need for a new primary school.
5:17:04
So the key overall point is this is an opportunity to create a new sustainable
5:17:10
community and that the local center with local facilities
5:17:17
will be within walking distance of residents and that's integral to the vision.
5:17:23
Thank you. Thank you. And if I can just check with the those representing the
5:17:29
site promoters. I've read the statement of common ground. I don't think it's necessarily a soundness point or concern
5:17:35
about these kind of um these requirements putting being put on the
5:17:41
site. I mean I raised on my agenda. I mean I think just a a thought process really and it goes back to what we were
5:17:48
discussing earlier. uh I think the the phrase internalization was used but in terms of the benefits of providing
5:17:56
facilities on site um yes there is a cost but there may be benefits in terms
5:18:02
of um reduced costs for off-site highway works if they can be successful and
5:18:09
encourage people to kind of stay uh stay in the area but I say I don't
5:18:14
think I've read much from everything that there's dispute or dissent that if this development government goes ahead,
5:18:20
it needs to provide these sort of services and facilities.
5:18:26
Okay,
5:18:32
thank you. And I have the infrastructure um delivery plan on that. Okay, we're coming up to half 3, so I'm going to
5:18:40
take a mid-after afternoon adjourment. I'd like to be back at 20- 4. We'll pick up biodiversity which is the last point
5:18:47
this part of the agenda and then we'll come into the final stretch where we're looking at site delivery and the
5:18:52
council's proposed approach u in relation to supplementary planning documents just how a planning
5:18:58
application etc will work around that. So if who could be back here please for 20 to 4 for uh item 10 on the agenda.
5:19:06
Thank you.
5:30:55
Okay, it's 20 to 4, so it's time for me to resume uh these hearing sessions, please. We're on to item 10 of the
5:31:01
agenda, the last part of this uh particular wider sort of group of
5:31:07
issues. I'm looking at um biodiversity and ecological um considerations.
5:31:14
Um I raised the issue at my masses issues question 518 in terms of whether the policy itself provides an effective
5:31:22
framework for dealing with uh or the impacts arising on biodiversity
5:31:27
and ecological uh connectivity. uh whether that's part of this policy or
5:31:34
whether uh we need to have in mind other policies of the plan uh as well. Uh
5:31:41
obviously there are various representations to me. I've heard already this today about some of the um
5:31:48
uh factors relating to the the environment at this um location. If I could just
5:31:55
start with the council please and just understanding the sort of the environmental baseline. Are there any
5:32:02
local wildlife sites triple uh triple sis anything at this location that the
5:32:07
plan needs to respond to and then going forward
5:32:13
what the opportunities are to kind of uh proactively plan for biodiversity and uh
5:32:21
ecological networks at this this location. please.
5:32:26
Okay. Thank you. Um so firstly I like to sort of draw your attention to to map three that was provided with the the
5:32:32
council response um to the MIQ question. So this map sets out um the the
5:32:39
allocation itself and also identifies um relevant local um ecological
5:32:44
considerations within the area. Um you'll be able to see on that map that the site is within close proximity to
5:32:51
local wildlife sites. There is a local wildlife site that runs to the eastern boundary of the site along the um carlo
5:32:58
um burn and then also there's a local wildlife site to the north west corner which does fall within the allocation
5:33:05
boundary but obviously does not form part of the um proposed built area of
5:33:12
development itself. um in the site frameworks paper that area is clearly identified as being retained for open
5:33:18
space. Um and those areas um the little wild site um includes ponds um on that
5:33:25
um area. Um as well as those um the the site is also covered by um wildlife
5:33:31
corridors. Um these wildlife corridors um are informed by the the wildlife corridor review which was taken um taken
5:33:40
out in 2020. Um the appendix B of that uh document provides maps that show that
5:33:46
the wildlife corridors are informed by 250 meter buffers around the existing water courses on the site. Um page 61 of
5:33:55
the the wildlife corridor study states that proposals uh for development within wildlife corridors um must be
5:34:01
accompanied by appropriate mitigation um in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy set out in the MPPF. Um the
5:34:09
last sentence of that paragraph states that the development in less constrained areas in which includes the buffer zone
5:34:15
areas can contribute to the enhancement of the network in terms of mitigation and this is um helped inform the local
5:34:22
plan policies. So particularly um with SP8 um I'd reference um criterion 58
5:34:29
which sets out the policy considerations for the proposed allocation and also references other local plan policies
5:34:35
relevant to the national natural environment uh particularly policy 34 and that's also supported in the
5:34:41
supporting text in paragraph 5.34 as well. Um so yeah I think um the the
5:34:48
policy itself does provide adequate u mitigation in terms of ecological considerations on the site.
5:34:55
Thank thank you for that. Um Mrs. Lamb and just
5:35:02
um I'm reminded of a sort of some of the points that were raised last week. I think there was a view that you know uh
5:35:09
in allocating or proposing to allocate Felgate for development
5:35:14
it was going into one of the kind of more environmentally sensitive areas because of wildlife corridors
5:35:21
when we look at the wildlife corridor assessment reports. I mean how how
5:35:26
widespread are wildlife corridors as a result of that assessment across the burough?
5:35:32
Um like I say, appendix B of the wildlife corridor report does show the extent of the wildlife corridors and
5:35:38
they are quite extensive across uh southside. So they provide a buffer like I say around um sort of um water courses
5:35:45
but also around what we call core and stepping stone sites as well across across the burough.
5:36:03
Thank you. Uh if I can turn to uh others who are on my um left please in terms of
5:36:09
whether the kind of natural environment biodiversity here
5:36:15
uh provides you a strong reason for removing this plan uh from from sorry
5:36:23
removing this site from the plan. Councelor Kilgore play first please.
5:36:29
Thank you sir. Um I think you know it is in the wildlife corridor we there isn't
5:36:34
any doubt around that. What I don't understand is why the um the ponds etc
5:36:41
have been excluded uh from the green belt in the plan um if they're going to
5:36:46
be left um and as as open space. Um the damage that would be caused to those
5:36:51
alone uh with development is um unthinkable. Um it's also not in the
5:36:57
ownership of the applicant um in any event. Uh so I'm not sure if you're
5:37:03
aware as to whether that land is available or not um to remove that from the green belt. In fact, there are two
5:37:10
separate land owners. I just think generally um there is a raft of evidence
5:37:15
that my colleagues will will speak to um in order to indicate that this is
5:37:21
irreplaceable. Um there is no question the workings of the IAMP and the the the
5:37:26
stretch and the pressure caused by amp development has obviously um caused
5:37:32
migration onto um our area of green belt and that can't be miticated in in our
5:37:39
opinion. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Slade next please.
5:37:50
opinion request document there last night and it states in there that they intend doing the ecological surveys, but
5:37:57
the my take on the wording of the um that report is that they don't expect to
5:38:03
find anything. Uh I'd like to know how they come to that conclusion. Sorry, Ms. So I'm going to have to we
5:38:10
we've got to be careful not to kind of um merge what's happening in terms of
5:38:16
preliminary steps regarding a planning and it's it's what's in the plan and you know is the principle of this site
5:38:24
right um unacceptable because the impact on wildlife and biodiversity would be too
5:38:31
too great I think is okay so um the as I mentioned earlier about all the wildlife that is on there
5:38:37
that I've personally um seen uh and I think a lot of that is a result of the
5:38:45
work that we've been doing in the regenerative agriculture farming system on the land. Um
5:38:57
I think that's all I better say because I may get wrong. Thank you. Thank you. And if I recall from that
5:39:03
list earlier, Mr. older slate. I mean, um, if I recall correctly, they're mainly bird species that you'd listed
5:39:11
there previously. Lords and loads of birds. Um, nes ros
5:39:18
um, yeah, birds. I'll go through it. hair. Rod
5:39:25
dear, skyllock, lapwing, little owl, Tory owl, shorteared owl, cuckoo, curlu,
5:39:32
kingfisher, n v, gray, partridge, lin,
5:39:37
white throat, stling, tree, sparrow, house sparrow, chaffinch, gold crest,
5:39:43
ren, donic, and that's just some. I've got more than that.
5:39:48
Okay, thank you. Mr. Green, please next. Thank you. Yeah, forgot the porridge in the
5:39:53
pear tree. I'll put the porridge down. Yeah, there there's actually birds of pre on there as well. You know, you've
5:40:00
got common buzzards. There's birds of pre on the site as well that are constantly seen in the spring and the
5:40:05
throughout the summer. Uh and all I can why why this area was chosen. Again, I'm
5:40:11
going back into it. I know it's divided into parcels, but that the wildlife within those parcels can distinguish
5:40:18
between, you know, the parcels. It's there. And the the Felgate Green Belt, it's an oasis. It's a biodiverse natural
5:40:24
habitat which is so essential to the local community and it's surrounded by three major roads, the A90, the A194,
5:40:32
and the A184. And it it cannot be replaced, you know? I mean, no matter the the net uh the
5:40:39
biodiverse net gain, uh they cannot replace it. And yeah, they might put it somewhere else, but it's it's the last
5:40:46
bit of of green belt in that area.
