3:37
Yeah. And then the light comes on. I kept looking for that.
3:44
That's the key light that you're on.
16:36
Good morning everybody. It's now 10:00 so it's time for me to open these hearing sessions into the south
16:41
examination of the South Tinside local plan. Just to introduce myself, my name is David Spencer and I'm the inspector
16:47
appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out this independent um examination. Can I just check with
16:53
everybody in the room, can you hear me where necessary and see me? Yep. Good.
16:59
Uh, can I please ask at this early stage that people ensure that mobile phones are um switched off please or on their
17:07
silent settings? And at this early stage, can I please
17:12
invite the council in rel uh for general housekeeping what we do in the event of the fire alarm going off please?
17:19
Okay. Good morning everyone. Um, we're not expecting a fire alarm this morning. So if there is an alarm, please can you
17:25
make your way to the nearest fire exit which is just on the far side of the room and then make your way to the far side of the hotel car park and await
17:31
instruction from hotel staff. The toilets are just outside this room and across the corridor. Please note that
17:38
there are cables are taped to the floor. Um so please be careful when you're moving around the room. Um also the
17:44
hotel operates a parking eye system. So if you have parked your car in the car park, please ensure you entered your
17:50
registration number in the devices at the hotel reception.
17:56
Thank you um for that. Um can I just check for today's proceedings? Do you
18:01
have anybody here present from the local press? Thank you. I think on day one
18:09
was it the Shields Gazette? The Shields. Okay. Thank you.
18:15
Now these sessions are being recorded uh and livereamed by the council uh and the
18:21
recordings will be available on the council's website uh after these sessions. So enable those who can't
18:26
attend um to observe proceedings. But can I check does anybody else wish to make their own separate recordings of
18:34
today of this morning's session?
18:39
Nope. Okay. Now these are as I say public meetings
18:44
held in public but it's only persons who are seated around the table who can make uh contributions or speak at these uh
18:52
hearing sessions in terms of exercising their right to be heard because they have uh concerns about the soundness
18:58
andor legal compliance of the plan. Uh I will uh bring everybody in on relevant
19:04
parts of this morning's discussion as we work through the agenda and the issues
19:09
that I'd identified that were published as part of my matters issues and questions uh back in uh uh early May.
19:17
And hopefully everybody is here for matter five issue three which is land uh
19:22
at North Farm East Balden. This proposed allocation site GA2 within the plan at
19:28
policy SP7. uh and I'm specifically looking at this particular allocation. I'm not
19:34
necessarily here today to talk about other sites or sites that are not within the plan. It's the soundness uh of this
19:40
particular um site. Uh try and run these discussions as sort
19:46
of informal but kind of sorry run these hearing sessions as informal but structured um discussions. So I will
19:54
endeavor to bring uh as I say everybody in at a relevant uh point in the
19:59
proceedings. If there is at any point you think I want to come in on a particular matter and you think it's
20:05
it's relevant to your particular the representations that you made on the plan upend your name plate and that will
20:11
signal to me um to bring you in at the appropriate um point.
20:17
That's just a general uh outline of how these sessions work. Are there any particular questions about the procedure
20:24
or the how these hearings work? I think looking around the table, most people have been to previous sessions, so know
20:31
how these work. Now, my memory says you're not Mr. M you're
20:37
not Mr. Martin. Your your memory serves you correctly. Mr. Martin's on holiday this week. So,
20:43
I'm Mr. Wolf, Mr. Martin's colleague um here on behalf of Bellway Homes.