5:40:54
Thank you. There's been various references to um the sort of the
5:41:01
the water that's uh adjacent to the lakeside in you see on the council's
5:41:06
mapping that's local wildlife sites. It's I think it's within the allocation or the center of the allocation. Um, I
5:41:14
take councelor Kilgore's point about why that would ne why should that be or that area be removed um on its own in terms
5:41:22
of the green belt, but I think from what I've heard today, I think if either Mr. Morton or the council to just reconfirm
5:41:30
this, this is not an area that's proposed for development or necessary to
5:41:35
achieve what's required of this site in terms of the number of new homes.
5:41:41
That's correct, sir.
5:41:52
agenda
5:42:04
just picking up. Sorry, Mr. Green. Yeah, ju just just just very quickly over the road from the Fia Green Bay where that
5:42:11
building Mon Gardens is a Monton Marsh which used to have a massive amount of
5:42:16
wildlife on it. Uh I mean we'll put pictures on not so long ago and there's next to nothing on it now. Uh because we
5:42:24
can only assume it's because of the the building work that's being going on the vibration and it's just chased it all
5:42:29
off. Uh the nature reserve that's actually on Felgate. This would be the we feel that this is going to create
5:42:35
exactly the same effect and it'll decimate the area. The birds will flow, the wild the birds will fly, the
5:42:40
wildlife will go. It'll it'll just destroy it. Thank you. picking up a point from Mr.
5:42:48
green a moment ago was I think he's uh questioning the deliverability of
5:42:53
biodiversity net gain. Obviously this would be a uh requirement uh involves
5:43:00
understanding the baseline in terms of what's there uh and securing um
5:43:06
improvement on that. Um in terms of the potential and the
5:43:11
ability um to do that um
5:43:16
in principle at this stage I appreciate it needs to be informed by a lot more evidence but from the landowner
5:43:23
perspective um you able to comment at this stage the kind of the
5:43:29
practicalities around delivering biodiversity net gain. Um yes sir I I would just refer back to
5:43:36
the the plan that you had earlier um appendix two for the statement of common ground um again I made this point
5:43:43
earlier but um sort of the additional land in the same ownership um and
5:43:49
control of um the the site promoters um so I think one thing we do have is land
5:43:56
um so um you're right um we would need to do further work around um
5:44:04
biodiversity net gain but um there's land in the immediate vicinity of the development area um which which is
5:44:10
available for that purpose
5:44:41
Thank you. Is there any before I come back to Mr. screen opportunity to the council and to the land owners. Is there
5:44:47
any further evidence or material you think I should particularly that's in
5:44:53
the examination library in relation to the natural environment that I need to have regard to in addition to the
5:44:58
wildlife corridor assessment report presumably it's one of the the objectives in looked at as part of
5:45:03
sustainability appraisal. Is there anything else specifically for this site? Um, no, I think those evidence
5:45:10
documents uh generally cover the the information that we have that helped inform the the plan progress um for this
5:45:17
site. Um, I think just in terms of BNG, it's also worth mentioning um sort of
5:45:22
the the area that we've talked about outside of the the development boundary as well and the wider compensatory
5:45:28
improvements. Um and also just referring to um policy 35 that we have in the local plan as well um which is is about
5:45:36
um delivering biodiversity net gain. Um obviously we would obviously want to promote on-site B&G delivery always in
5:45:43
the first instance but that policy also sets out a um a hierarchy a location
5:45:50
hierarchy within safe time side of where we would expect offsite BNG to be delivered as well. Um and point 2A of
5:45:57
that policy um identifies that as as the first sort of option for off-site um BNG
5:46:03
would we would be looking at that to be delivered within the strategic nature recovery um network within seride and
5:46:11
that's clarified within the supporting text um to um to to reference the
5:46:16
wildlife corridor network within South Tinesside. Um, so I think it's worth pointing out as well back to to map
5:46:22
three that the wildlife corridors do extend down into the the area identified for compensatory improvements and also
5:46:29
the areas of high and very high green belt harm as well. So again, we would
5:46:34
expect that BNG to be sort of located within those areas should that be um
5:46:40
required to be offsite.
5:46:58
Okay, thank you. Uh, Mr. Green, please. Yeah, just to clarify, pardon me, what
5:47:03
Mr. Morton says. So, uh, I'm assuming, well, I know F1, F2, F3, and F4 are in
5:47:09
the green belt. So, they're part of the natural habitat within the green belt. So the 10%
5:47:16
net gain, I hope this makes sense. Sorry, I've been trying to get my head around myself. Is going on the same green belt that you're going to be
5:47:23
taking it from. Does that make sense? So So it's all green belt. So they're
5:47:30
going to make it 10% better than it was before they built on it on the same green belt.
5:47:35
Does that make sense? Understand? It's all the one green belt. thought there's probably some further detail on
5:47:43
this but um I mean biodiversity net gain can be delivered in a variety of ways.
5:47:48
There are various things that um generate particular credits. So things like hed hedros can be a particularly
5:47:55
positive factor for biodiversity net gain but as I think the the point was put to Mr.
5:48:02
more and I I don't know if at this stage whe there's anything further you can add on
5:48:07
what's potentially a detailed matter of implementation. I think that's it. there is more work to
5:48:13
be done and it's uh you know it's for it's for the detailed stage.
5:48:20
Councelor Kilgore. Thanks sir. I think um the area um that
5:48:26
is looking to be developed uh with regards to biodiversity net gain would extend the taking of the green belt from
5:48:33
56 hectares to 76 or something around that figure for that to be used. That's
5:48:39
kind of the the mapping that I've seen. Um, at a cost of what and and with
5:48:45
regards to credits, we're not interested in anything like that. We're looking at retention of what we have now and
5:48:50
betterment of what we have now that that we can provide as a community. Um, the
5:48:56
baseline will be high. Um, and I don't like the idea of taking another element,
5:49:02
which I think Mr. Green was talking about out of the green belt to then mitigate it with BNG net gain. However,
5:49:10
come to the planning stage, it could well uh look to have taken that 76
5:49:16
hectares out and then decide that they're going to apply for credits. So, that is not um acceptable at all. Thank
5:49:23
you. Thank you, Mr. Morton.
5:49:29
Um just just to be clear, we're not talking about taking land for BNG and
5:49:36
compensatory provision out of the green belt
5:49:41
very briefly. Yeah. So I'm I'm not quite clear then where that's going to be achieved on site because the map that I keep
5:49:48
referring to actually identifies a much wider element of green belt other than
5:49:54
um FA2. So that there is an area that has been designated for further wildlife and
5:50:02
green development as a buffer to potentially the next development. So it's actually in the plan that I'm not
5:50:09
allowed to refer to, but it is actually there.
5:50:15
Okay. Well, if it's a plan you're not allowed to refer to, it's probably not a plan that's before me. I've obviously
5:50:21
got map nine. That's the inset map for the um for the uh the wider compensatory
5:50:28
area that the council's um put forward. So I'm going to probably draw it there
5:50:35
and we'll we'll move on. I understand from local community got your evidence in relation to the biodiversity
5:50:42
ecological um impact. So we we'll reflect on that and obviously got the council's evidence
5:50:49
um as well. one of those things you just can't see in one site visit or one day.
5:50:55
So I'm going to largely be relying on existing published um material.
5:51:02
Thank you. I'm now going to move on to part C of the agenda. This is around really sort of site delivery.
5:51:09
again want to be sort of focusing primarily on what's in the local plan, but I envisage
5:51:17
some overlap with um potentially these ongoing uh events. But what I want to
5:51:24
know from the examination uh this afternoon is whether and it's point 11
5:51:29
of my agenda. Obviously this is a site uh they've found sound and looking at
5:51:34
policy SP8 is to deliver a number of will or be required to deliver a number of things uh approximately 1,200 homes.
5:51:42
There are other land use requirements we mentioned uh the local plan uh the local center primary school green
5:51:49
infrastructure uh transport um infrastructure uh there obviously features on the site
5:51:56
um sustainable drainage I know there's um a pylon line that cuts across part of
5:52:03
the site um that will affect how it can come forward taking all these factors
5:52:09
into consideration uh Is there sufficient evidence at this
5:52:15
stage? And I've obviously got document how one, which is the kind of site opportunities capacity document
5:52:22
to kind of give confidence in plan making that everything the council's seeking can be achieved and sustainable
5:52:29
development secured on this site. Is it Miss Cooper first? Yeah. So I know you've just pointed to
5:52:35
how one there the site capacity and opportunities paper. So on page 19 that
5:52:41
identifies an approximate net developable area of 35 hectares and that takes into account
5:52:48
um space for road infrastructure, community infrastructure, suds provision, the power line offset and
5:52:54
green infrastructure. Um, as we've touched on quite a bit today, the council envisages that some
5:53:00
green belt compatible requirements can take place outside of the red line boundary, which takes the burden off the
5:53:06
sort of on-site requirement. Um, given the scale of the site, it's appropriate for a range of densities to be delivered
5:53:13
so that the site can deliver a mix of house types and tenures. However, an average density of 35 dwellings per
5:53:20
hectare would achieve 1,200 dwellings.