21:00
Thank you for that. I think it would be helpful at this stage because these are hearing sessions are being uh recorded
21:06
and obviously there are people in the room who are observing as well. If I can um invite people to kind of introduce
21:12
themselves and if I start on my right with the council's team please. Mr. Shadowavian. Morning sir. Paul Sherev KC acting for
21:20
the council. Deborah Lamb, operations manager for the
21:25
spatial planning team at South Tai Council. Rachel Cooper, senior planning policy
21:31
officer at South Tai Council. Matt Clifford, also a senior planning
21:36
policy officer at the council. Morning, sir. My name is Trevor Mill. I'm service lead for strategic transport
21:43
at the council. Morning. France Sam Hamson from Deote
21:48
here on behalf of the Church Commissioners for England. Morning. I'm Dominic W from Pegasus
21:53
Group on behalf of Bellway Homes. Morning everyone. Joe Thompson speaking
22:00
on behalf of East Balden Neighborhood Forum. Uh good morning everyone. Mvin Butler,
22:06
Secretary of Clean East Bald Labor Party. Thank you for that. Okay, as I say, I'm
22:13
going to work through the the agenda. We're going to be looking specifically at this particular um site. Uh as I said
22:19
on day one, I've had the opportunity to kind of visit the location. So I've seen
22:24
the site from various kind of public perspectives. Obviously this is site that has a public right of way across
22:30
it. So I've walked that footpath and I've walked the um I'm going to describe it as a bridal way, but it's kind of
22:36
tarmac kind of footpath cycle way that runs along the um eastern boundary uh of
22:43
the site. uh and looked at the wider uh environs and uh facilities within uh
22:49
East Balden. So um those are those are in my mind as we we discuss this particular um site. I just wonder from
22:58
before we get into item two and green belt um
23:03
uh impacts. Uh just two sort of general things I just wanted to bring to the attention of the examination. Obviously,
23:10
I was made aware as part of previous hearing sessions and obviously it's it's in the examination library that there is
23:16
a maid neighborhood plan uh for East Balden. Um I think that was made at the
23:21
end of 2021. So that's uh currently part of the um adopted development plan for the area.
23:29
Uh but also mindful there's been a recent statement of common ground between the council and the church
23:35
commissioners who uh are promoting um site um GA2. We had this issue yesterday
23:43
in relation to Felgate. I've read the statement of common ground. I don't know if other people have had an opportunity
23:48
to see that document. It's relatively brief. Um
23:54
slightly different to Felgate. does introduce potential modifications to the wording of the policy. Um, but in
24:01
general terms, I mean, I'm going to summarize, I mean, it largely retains the respective positions of the council
24:09
and the site promoter in relation to this this site, but will afford an
24:15
opportunity either the council or the church commissioners want to say anything about that particular statement
24:20
of common ground? Yeah, thank you. Um yeah, so the
24:26
proposed modifications that you picked up there were just to provide some additional clarity um that we felt was
24:32
was missing from the policy. Um and similar to the other statements of common ground, it just sort of clarifies
24:38
the position between the two parties in terms of the trajectory of the site and the deliverability of the site.
24:46
Thank you for that. Miss Hamson, is there anything further you want to add from the church commissioners? No. Mr.
24:52
Butler, please. Uh thank you, sir. Um the statement of common ground refers to an issue which
24:58
you haven't put in the agenda for this morning. That's the issue of agricultural land uh and the grading. Uh
25:05
I'll ask your advice as to whether we can raise that issue because uh there is
25:10
a statement in the statement of common ground that is uh out of line with the
25:16
position in the council statement. Thank you. Uh um yes in principle we can
25:24
bring in agricultural land. Um I think probably the relevant part of the um
25:31
agenda probably be under environmental considerations if we introduce that as a
25:36
new three. Thank you. I do appreciate I did have a mass issue question on that. I think I'm clear on
25:42
the council's position on on this but we can um explore that
25:49
there. I'll make a a note of that so I don't forget.