5:53:36
Thank you. When you refer there to power line offset, is that just areas you can't develop because they'll be too
5:53:42
close to uh the infrastructure? Yeah. So, the site capacity and
5:53:49
opportunities paper allows for an easement of 40 meters. So that's underneath the power lines and then 40
5:53:55
mters either side I think that is
5:54:09
thank you. And I note the policy is worded approximately 1,200 uh homes. I think that's uh
5:54:16
consistent kind of phraseiology um within um the plan itself. So there's
5:54:22
some f potential flexibility there. If I turn to the land owners next and then
5:54:28
I'll come to um uh local community uh as mentioned Mr.
5:54:34
Morton possibly Miss Hamson as well various requirements of this site. Um
5:54:41
just from a looking at it from a a market deliverability
5:54:46
perspective um can all of this be achieved within the site that's identified at FE2 and
5:54:54
secure sustainable development as the as the outcome.
5:54:59
Um yes I'm happy to to kick off from the um landowner promoter side. So um
5:55:07
Miss Cooper's referred to uh the table the land use budget I call it on on page
5:55:13
19 of how one um again I think this is one where the theory is absolutely fine.
5:55:20
So um that land use budget does um kick out at the end um a net developable
5:55:27
residential area of 35 dwellings per hectare um and again as as Miss Cooper
5:55:32
said an average density of 35 dwellings a hectare that that does give 1,200
5:55:38
houses um and that's consistent with the um with the with the density study. So I
5:55:46
think I think the theory is fine. Um I'm not sure the pylon offset is um 80
5:55:52
meters in total. I think it is 40 in in total. Um
5:55:57
I suppose um our concern um is more um at the planning application stage the
5:56:05
practical um issues with um achieving that 35 dwellings a hectare sorry the
5:56:11
net developable area of 35 dwellings. Um and that's bearing in mind if anything
5:56:17
above that in the table increases um that put us that puts a squeeze on that
5:56:23
35 um net residential hectares of development. So
5:56:29
I think we're generally fine now. Um it's more with an eye to the planning
5:56:35
application stage and if anything puts a squeeze on that 35 hectares
5:56:41
um that's going to mean either um increased densities um outside of the uh
5:56:46
the density study or less than than than 1200 houses. Um and I kind of go back to
5:56:53
the point I raised earlier in the examination around um the fragility of the plan in terms of it meeting the
5:56:59
minimum housing need and no contingency um safeguarded land that sort of thing. So um
5:57:08
I know you're looking for a black and white answer. Do we think the plan's sound? It's more a concern um for for
5:57:15
another day really at the planning application stage that that that that 1,200 houses come comes under threat at
5:57:20
the planning application stage as obviously mentioned a moment I mean
5:57:26
the the policy wording is approximately 1,200 homes so there's there's some
5:57:31
flexibility there just to understand your position Mr.
5:57:37
Morton, if you're saying if we're looking at the land supply and you know the plan needs 1,200
5:57:44
houses from this location, is it a case that the site boundary potentially needs
5:57:50
to flex to provide that capacity? Is that what you're suggesting might be needed for soundness?
5:57:55
Um, not necessarily, sir. It's more a it's I know it's a difficult one because I'm maybe flip-flopping a little bit,
5:58:02
but it's it's more a concern that the the plan does need 1,200 houses from
5:58:07
this site. And yes, I accept um approximately means it could be higher, but it it could also mean it's lower. Um
5:58:15
and if all the sites um were were lower than the approximately figure, then um
5:58:20
it's not meeting the minimum housing requirement. I think we're generally happy with it from from from my client's
5:58:26
point of view. It's just a concern that we've got that when we get to the planning application stage that that 35
5:58:33
um hectares becomes becomes eroded.
5:58:39
I just ask of the council and um the site promoters. I mean in this location and Greenfield development is 35
5:58:48
dwellings per hectare ownerous or particularly create particular issues in
5:58:54
terms of character. For a start it's an average. So some
5:58:59
parts of the site will have much higher densities than others and there's ways of managing that density across the site
5:59:07
to produce the number. Uh at this stage we can we can't be specific. It's
5:59:12
impossible. So approximate is is an appropriate
5:59:17
use of language and the policy. Uh and that flexibility exists on site and it's
5:59:22
a site that is big enough actually um to um accommodate any changes
5:59:30
uh or tweaks in layout um to achieve the densities to give rise to that number.
5:59:40
Thank you. Um Miss Hson, is there anything further you wish to add to what Mr. Morton said from um your client's
5:59:47
perspective or is has he covered everything? No, he's covered everything. We we're largely happy with the boundary as it
5:59:53
is. Thank you. Councelor Kgo first, please.
6:00:01
Thank you, sir. Um I remain unconvinced that there won't be um a flex request um
6:00:09
outside of the current boundary. And I think we've kind of heard that that given on the depiction of where the the
6:00:16
densities are that that may well occur and the shape of that um stretch if you
6:00:22
like may change. Um I would just like to know what I've not had an answer to
6:00:28
today at all is when these compensatory matters are coming into play with
6:00:34
regards to a school, a GP practice, a shopping center, etc., etc.
6:00:41
What does that mean for the affordable housing? Does it mean a significant reduction? Because I think it must. Um,
6:00:48
what does it mean for the affordable element? 60% rented affordable and and
6:00:54
40% uh affordable to purchase. I've not heard any of that with regards to any
6:01:01
mitigation at all. But what I Sorry, we were going to deal with that item 13.
6:01:06
And I think there is somebody in the room who's going to assist with headline viability. So we'll we will come back to
6:01:12
that. Okay. So and and the other thing is as well um there is an intention to develop
6:01:17
a primary school on the site. Um we do have a primary school on Felgate that is not um at capacity. So I would expect
6:01:24
that that would be um researched first. Um however I do have further information
6:01:31
um that was issued to schools and then a further document issued without the annex on um which indicates a need for
6:01:41
two forms at two additional schools um in that vicinity. Um given that there's
6:01:49
been the likelihood of the provision of the primary school, what happens at secondary level because we can't assume
6:01:55
um residents moving on to that new development will just require uh primary education and as we all know there is a
6:02:04
huge demand for GPS and GP access. Um there might may well be an offer of
6:02:10
providing a GP uh you know structure of a surgery. Where are you going to get
6:02:15
the GP from? Thank you. Thank you. I mean, without repeating, I think what we discussed earlier, I mean,
6:02:21
the council's evidence is this site needs to provide a primary school. Um,
6:02:26
I'll have to track back through the evidence, but there might be a trigger point that that reflects using existing
6:02:31
capacity and then a new school would be needed. I'm I'm not surprised on a site of,200 new homes, a new primary school
6:02:38
would arise from that. I think Mr. Clifford referred to within the local center provision of healthcare
6:02:45
facilities. So that's factored into the policy. Um and we'll be looking at infrastructure delivery plan and
6:02:52
infrastructure requirements more generally including secondary school provision as part of stage two. So I
6:02:58
will come back to it as part of that Mr. Green please. Yeah, ju just about uh
6:03:05
you know what's built when uh because there's a lot of uh section 106 is you
6:03:10
know funding for indust in infrastructure flooding schemes the school the road infrastructure the
6:03:15
medical center the shop but there there's a lot of developers pull out of
6:03:21
section 106es later on so they built so say for example I think you it's a trigger point is that the right word
6:03:27
where they build a certain amount of houses and then they've got to build the medical center and then they've got to is that the correct terminology
6:03:33
uh cuz you know you know there's an awful lot in there and obviously the developers are in it for profit. Uh so
6:03:41
what will they knock on their heads because they're not making the proper profit margins? You know will the not
6:03:47
build the school? Will they not build the road infrastructure, the medical center, etc. Well, we're going to look
6:03:53
at viability in headline in headline times at item 13. So we'll come on to
6:03:59
that. Mr. Ols, please.
6:04:06
um the large area that was going to be restricted for housing because of the overhead power cables. Correct me if I'm
6:04:12
wrong, but there was a map published this week where you diverted the cables underground to create more room for
6:04:19
housing. Am I correct?
6:04:24
I saw it last night. I don't think there was a council document. Well, it was online last night. Sorry.