26:01
Okay, thank you. So, moving on to item two of the agenda
26:07
um in relation to green belt impacts and compensatory um improvements. Uh I had
26:12
two questions on this which various people have responded to. I appreciate there is disagreement in the room but if
26:18
I can turn to the council please in the first instance to u
26:24
respond or to the kind of key points from its response to my matters issues and questions 529
26:31
and then separately 530 in terms of the assessment of this uh the parcel I think it's the wider parcel bo
26:39
and then the ability to secure compensatory improvements please thank you
26:45
yes no problem. So the the site J2 um was assessed in the southside green
26:50
study as parcel B3 uh which also included the area um
26:56
directly adjacent to the the proposed allocation as well. Um appendix C of the
27:02
the study um provides more detail in terms of how the site was assessed. Um
27:07
the site um was assessed as having low um harm in against purpose one, purpose
27:14
two and purpose 4 and a moderate rating of harm against purpose three. Um it's
27:21
noted that the assessment um states that the site shares strong relationship with the urban area um which surrounds um the
27:29
the built area surrounds the site to the west and the north. Um, appendix C um, also sets out a menu
27:36
of options for enhancements in the green belt and the surrounding area which um, could be compensatory measures. Um,
27:43
those key um, considerations have been filtered through into policy SP7. Um, in
27:49
particular the creation of defensible boundaries um, enhanced surrounding public rights of way, retention of
27:56
existing trees and hedros and exploration of the renaturalization of the water course. Um also um just to
28:03
draw attention to um paragraph 5.17 in the supporting text of S um policy SP7
28:10
um which is applicable to to all the policies in terms of um compensating measures um for for the green belt um
28:17
sites um and um improvements.
28:34
Thank you, Mr. Lamb. So even though this is a site from the council's green belt review evidence scores either low or no
28:42
uh impact or harm on various purposes of the green belt, nonetheless the council
28:48
kind of it's looking at kind of the issue um cumulatively goes with the highest
28:55
harm. So it's assessing it as a site that would have overall moderate harm based on one purpose.
29:02
Yes. Correct. So that's in accordance with the the methodology of the the wider study.
29:15
Thank you. If I turn to the back of the room, I don't think Miss Hamson or Mr. Woff necessarily to dispute the
29:23
council's approach or assessment. I appreciate on behalf of Belway it's kind
29:28
of if you I understand your submissions are if you're looking at this site the site in front of us in this way it
29:35
therefore follows that other surrounding or adjacent land should be looked at in
29:41
a similar uh a similar way as part of this wider BO N3 parcel in terms of a land immediately
29:48
to the east. Yeah, that that that's correct. And in
29:55
that regard, we're happy to rely on the the written evidence that we've put forward at this stage in regards to that particular matter.
30:02
But um Mr. Thompson for the East Balden Forum and Mr. Butler for the local Labor
30:10
Party, I think you disagree with how this the green belt has been assessed here. You think the harm has been under
30:17
underestimated against the various purposes.
30:26
Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer. Um, can I just say I'm I'm taking over from Mr. Hutcherson, our secretary, who was
30:34
absolutely exhausted after last week. So, he was revived in the Grey Horse at
30:39
East Balden with several drinks. However, however, he's asked me to step
30:45
in and and try and make a case here. I'm not an expert um in in planning law and
30:51
you know, I can't speak with authority about the green belt. All I can talk
30:57
about is its value to East Balden and the value to all of the people who back
31:03
the East Balden neighborhood plan. Um we've been tracking this site um you
31:09
know since we we came about several years ago. Um and the history of it in in terms of the background papers um are
31:17
worth mentioning. Um the the original um background paper um talked about um the
31:26
the the the um the importance of a buffer on the north side of the of the
31:31
site um to try and address the the loss of the green belt um and the issue
31:37
around the wildlife corridor. Um the site itself actually although it is in a
31:44
builtup area is open. Um it affords wonderful views to to the north. It's it
31:50
slopes towards its its bottom end and as you pointed out earlier there is a
31:55
bridal way that that runs along its eastern end. In effect it's a central sort of spine between the west field and
32:02
the east east field. Um on the other side of of new road immediately beyond
32:08
the site is the um tileshed burn. um
32:13
West Farm Meadows, a an SSI site. Um and nearby is the Tileshed uh local nature
32:21
reserve. So its importance to to the wildlife is is very very important to
32:28
understand. Um the council's wildlife corridor network review final report
32:35
indicated that the northern twothirds of the site um is included in the wildlife
32:41
corridor that runs through the area. Um the the earlier uh 2022 stage three
32:51
green belt review exceptional circumstances you know highlighted the biod diversity.
32:58
It pointed out that there was flooding on the bottom end of the site um and that considerable green belt and
33:05
infrastructure mitigation would be required. Um,
33:11
it also said that mitigation is not considered to impact viability.
33:18
And you know, we understand that the profits from this scheme will run into
33:25
many millions of pounds, perhaps even over 11 million. Um so there there is
33:31
headroom to to deal with with this site uh in terms of mitigation. But I have to
33:38
say um East Bold Neighborhood Forum's primary position is this site should not
33:45
have come forward and Mr. Hutcherson spoke eloquently last week about the
33:51
council not needing to go into the green belt that there was flexibility in terms
33:57
of the housing numbers that that it had set. There was we presented information
34:04
and evidence to support that. Um and that was from the U Secretary of State's
34:09
department who said that the standard method delivered a starting point and
34:16
exceptional circumstances could include the constraint of the green belt. So we've ended up with this situation where
34:23
we've got an arbitrary figure and the impact is that we've got to see sites uh
34:30
like this being consumed by housing. Um I just want to talk a little bit um
34:37
about the green belt the council's subsequent green belt study final report
34:43
um which talks about how the site could be mitigated. It references the
34:49
Eastfield site uh as an area that that could be used to mitigate this. And you
34:55
know to to East Balden neighborhood forum this seems so fanciful. Um that
35:02
site as we know is subject to you you know the possibility of of further
35:08
development and to put that forward as a means of mitigation um does not seem
35:14
coherent at all. Um
35:20
the um I think at that point I'll just pause there. Um but I would like to come
35:25
on um to talk about um you know the the
35:31
the further work that we need to do to mitigate this site if it does come forward.
35:38
Thank you. Sorry before I bring in Mr. Butler um Mr. Thompson. I mean, I'm
35:44
fairly clear from the forum's representations, as you say, from a green belt perspective, I think the
35:51
change or the modification you would invite me to consider making would be to remove
35:57
the whole site from the plan. There should be no development on this site.
36:03
But I think the forum um has applied itself to well if this plan does go
36:09
ahead in some way shape or form as kind of submitted then the alternative would
36:14
be only to look at development within I'll put it the southern parcel
36:20
and the northern parcel either remain as green belt or clearly identified as I
36:26
think you refer to as a kind of a buffer. Yes, that that sums it up very very well
36:33
actually. Thank you. Um you know the the fact that this site twothirds of this
36:39
site um is affected by the wildlife corridor in in our estimation if it does
36:45
come forward um in terms of mitigation. There's such a compelling case to
36:50
provide an area that really does work in terms of the wildlife corridor. um not
36:57
not only that the the actual numbers that come forward and and we'll talk about this I know further down the
37:03
agenda but the numbers that will come forward here has such a profound effect
37:08
on the lives of people who live in the village and the way that the village is actually structured. Um yeah so that
37:16
that is our position. Um we believe the site should not have come forward. We would ask that it's removed. However, if
37:23
you're minded that it does come forward, we believe that um the northern
37:28
one-third of the site, i.e. um the land between the public right of way, which
37:33
crosses from Boca Lane to the bridal way um to the new road
37:40
should be used as a as a means of mitigation. It should be used as a means of providing open space, which is
37:47
another um requirement of of the earlier reports. Um and as far as the the Suds
37:54
um basin is concerned um you know that that is an a real opportunity to provide
38:00
a wetland site um that is well landscaped um that would function on all
38:06
sorts of levels um not only to give open space not only to provide mitigation for
38:12
nature but also to to screen the the development from the very very busy uh
38:19
new road. So at all sorts of levels it does make sense to us to think about
38:25
that northern third of the site. Thank you.