6:04:31
I don't I don't think that's necessarily um before me. Um
6:04:37
are there any further points people wish to make on sort of broad site capacity? I think we've kind of covered that
6:04:42
ground. So I just wanted to touch upon item 12
6:04:47
uh planning terminology trajectory. So when are the homes likely to be built?
6:04:52
Um and I want to sort of just understand so from the council's perspective for this site and it's in the policy uh
6:05:00
you're looking to produce a separate um supplementary planning document and that
6:05:06
will fulfill the master planning sort of functional role. So a master plan will
6:05:11
be prepared and um adopted by the council as part of that supplementary
6:05:17
planning document. Is that the council's intention? Uh yes that's correct. So um when we
6:05:23
were preparing the uh the sorry went into consultation with the regulation 19 local plan that was the intention that
6:05:29
we would produce an SPD to support that and we consulted on the scope and report for that SPD at the same time as
6:05:36
undertaking the regulation 19 consultation and it would be a consequence of that
6:05:43
process if I read policy SP8 correctly of part three of the policy effectively
6:05:48
you would not be seeking to approve anything on the failgate the sustainable growth area until
6:05:55
that supplementary planning document and the master plan had been approved.
6:06:01
That's that that's correct. Um and we may need to revisit the wording of the
6:06:06
policy in order to provide um greater control at development management stage
6:06:14
in terms of the phasing and delivery of development as well. So um but that's
6:06:21
something which which can be done.
6:06:28
So that would ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure
6:06:33
to support the development.
6:06:42
Thank you. Can I just be clear from the council? I'm sure others around the table want to know. Is that something the council's kind of
6:06:49
thinking about as as this examination kind of moves forward, Mr. Shadow?
6:06:56
Yes, as I understand it, it's work that is currently um
6:07:03
so sorry. Uh yes. Um that's correct. So we're not starting from a blank slate on this. the
6:07:10
work has been um progressing on producing the master plan since the regulation 19 um consultation obviously
6:07:17
because of what's happened with the plan and there's been subsequently delays on that. So that has um um movement to stop
6:07:24
working to some extent on that um that piece of work but there is a draft
6:07:29
document that is being worked up. So we we feel that um you know the the production of an SPD isn't as far off as
6:07:37
what could be expected if if Um, we hadn't been doing that work in the background.
6:07:51
I say test of memory back to day one and what's in the local development scheme. You obviously updated that in March
6:07:57
2025. I appreciate that mainly focuses on development plan documents. I'm shamefully I can't remember, but does it
6:08:04
contain a program for the SPD? Um no the the LDS doesn't contain a program for
6:08:10
the SPD obviously because it is very much dependent on what happens through this process. Um the the scope and
6:08:16
report um document did provide an indicative um time scale for the for the SPD. Um but obviously that was obviously
6:08:25
intrinsically linked with the the LDS at that time where we were looking at um
6:08:30
having a draft SPD for summer 2024 which would have coincided with submission of
6:08:35
um the the the local plan doc um document should those time scales have
6:08:40
been progressed. And then the idea was basically to have a a finalized document which is ready um for the plan being
6:08:47
adopted.
6:08:54
Hold those thoughts. We'll come back to the council shortly. But can I turn to Mr. Morton? um you're very much fronting
6:09:03
up the development uh uh interest um today but can I take it from um
6:09:14
obviously the recent statement of common ground but just your representations more generally I think quite clear you
6:09:21
want to um move forward um subject to the outcome of this process and it was a concern that the supplementary planning
6:09:28
document process would take time. um perhaps talk to those concerns, but
6:09:36
also what I want to understand is potentially what might need to change to the policy, whe whether anything needs
6:09:42
to change to the policy, whether it's as um as fundamental as possibly removing
6:09:48
parts two and three of policy SP8, which is to produce a master plan through an
6:09:54
SPD and then to ensure that development aderes to that SPD. I mean is your position as far as this
6:10:02
this is a site doesn't need an SPD. Thank you sir. Um I think as the council
6:10:08
have said there is a lot of master planning work already taking place. Um
6:10:14
our clients um well well aware of the council's um requirements and
6:10:20
aspirations for the site which we believe we can we can deliver. Um I
6:10:25
think our concern stems from any potential delay. Um you know we've been
6:10:31
promoting this site for 8 years. Um we have started preliminary work on a
6:10:37
planning application. Um perhaps the some of the points we'll hear shortly um
6:10:42
is around leading. Um we want to get on with this. Um we're very familiar with the site and its master planning
6:10:49
requirements. Um and you know it's that concern that we go into a a further
6:10:56
layer of process following the plan adoption which just puts the brakes on um on this development.
6:11:07
Thank you. I mean if I put it to the council in terms of
6:11:13
the role and purpose of the s of the supplementary planning document is obviously to provide some further detail
6:11:20
and ultimately a master plan that you want the development to come forward in accordance with
6:11:27
um just being devil's advocate and thinking about alternative approaches is a
6:11:32
sufficient EV I mean policy SP8 is a strategic policy it's comprehensive.
6:11:39
It's not one of the shorter policies in the plan. Um, is it sufficient at this
6:11:45
stage to add some further content into policy SP8 possibly by cross reference to a
6:11:54
concept framework diagram that would still require a sequence of a
6:11:59
master plan to be approved either as part of an initial application or before an initial application.
6:12:07
Whereas there really no there's a we need the stepping stone of a supplementary planning document to get
6:12:13
us to that um that point of you know the framework for
6:12:20
determining an application. It's a bit on the hoof, but I I don't know if the council wants to go.
6:12:25
Well, I'm I'm gonna um just reply to that through my own experience
6:12:31
of these things and no doubt have joint experience of these things um and the
6:12:37
ways in which major allocations are dealt with. Uh so I'm speaking with art
6:12:42
instructions. So I'm not going to be proposing anything without instructions in relation to this. This is one way of
6:12:48
dealing with it and it's a sensible way of dealing with it. There's no reason to
6:12:53
suppose that it's going to have an impact on the um
6:12:59
um ability of the developer to get on site early and commence in accordance with the trajectory. Um because that
6:13:05
work is being undertaken now. And as I understand it, it's intended that it be
6:13:11
ready at the time of adoption.
6:13:16
So um but um there are other ways of
6:13:21
dealing with it. Um whe whether you call it supplementary
6:13:27
planning document or something else of a non-stutory nature there has to be something which
6:13:35
identifies um at least in broad terms where the disposition of development
6:13:42
and the timing of development i.e. it's phasing. We need to understand how it's
6:13:48
going to work, not least because it's important to understand what impact it's going to have on the surrounding highway
6:13:54
network. And we need to know at what point in time um essential facilities
6:14:01
like health care facilities, school etc. are going to be provided to
6:14:07
support the population. So um um it's often a requirement of the
6:14:16
developer through the policy to provide um a phasing and implementation plan
6:14:23
which identifies um the point at which particular infrastructure is going to be
6:14:29
provided and that provides a structure also for such 106 obligations to be agreed
6:14:36
where there is either a need for contributions or a positive requirement on the developer to do something at a
6:14:42
particular point in time um which a condition couldn't do on its own. So
6:14:48
there are there are many ways of dealing with it but essentially it cannot all be left to the developer.
6:14:56
There has to be some kind of structure.
6:15:04
Thank you. I'll look at the uh remind myself in
6:15:11
terms of the scoping report for the SPD. I may need as a further action point
6:15:16
just outside of this room. Ask the council to give me a little bit more on the likely time frame for the
6:15:22
supplementary planning document. Um I'm wondering if the resource for that document is also sitting in in staff who
6:15:30
will do it is in is also involved in this examination. So we need to be kind of realistic um um around that. From Mr.
6:15:39
Morton, from your perspective, I mean we'll come on to this shortly. This is a site that's anticipated to deliver based
6:15:46
on the statement of common ground potentially within the first five years of plan adoption. Does that not in
6:15:52
itself provide an incentive to the council that if they delay or don't you know progress the
6:15:59
supplementary planning documents sufficiently you know that that would could create issues for them more widely within terms
6:16:06
of a planled system. I think it should um but I think we need
6:16:12
to remind ourselves um that we're sitting here today because the secretary of state's had to intervene. Um my
6:16:18
concern is an added layer um of I'll
6:16:23
call it plan making an SPD that needs to be um agreed by the council um poses a
6:16:30
risk. Um my view is I I agree with you suggestion at least uh um on a a concept
6:16:37
framework um in the um in the local plan um and then a planning application can
6:16:43
include a master plan. Um obviously when we get to the planning application stage
6:16:49
um phasing and trigger points will be worked through in detail um and that is within the within the control of the of
6:16:55
the local authority. So it's not purely developer driven um that the council can
6:17:01
apply checks and balances at the at the planning application stage. Um but it's
6:17:06
a keenness to to get on um and develop. Sir,
6:17:14
thank you. if the evidence is emerging through this examination that kind of can support
6:17:19
um I think what I've heard from Mr. Chaavian um some potential additional
6:17:24
policy content around phasing and sequencing which kind of could be not
6:17:30
necessarily from a negative perspective that there might be more around highways. It might be a more positive
6:17:36
scenario than the um the evidence currently exists. Um I'm currently open and receptive to
6:17:43
that. I've not seen the detail but in principle um does that
6:17:49
something
6:17:57
I'm so sorry I keep forgetting that's something we can discuss in advance of um part two and uh and we can also look
6:18:06
at um recent policies um approved
6:18:11
um or found found by inspectors elsewhere in relation to major allocations
6:18:17
um um to see to see how they work. I'm not suggesting they be brought before you
6:18:24
for assessment, but it's something we can consider.
6:18:32
Thank you. Just on a more um general points, sorry before I go there, councelor Kilgore.
6:18:40
Yes, sir. Sorry. I think um I'm not clear what I'm picking up here, but but
6:18:46
there's obviously an application process um that cannot be um
6:18:53
preempted, should I say. Um so I would I would not like any um manner of this
6:19:00
being dealt with um by um diverting from that. It has to come
6:19:07
before members. Q indeed. if there are any uh proposed
6:19:13
modifi main modifications obviously go through a process and ultimately need to be consulted on in
6:19:19
due course. So there are those um checks and balances in the system and I think
6:19:24
if there's anything that's deemed you know substantive that
6:19:29
needs to be worked on further between now and potential stage two hearings as indicated at the start of this session
6:19:37
and reiterate I'll give a view as to when that would need to be kind of widened out for others to comment on so
6:19:44
that when we come back to stage two people are not in the dark they can see what additional work has been learn and
6:19:50
what the potential uh ramifications could be for policy wording before we come back into this
6:19:56
room and potentially um discuss it. Where were to go down the path of um
6:20:03
think we know supplementary planning document is the correct approach. It's the right vehicle for developing the
6:20:09
master plan uh for this site uh to give the council the necessary um control.
6:20:15
The way the policy is worded at the moment at part three um requires that an application aderes to the supplementary
6:20:22
planning documents and then we got further content around the design code
6:20:28
um and uh the design of development being in accordance with the design code principles in the supplementary planning
6:20:35
document. I think as you referred to a moment ago, Mr. Shadowavian, it's not a statutory document.
6:20:40
I'd be looking for wording around having regard to or having clear regard to. So
6:20:47
that's something I would be looking at as for a main modification.
6:21:01
Councelor Kilgore, is this a further point? Is that from earlier? Just a moment. That's a moment ago. That's it. That's fine. Thank you.
6:21:14
In terms of the trajectory in the likely development time frame, this is set out in the um statement of common ground,
6:21:22
but I don't think it deviates from what was previously in the strategic housing land availability. Uh and as I mentioned
6:21:28
a moment ago, uh first uh development is anticipated
6:21:34
to be completed uh in 2030 2031.
6:21:41
Um which assuming this plan was adopted at some point in 2026 means this is a
6:21:48
site that's likely is anticipated to contribute to de deliverable supply within five years. So I think we do need
6:21:56
to have a debate this afternoon about the realism and likelihood of that in broad terms. We'll
6:22:03
come on to the overall housing trajectory in stage two about how it all fits together. But just in terms of um
6:22:11
what's proposed for this site uh and uh the scale of development
6:22:19
is that time frame realistic when we factor in all the kind
6:22:24
of component parts um I hope Mr. Sabb this is speaking to some of your uh
6:22:31
representations on behalf or the representations for banks in terms of um the realism of that and
6:22:39
if it isn't realistic, what that could potentially mean in terms of other
6:22:44
other sources of uh of supply contributing to delivering housing need.
6:22:55
Thank you, sir. Sorry, apologies. I thought you were going to go to the council first. Um
6:23:01
it's quite surprising to see a green belt release for a strategic allocation
6:23:06
potentially delivering houses within the first five years but potentially not right on the cusp if plan adoption is
6:23:12
2026. So that trajectory five years the largest site in in allocated
6:23:19
might not deliver any houses might be at a plan review and nothing's come out of the ground. So we were we acknowledged
6:23:27
this the time frame required to deliver sites of this scale and we've heard today a lot about indicative
6:23:34
um and risk regarding infrastructure delivery costings viability.
6:23:40
So a site of this scale we would expect to take 5 years plus to see houses being
6:23:46
delivered on. As we move forward the through the trajectory, we we hit in 2033 2034 150
6:23:55
dwellings peranom. That continues for a six-year period. In the northeast,
6:24:02
we're struggling to think of a site that's delivered consistently 100 dwellings per year, let alone 150
6:24:08
dwellings per year. That's a significant contribution to the land supply for that
6:24:14
six-year period. appreciate there'll be multiple house builders potentially, multiple developers,
6:24:20
but we just haven't seen that. We don't have evidence of that being delivered in the northeast.
6:24:26
All those factors lead us to believe that this site will deliver housing beyond the plan period, beyond 2040.
6:24:36
In those first five years of the plan, that places significant pressure on the other housing allocations and the
6:24:41
delivery of those sites, some of which not necessarily controlled by developers at this point
6:24:47
in time. So taking all those things into consideration and kind of alluding back
6:24:52
to question three from earlier, the logic of a single large strategic site, we do feel there's a need for more
6:24:59
additional sites. There does need to be that release valve within this plan.
6:25:11
Thank you. If I can hear from others, I'll come back to the council. Um, but
6:25:19
obviously part of their information and intelligence through the schlar process will come from kind of site promoters.
6:25:26
So I think the charge again I'm looking at Mr. Morton is you're being very optimistic about when first delivery
6:25:33
could take place at this site and then secondly uh double optimism that once you're up
6:25:40
and running you can sustain 150 dwellings uh for a concerted
6:25:46
um period. So just understand the realism of from sitting here now plan
6:25:52
potentially being adopted next year to I mean it's completion so it's it's
6:25:58
Obviously the construction phase has got to start a lot earlier.
6:26:05
Thank you sir. Um as has been picked up um today we have started work um or prey
6:26:12
work on a on a planning application um which which um the intention is that
6:26:18
would be um for 1200 houses across the uh across the allocated site. Um so
6:26:24
we've got a full consultant team appointed. um you've picked up that we've submitted an EIA um scoping uh
6:26:31
opinion request from the council. Um so the wheels are are turning um in haste
6:26:37
on uh preparing that application with a view to submitting that as soon as uh
6:26:42
the process allows. Um so you've got my submissions on that um regarding the
6:26:47
SPD. Um so we're we're we're confident um
6:26:54
that we we you know we can get a planning application in. Um that's what we're working towards. Um that obviously
6:27:00
needs to be determined um and and approved. Appreciate that. Um in terms
6:27:05
of uh the the second uh charge if you like. Um so that that 150 houses per
6:27:12
year um is based upon um three outlets each delivering 50 houses a year. Um in
6:27:21
terms of my client um we we've got strong developer interest in this site.
6:27:27
Um South Tides an area of pent up um house builder um demand to build uh and
6:27:34
a shortage of a shortage of housing. We've had expressions of interest from Barrett David Wilson, Belway, Miller
6:27:41
Holmes, all keen to be part of this site's delivery. Um, just going to um my
6:27:49
colleagues comment about um there being no precedent for for for that level of
6:27:55
house building or that rate of house build in the Northeast. I I would strongly disagree with that. So um I
6:28:02
made reference in our um hearing statement of footnote 2 to a couple of
6:28:08
comparable sites in the northeast. Um so West Park Garden Village in Darlington
6:28:14
um is an allocation Greenfield um edge of settlement for,200 houses. In its
6:28:21
first year in 202021 um that site delivered 21 houses and
6:28:27
then its second year it delivered 155 um and then in its third year it
6:28:33
delivered 193. So well in excess of um what what's been put forward for this
6:28:39
site and if there is any um delay on commencement um those levels of of house
6:28:46
building could could soon uh catch up. Um I've referenced another one Hamilton
6:28:51
Graange in Middlesbrough again an allocated greenfield site edge of settlement um for 1230 houses that site
6:29:00
is owned by Taylor Wimpy and Pimmen. So it's in the ownership of two builders. So there's only only two builders on
6:29:07
that site. Um but in the last three years two builders have averaged 118
6:29:12
dwellings peranom. So just short of 60 each. So I don't think 150 houses um
6:29:19
once the site's up and running um I think that is justified and I think it's uh I think it is realistic.
6:29:25
Um just to quickly mention another site in in Darlington um Skiringham Garden
6:29:31
Village um Darlington's local plan was adopted in 2022.