38:31
Thank you for that Mr. Butler, please. Uh thank you, sir. In terms of the uh
38:37
green belt assessment, u the comments I made uh at last week's hearing in relation to the overall situation, you
38:44
know, apply absolutely to this site. Um we are concerned uh about uh how the uh
38:52
study has has taken uh forward uh these views. Um we don't agree with the
38:59
assessment of the study that it's low or no harm in relation to purpose one and two. I mean it's clear uh people
39:07
understand that the development of this site will not only reduce the gap
39:12
between west and east balden which uh you know has has remained there um despite development in the early 1990s.
39:20
uh most importantly it reduces the gap between east and west balden and south
39:25
shields and the narrowness of the green belt at this point is already uh you
39:33
know making the situation of its of its purposes. So to to suggest that there's um no or low or no harm in relation to
39:41
that per those purposes is something we can't agree with. Um and relation to
39:48
purpose three uh while we're talking about the moderate assessment um this uh
39:56
uh position uh accepts that the release of the site would expand the Baldens into the open countryside.
40:03
Um the tree cover at the boundary of New Road uh is not in place at the western
40:09
end and also is not in place uh as you come along Bokeh Lane. Uh therefore
40:16
there is already uh open views across those fields to uh when viewed from the
40:22
west and and from the north and the
40:28
land Stantech um document submitted at regulation 19 on behalf of the church
40:35
commissioners in its uh landscape diagram uh illustrates uh the open views
40:42
uh from Bokeh lane and from new road across the site. And continuing on the
40:49
issue of openness, um the green belt study uh paragraphs
40:54
2.23, 2.24 and 2.25 25 relates to the
41:00
planning policy guidance on green belts. Something you referred to health sir last week and paragraph 145 of the MPPPF
41:09
and that refers to the fact that if we are going to have exceptional circumstances of land taken out of green
41:15
belt uh compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility
41:21
of the remaining green belt is important. And what we see here is with
41:26
a statement of common ground uh to some aspects a uh reduction in the offer of
41:32
compensatory improvements to the site only and come on in a minute after Mr.
41:38
Thompson gives more evidence to to say why we feel that if we're going to have a development of this site bringing in
41:46
such largecale uh profits to a housing developer which hasn't been named uh
41:52
these compensatory improvements need to be uh much wider than are being suggested.
42:25
Thank you. Um, Miss Hamson, please. Next. Um, just briefly just to highlight that
42:31
obviously ecology and Suds are not a green belt matter and are to be discussed later on within the agenda. Um
42:38
the other point just to add is obviously we believe the principle of the green belt release was discussed in depth last week and the need for these sides to be
42:45
released to meet the housing need within the local authority area and believe those points remain relevant to the
42:50
conversation today.
42:59
Thank you. here. I mean, I think in terms of the the green belt harm impact, I mean, obviously that's something I'll
43:05
be uh considering and bringing into judgment from visiting the site looking
43:12
at the kind of particular circumstances. It's kind of the um
43:17
uh reasonleness of the the council's
43:23
assessment and the alternatives that are um presented to me. I think in terms of the nearest um I think it's been
43:31
described as part of South Shields if that's the correct term. So this would be on the Balden Lane as you go over the
43:37
railway. Is that the kind of the nearest built development as you go north?
43:46
Yes. So as you go up Benson Lane, you come to the suburbs of White Le and
43:52
Biddick Hall and you have a development site uh on the former Tudtor Eid uh
43:57
school as well which is uh in progress of development. Um so there's already
44:03
that's a Brownfield replacement but it's on the edge of the green belt.