6:29:37
Um two years later um there are planning applications in for 1500 houses. Um, and
6:29:44
I think I'm right in saying banks have got an application in for 600. So, um,
6:29:49
you know, they're able to move quickly on that site and put planning applications in.
6:29:56
Thank you. As I've been at Payes today to kind of separate the planning application process from the local plan,
6:30:03
Mr. Morton, in terms of a planning application, are you able to advise me today whether it would be an outline or
6:30:09
is it like to be a hybrid? Is it for the whole sites? Is it for part of the sites?
6:30:16
So, as we've said in our hearing statement and statement of common ground, we're working with the church
6:30:21
commissioners towards agreement of a promotion um agreement. Um so, the
6:30:27
intention is to submit a single application um for the full 1200. Um
6:30:34
it may be hybrid. We may include infrastructure um up front. Um it may
6:30:39
include a detailed phase one uh with house builder. Um that isn't um it's
6:30:45
probably too early for me to confirm that sir, but certainly options that we're we're looking at to uh to
6:30:50
accelerate housing delivery on the site.
6:30:58
Thank you. Uh Miss Hamson, next please. Um I just wanted to add obviously
6:31:04
echoing Mr. Morton's comments, but also to add that the church commissioners is one of the largest land owners within
6:31:11
England. We have significant experience in delivering sites of this scale and indeed much larger. We're here today
6:31:17
just to add that confidence that we know what we're doing. We wouldn't be here if we weren't. So, um we're confident that
6:31:23
we've got enough interest and develop appetite to bring forward this site within the time the time frame set out.
6:31:31
Thank you. Uh we'll give Mr. see an opportunity to respond obviously banks been mentioned in uh in other other
6:31:39
locations but anything you want to particularly pick up or bring to my attention please Mr. Sbury.
6:31:46
Thank you, sir. In terms of the
6:31:51
in terms of the examples provided, I don't think they're comparable to this scheme. In terms of West Park was a
6:31:57
scheme that was um commenced 30 years ago, the existing local center, all the infrastructure facilities were in place.
6:32:04
Essentially, an extension to that scheme has delivered housing. So there the couple of examples provided we don't
6:32:10
think are particularly comparable to a site which is required to deliver all this infrastructure um which is not in
6:32:16
place and is essentially a new settlement in in a sense in terms of Darlington that is an interesting
6:32:22
example in terms of we promoted that our site our interest at Skiringham for over a decade now um the local plan was
6:32:30
adopted a supplementary plan and document followed and applications are still pending applications that were
6:32:36
submitted prior to the adoption of the plan to demonstrate commitment to delivery and certainty and they are
6:32:42
still pending consideration today. No houses have been built at that site. So that is a useful example of a site of
6:32:47
this kind of scale and the issues and complexities of delivering housing.
6:32:56
Thank you uh Mr. Green. And then I'll come back to I'll come to the council.
6:33:01
Uh yeah, you you chuck the words straight out of your mouth. Uh yeah, Mr.
6:33:07
Morton's gave lots of examples of you know, house bills here, house bills there, but that they haven't got the
6:33:13
complex issues, which is what's I think you you were just going on to there that this this situation has got and what
6:33:19
what I'm getting the I'm getting the gist of this is that if it is given the go-ahead, there's going to be a mad rush
6:33:25
to get everything done without the relevant in infrastructure in place. Uh and in relation to the church having
6:33:31
plenty of experience and plenty of land, you've got plenty of land that you could build elsewhere which haven't got this
6:33:37
complex issues, you know. So yeah, do it. Uh and and as for sorry types of
6:33:44
housing, there is a need for housing in this area, but not this type of housing. This is executive housing. Uh and it's
6:33:51
not needed in the area. You've had multiple bu builds of of executive housing within this area, and I've got a
6:33:57
solution. uh just pull SP from the law plan.
6:34:04
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um if I'm reflecting on all of this, I arrive in my own mind that
6:34:10
I'm concerned about the delivery time frame and thought well maybe it needs to
6:34:16
go back by about a year. Um obviously I would share that with the council with some reasoning um post
6:34:24
these um hearings but if I was to go down that mindset obviously that's going
6:34:31
to affect potentially deliverable supply but could also have ramifications for
6:34:36
the overall trajectory in terms of where things are are profiled. Now, this is a
6:34:41
site that's envisaged to kind of start relatively slowly at about 50 a year and
6:34:47
then kind of ramp up if I felt
6:34:53
uh I wasn't sufficiently confident that delivery could start within the next sort of four years from plan adoption
6:35:00
needed to be pushed back by say a year or two years. Is there any kind of prospect that this is a site that could
6:35:06
kind of make up that ground or is it as Mr. banks uh is inviting sorry Mr. Seabb
6:35:13
for banks is inviting me that you know that would have a consequence of kind of pushing the site beyond
6:35:20
um the plan period. Miss Cooper, um I suppose just from the council's
6:35:26
perspective, the reason why we built in that sort of slow buildup was to to account for any sort of slippage and
6:35:32
like you say then a a sort of quicker build up to the the higher numbers of delivery.
6:35:41
Anything further, Mr. Morton? Uh I mean I think it's probably just to re reiterate what I've said. I've
6:35:47
flagged examples of sites that have delivered more than 150. Um, so when
6:35:53
this site's up and running, um, it, you know, it it could make some catch up if
6:35:58
if that's needed in my opinion.
6:36:04
Well, there's also the the question of product, what's being built
6:36:09
and the nature of the housing that's being built and the number of developers who are on site. So there must be some
6:36:16
flexibility there as well, which could encourage earlier delivery.
6:36:24
Thank you. I'm going to move on now to item 13, headline viability. I think some people
6:36:30
have been very patiently waiting for uh this item. Uh it's the final matter I
6:36:37
think for this afternoon and I would like to conclude it this afternoon. So if we run slightly over five o'clock,
6:36:43
bear bear with me, but we'll see how we go. It was picking up my MIQ 5 um 21. We
6:36:49
will have a wider session on wider plan viability as part of stage uh stage two
6:36:54
hearings. But various submissions have been put to me uh over various hearing
6:37:00
sessions that this plan isn't deliverable. This site will not be viable. The burdens on it are likely to
6:37:06
be too great uh in terms of uh various costs and then um uh potentially the
6:37:14
likely kind of sales or revenue values. appreciate the council has as part of
6:37:20
its planwide viability then got a series of appendices that then looked at in
6:37:25
headline terms of sites that are key to the plan. Are they are they viable? I think Mr. Newm
6:37:33
you are responsible for that or you've you've authored that work. I don't know
6:37:38
if in response to my MIQ521 um
6:37:45
uh I yes MIQ5 lo in my paperwork this afternoon
6:37:55
it's gone but uh I think it was in followup to my MIQ 521 just the headline
6:38:01
what the headlines of viability evidence is telling us about this site and its kind of robustness business whether
6:38:08
there is kind of headroom flexibility were any of the kind of costs
6:38:13
likely to go to go north from from where what's currently envisaged so give you
6:38:19
an opportunity to talk to your work thank you thank you sir and good afternoon to
6:38:25
everyone and just just for the benefit as I'm a new speaker I'm David Newham from CP viability and I I've been doing
6:38:30
the the viability studies on behalf of the council for the local plan and that includes testing
6:38:37
the Felgate site. So, in terms of the headline, I'll run through very quickly.
6:38:43
I know it's late in the afternoon. I don't want to get stuck into too many numbers, but in terms of what's been
6:38:48
tested in the viability modeling, we've adopted 1,200 units. So, there's a
6:38:53
reference to approximately 1,200 has been discussed, but just to be clear, we have modeled 1,200.
6:39:00
Um, the other thing I just want to be clear on because it it is in my report
6:39:05
and I'm sure you've picked it up is the density that's been tested in the viability model is 37.5 dwellings per
6:39:13
net hectare, not the 35 dwellings that that's been discussed earlier. Um, so I
6:39:19
just wanted to to be to be clear on that point. Um we also factored in um 25%
6:39:28
on-site affordable housing. Just for context, the test or the model was
6:39:33
prepared back in October 2023. And at that point in time, the there was
6:39:39
a requirement a mandatory requirement for first homes. So the the the two 10
6:39:44
years of affordable dwellings factored into the model are affordable rented units and first homes. affordable rented
6:39:52
units. We've got um 60% of the overall affordable housing provision is
6:39:58
affordable rent and the remaining 40% of first homes. Uh and the remaining 900
6:40:05
dwellings are market value and the mix of those dwellings. It's not intended to
6:40:11
be executive houses just been suggested. It's intended to be in my eyes mid-range
6:40:17
housing products that you typically expect from a volume house builder. So, we've got um a fairly high proportion of
6:40:24
two bed terraces, for example, 270 units. We've got 273 bed semis. Um we've
6:40:30
got 274 bed detached. So, we've we've tried to be fairly even. And we've also
6:40:35
got 90 bungalows factored in as well. So, there is there is the element of singlestory product. Um
6:40:43
we came up with what we consider to be appropriate market values for that point in time. Um and that built in an element
6:40:50
of placemaking and placemaking reflects the fact that I think the comment was made earlier about
6:40:57
this is a a new market as it were. It creates its own market and because of
6:41:02
that it has its own value attributable to the to the to the houses. So we've been through a process of trying to come
6:41:08
up with a reasonable figure for those market values. Um, so we've come up with our assessment
6:41:15
and and just sorry going back a step for those who aren't familiar with how we test these these assessments. We do
6:41:21
what's called a residual appraisal. And that involves coming up with the value of the,200 houses when they're fully
6:41:27
built and and sold. And then from there we knock off all the development costs. And that leaves what's called a residual
6:41:33
land value. The residual land value is then compared to something called the benchmark land value. And if it's above
6:41:39
the benchmark land value, that's the residual land value. Sorry for all these phrases. The scheme is deemed to be
6:41:45
viable. The residual land value falls below the benchmark, then it's deemed to be unviable. So we did our modeling. We
6:41:52
had 25% on site affordable. We had biodiversity net gain allowance of 1.6
6:41:57
million pounds, which was equivalent to30,000 per hectare. We had a sustainable urban drainage system
6:42:04
allowance, so suds another 1.6 million. So that's a cost factored into the model
6:42:09
which was also 30,000 per hectare. Um we had allowance for highways at 6.4
6:42:17
million which was equivalent to 200,000 per hectare. So we've tried to build in
6:42:22
a lot of the things that have been discussed today in in in detail. We've hopefully tried to reflect in the model.
6:42:29
We've also got a separate allowance for open space. uh a separate allowance for what we've
6:42:34
called transport which is other outside of the highways um requirements
6:42:42
uh and also an education contribution of6 million pounds in there which we think covers this requirement for the
6:42:49
primary school. Um so on the all of those headlines um
6:42:55
in terms of the outcome our model comes back with a viable position with 25%
6:43:01
affordable housing and section 106 contributions that are equivalent to
6:43:06
£9,690 per dwelling. But just to stress, so that covers the section 106 covers open
6:43:14
space, transport, education, and then also accessibility and adaptability
6:43:19
standards that that's been lumped in together. So that's M42 and M43 of the of the building rigs.
6:43:26
So hopefully that gives an overview of the of the approach in terms of the flexibility.
6:43:32
Um the short answer is yes, absolutely there's flexibility in there. has to be when we're doing local plant testing, we
6:43:38
we're trying to stress test these things. So, we are we're not pushing this to the to the edge of viability.
6:43:45
We're trying to have a sensible allowance with a buffer. So, for example, some of the examples of the
6:43:51
buffer in there, there's a contingency for the developer of nearly5 million pounds. So, that gives them a little bit
6:43:57
of comfort in terms of the build costs. Um, we've made allowances for changes to the building regulations from 2023. So
6:44:04
that's part L and F. So there's a separate cost factored in for that. Um I
6:44:10
think the profit I mean other people around the room may disagree with me but I think my developer profit is generous.
6:44:16
I've gone for 20% on revenue for the market value dwellings and the planning
6:44:21
practice guidance viability talks about a range of 15 to 20% on revenue. So I've gone at the very end end of that range.
6:44:28
So if if you run the model with a lower profit, just to be clear, that makes it
6:44:33
more viable. So I I pushed the profit to to stress test it as I've said. And I
6:44:39
also think I've been quite generous on this benchmark land value concept. So
6:44:45
what the planning practice guidance talks about is that your there has to be a relationship between benchmark land
6:44:51
value and abnormal costs, infrastructure costs. the the general principle being
6:44:56
as your abnormal and infrastructure costs go up your benchmark land value should come down and vice versa. I I
6:45:02
think my land value which is 18.66 million I my own view is is that's on
6:45:08
the high side and that could that could be subject to to reduction um if someone was was really looking at this in
6:45:15
detail. So hopefully that that gives an overview.
6:45:20
Thank you. You listed a number of um things there Mr. new in terms of what you factored in and kind of future
6:45:26
proofing what's you know potentially going to um add cost to this development
6:45:31
was biodiversity net gain one of the things you've kind of made a line for an allowance for?
6:45:37
Yes. So there is a co there's there's an explicit cost of 1.6 million for
6:45:42
biodiversity net gain. At the time it was based on a figure of 30,000 per
6:45:48
hectare. um biodiversity net gain in October 2023 was still a a kind of new
6:45:54
concept. So it was there was less known about the potential costs that followed
6:45:59
a model that was used by lead city council in in in an assessment they had done which had gone gone to an an
6:46:06
inspector. Um so there is a figure in there. I I think the other thing just to stress as well is in terms of the area
6:46:13
of land that's been factored into the model. Um I've got a gross to net area
6:46:19
of of 60%. So in theory the there can be some of that land used for on-site
6:46:25
delivery of boss biodiversity net gain at least in terms of the the viability
6:46:30
modeling.
6:46:36
Thank you. in these kind of appraisal um exercises. I mean, as you say, the benchmark land value can be critical and
6:46:44
it can be um interesting to um arrive at. Um
6:46:52
obviously um there's a kind of a balance to be struck between kind of
6:46:57
expectations and what people might want to see from an area that has could have
6:47:03
some development potential um versus everything as you say what
6:47:08
might be required of this site and potential kind of impacts around sort of um abnormals.
6:47:15
You say your your approach to kind of benchmark land value has been sort of on the more Would you say on the more sort
6:47:22
of cautious side you haven't sort of cut the cloth
6:47:27
kind of too tight? I I appreciate it's a difficult area to
6:47:33
kind of arrive at. I can speak frankly. I think I've been downright kind. Um I think I you know if
6:47:39
I if I was if I was to argue on a viability for for planning application stage I think I think there's room for
6:47:46
that benchmark land value to come down and sorry to talk going into old money because it it's I know we talk about he
6:47:53
per hectare but as a per acre figure for the land owner this is £145,000
6:47:58
per per acre which is 350 grand per hectare
6:48:03
um and that's gross. So that's that's for not just the space that's being built on that's all the you know the
6:48:10
fields that are being retained perhaps for by a diversity net gain or whatever it may be. Um I I think that's that's
6:48:17
very generous if I'm honest and you might have been in the room earlier Mr. Newm um people to my left
6:48:25
from the representing the community uh have a concern things are going to get squeezed and various policy
6:48:32
requirements when push comes to shove at an application stage will just will just
6:48:37
drop because the viability will um will dictate that
6:48:43
but from your sort of professional opinion and everything that you've kind of looked at I mean what is I appreciate
6:48:50
that there's not an application for us. But when looking at the plan and the everything that the plan requires of
6:48:56
this site, I mean, how reasonable is that or how what assurance does your
6:49:02
work provide that the site can deliver the various policy requirements that have been identified of it?
6:49:09
I think I think from my professional background, it provides comfort that
6:49:15
this can provide the full planning policy provision. As I say, I haven't I
6:49:21
haven't pushed this to the to the nth degree. I've tried to build in buffer zone buff buffer allowances into the
6:49:27
model to allow for changes in costs in the future, whether that's abnormal costs, whether it's the primary school
6:49:34
cost, what what what have you. So, I think my own view is that um this is
6:49:39
going to be a scheme if it comes forward that can certainly deliver the full planning policy contributions based on
6:49:45
this modeling. Um and and I don't I just leave on that note that I've mentioned there about this balance between
6:49:52
abnormal costs and benchmark land value. It's a really really important principle for viability because what it's
6:49:58
essentially saying is that if there are extra abnormal costs on that land that
6:50:04
were unforeseen, it shouldn't be down to the local authority to pick up the tab as it were through a loss in planning
6:50:10
policy. the the burden should fall on the land owner princip you know
6:50:15
initially at least to cover those initial costs because those those development costs will always be needed
6:50:22
to build the site and extract the capital from the development. So that's
6:50:27
a really important thing to have in your mind I'd say. Thank you. Uh I mentioned earlier
6:50:33
obviously people have doubts about the viability and what will be delivered on this site. Um having heard sort of Mr.
6:50:39
Newm's overview of his work. Councelor Kgar, are you still of that that view
6:50:46
opinion that there are risks here? Yes, I I do. It won't be any surprise to
6:50:52
you. I think Mr. New, if I've missed it, um I apologize. I would like further information with regards to the
6:50:58
infrastructure because um you weren't here this morning and um we heard that
6:51:05
the infrastructure around the access into the site um from the A194 was going
6:51:10
to be potentially fully funded and then there was some kind of descent from that
6:51:16
and some confusion around which element would be met by the developer um or
6:51:22
external funding. the affordable rented at 60% and the um affordable to buy at
6:51:29
40%. I know it's it's looking at details sir but but this is very very important to
6:51:35
us. So what proportion of what style of
6:51:40
home are we looking at with regards to those affordable percentages? Um, and if
6:51:48
I'm wrong, please correct me, but I didn't hear mention of the GP surgery or
6:51:53
the shopping facility there either being um, accommodated by funding. Q.
6:52:00
Thank you. Should we pick up some of these points as we go along? So, Mr. Mr. Newman, please.
6:52:06
Yeah, thank you. And yeah, just to clarify on the local center and thanks for picking up on that. Um from a model
6:52:12
point of view, it's always assumed that this is not going to make any revenue in the um in the scheme. It's going to be
6:52:19
costneutral. So it effect it doesn't change the viability outcome. So there's no there's no value to you know
6:52:26
delivering the the local center. It's not going to make any money against the cost of providing that local center if
6:52:33
if you see what I mean for the model. So what okay try and explain it another
6:52:38
way. Let's say it cost a million pounds to build the local center. What we're saying is that it won't get more than a
6:52:44
million pounds in terms of revenue. So, it's cost neutral in the developments. Yeah. Um in terms of the mix of the
6:52:52
affordable um houses um for the affordable rent, there's 180 affordable
6:53:00
rented dwellings factored into the model. We've got 60 of those as two bed terraces, 60 as three bed semis, and
6:53:08
then the remaining 60 is split between detached and bungalows. Um, so we've
6:53:13
tried to we've tried to favor two and three bed dwellings for the purposes of the model. Um, on the first homes, um,
6:53:21
there's a four four there's 120 dwellings in total from the first homes. 40 are two bed terraces, 40 are three
6:53:28
bed semis, and 40 are four bed detached. So it's an even split. Um and then in
6:53:34
terms of the highways costs there there is a figure in the model of 6.4 million
6:53:41
uh 200,000 per hectare which is an explicit cost which has been factored in
6:53:46
to try and to mitigate issues such as as the access. Um so there is an explicit
6:53:52
cost in there to try and cover cover that.
6:53:57
Thanks sir. I'm I'm not sure that that would cover the elements that we discussed this morning, but that's on a
6:54:03
a different strand. Thank you. Yeah. Uh ju just coming there. I'm just
6:54:09
looking at uh the infrastructure delivery plan and you know I mean you
6:54:14
say the 64 million you you've anticipated for roads. Uh the White M pool junction is down as a
6:54:22
section 106 external funding. There's no guarantee of the external funding. That's 40 million.
6:54:28
uh the White M pool junction interim improvements S S106 external funding which might not be available that's to
6:54:35
be confirmed uh there's additional ones as as you go down there's massive amounts to do with
6:54:43
uh different aspects of road uh and to me I mean I don't know the planning
6:54:49
terms for it but that's 50 there's a million pound for million roundabout so that's 50 million there's money for the
6:54:56
there's an unknown cost to the buff slither of land that's avail that needs to be uh purchased at White Mapool
6:55:03
that's that's additional so all in all that comes to 51 million uh 250,000 so
6:55:11
where does the 6.4 million come from I don't know if you were here for that
6:55:17
part of the discussion um Mr. New I think I mean fairness to Mr. screen. I
6:55:23
think you're referring to some of the sort of headline total scheme costs. I think as we've
6:55:28
been discussing today as part of the evidence that may be a very different figure subject to um ongoing dis uh
6:55:38
discussion with national highways in terms of phasing and and timing in terms of the costs and allowances
6:55:46
you've made Mr. in Newm has that been provided by the council and then you you
6:55:52
mentioned earlier there's kind of contingency factors kind of built into this plus I'm
6:55:58
I'm calling it overall kind of headroom or buffer um in addition to that
6:56:07
two two points for me I think um I think Mrs. Lamb's going to then then come in
6:56:13
so just to be clear about where the 6.4 4 million. That wasn't a figure that was dictated to me by the council. When when
6:56:19
I do these viability assessments, I have to make assumptions, you know, particularly when it's a high level situation like this. So the figure that
6:56:26
was adopted was 200,000 per hectare. Um let me just double check whether that was net or gross. It's per net
6:56:33
developable hectare, hence 6.4 million. So it's an assumption. The other thing
6:56:40
just to be very clear on which is what I was getting at earlier. If that 6.4
6:56:45
million happens to end up being 8 million pounds for example or 10 million pounds then what the viability guidance
6:56:52
says is that the benchmark land value has to come down because that is an
6:56:57
abnormal stroke sight specific infrastructure cost. So it it mitigates
6:57:02
that that cost. So you've got the buffer there and that's what I was talking about in terms of the land value being
6:57:09
quite generous and there's some there's an element of of flex there.
6:57:15
Yeah, it's just to sort of uh reiterate the point in terms of the highways infrastructure and um what was discussed
6:57:21
earlier in terms of the various mitigation options which are being considered um and set out in the white
6:57:26
map threshold testing report. Um so 6.4 4 million would make a significant
6:57:32
contribution towards some of the other schemes that were identified um in that report um which are costed around 7 to10
6:57:40
million pounds. Thank you Mr. Green. Yeah,
6:57:46
they've lost me there because to me, you know, they may be liable for 40 million pound. Now, now what's happened within
6:57:54
with the local estate, the Maples was that affordable housing was promised under section 106 and it ended up a
6:58:01
classroom in the in the local school because the then says it had bitten into that profit margins which I'm assuming
6:58:07
if it was to go up to 40 million the land value would come down. Was that correct? That's what you were saying.
6:58:12
Surely that would bite in in the profits. Surely that would then take away the affordable housing aspect which
6:58:17
is exactly what happened to the Maples. They've got a stage one, stage two, stage three and as I say the affordable
6:58:23
housing went and it ended up a classroom. Well, I'm not familiar with that other
6:58:28
site. So I mean the general principle through national planning policy is to set policy requirements in a local plan
6:58:34
that are you know in general terms going to be affordable deliverable
6:58:39
uh and the starting point is to work from that when planning applications um come in. So is think is this the
6:58:46
question for us I think today is is this plan setting uh an appropriate and right level kind
6:58:52
of policy requirements that in broad terms are going to be uh affordable and
6:58:57
deliverable um to the development uh and the assumption will be if the plans adopted with the requirements in
6:59:04
that will be the starting point um when looking at individual um schemes on that
6:59:09
point and just think about where we are this afternoon I'm mindful from the So
6:59:14
land promoter statement of common ground I think in headline terms Mr. Morton you're not saying this site is terrible
6:59:22
double negatives it's not viable but you think you know some of the
6:59:28
viability assumptions you would potentially question I don't know that's for today's session or whether it comes
6:59:34
more into just when we talk look at general viability later on at part stage two.
6:59:41
Yes sir. I think it's you know rare if ever that um all the assumptions used
6:59:47
between a councils and the developers uh viability appraisal are exactly the same. But what our position is that um
6:59:54
the council's position is the scheme's viable. We've done our own viability that shows it's viable. Um it's viable.
7:00:05
Before I draw a conclusion on the day, Mr. Green. Yeah, I I kind of see how we
7:00:10
can make that assumption and with with what's being discussed this morning in relation to infrastructure. It's such a
7:00:16
complex issue. I kind of I kind of understand how you can still see it is a viable aspect because the costs could go
7:00:24
it could be an HS2 they go up and up and up. It'll no longer be viable. Thank you, Councelor Kildor.
7:00:31
So, I would agree with that. I think there appears nowhere near um the amount
7:00:36
of of monies put aside um that 6.4 million and I think we talked and I know
7:00:42
you said sir that you were going to look at this in stage two with regards to secondary school provision as well. So
7:00:48
there are significant provisions that in in my opinion from what I've heard have
7:00:54
not been factored in and can only there cause um further risk and then we would
7:00:59
be expected to further mitigate down with regards to the affordable housing that isn't negotiable. Thank you.
7:01:08
Thank you. Well, I've heard the council's ev there's anything further you want to add
7:01:14
than what's you've already provided this afternoon. That's again another matter area for me to kind of reflect on and
7:01:20
make a judgment on before I bring today's session to a conclusion on site
7:01:27
SP8. Um are there any further or final points people wish to make that they don't feel
7:01:33
that you've made already under what's been a very wide uh ranging agenda a
7:01:38
number of matters? No. Thank you. In which case uh I'm
7:01:44
going to draw today's session to a conclusion. Thank you everybody for your contributions. Those who made
7:01:49
contributions earlier, uh we reconvene back here tomorrow morning. I think it's
7:01:54
a 10:00 start and we're on to site GA2 in Balden. Uh so I'll see some of you
7:02:02
again tomorrow morning for that session. Thank you.