44:18
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
44:24
Thank you. Um, the issue of the Suds Basin is might not be a green belt
44:31
matter in per se, but you know, it can play such a role in in compensating for
44:37
the the loss of habitat. Um the prospect of a dry Suds basin would be such an
44:44
anomaly um given the proximity of the site to to the tile shed burn um and the
44:52
river dawn um and although this is a detail I realize that it's such an
44:57
important one that you know we we would ask that you consider um adding this to
45:03
the list of site requirements. As far as the list of site requirements are
45:08
concerned, you know, we are grateful to our planning colleagues for you know
45:14
allowing the recognition of the uh East W neighborhood plan. Um and of course uh
45:21
its design code. Um for us one of the most important um
45:28
items of that list um is how the public right of ways and cycle ways um are to
45:36
be improved. Um without that it is really difficult to see how any
45:42
development on this site um could work without so severely affecting the lives
45:47
of people who live in the village. um it it would be um such an emission. Um I'll
45:55
talk a little bit about that in in infrastructure if if you don't mind. um
46:00
the the um openness of the site um to
46:06
East Balden Neighborhood Forum um and the opportunity that it provides of for
46:13
the people, the protection that it gives to the um to nature um the openness that
46:19
it provides um it would be a great loss to to East Balden. Um
46:26
so as we've said sir the improvements that that we can make would be the the
46:33
mitigation of a sizable piece of land to the north and all of the items that are
46:40
set out in the statement of understanding. Thank you.
46:47
Thank you. Is it further point Mr. Butler? Thank you sir. Um the key considerations
46:52
for for GA2 uh described by the council are many of options for enhancements in the green belts surrounding each site in
47:01
uh the the appendix and uh we don't feel uh that this this menu goes far enough.
47:08
Um it does not detail the entire potential enhancement measures suggested in the green belt study at uh uh
47:16
paragraph 2.23. uh the proposed biodiversity enhancements to the land to the east.
47:22
Mr. Thompson's already mentioned uh this um also is part of uh the proposals in
47:29
the studies to join up the wildlife corridors uh and provide um more
47:34
assistance along the tile sheds burn. Um the land to the east has been designated
47:42
in the wildlife corridors network and we'll come on to this later for its biodiversity value and um there is
47:49
clearly uh the opportunity uh to provide uh wider uh measures as suggested in the
47:56
green belt study. Um these include uh planting along the tar sheds burn
48:02
towards the river dawn uh and obviously the enhancement of the public rights
48:08
away network as Mr. Thompson has suggested enhancements to the west farm meadows site of special scientific
48:14
interest as well. Um so those potentials we don't feel um are sufficiently
48:21
spelled out in the key considerations and the amendment modification sorry to
48:27
the statement of common ground in terms of the exploring opportunities
48:32
to renaturalize the water course is modified to say within the GA2
48:38
allocation boundary. Now this is for land ownership purposes but it's against
48:43
the spirit of what uh is suggested by the green belt study and I would submit
48:48
by the planning policy guidance that if you're going to take a site uh out for exceptional circumstances you should be
48:54
looking to compensatory improvements to the wider green belt area.
49:01
Thank you. Um I'm clear on respective positions in relation to green belt
49:06
harm. So I'll come to a view on that but I would like to just explore this issue of compensatory improvements a bit
49:14
further and the points that are being made now and in in representations.
49:19
So we take the green belt review study um evidence. I think there's various um
49:24
things that are potential enhancement measures that are identified potential mitigation measures. Um the council set
49:33
out in its statement a number of those and they are uh embedded within um the
49:40
kind of key considerations for this site. Is it fair in terms of what I'm being
49:46
told that those kind of key considerations and potential improvements are all within site GA or
49:53
would be with delivered within site GA2. Therefore, not on green belt land as a
49:59
result of this plan.
50:09
Yeah. Um I think the ones that have been sort of identified do relate more specifically to um GA2. I think it's
50:16
worth noting that the appendix C um it's not a prescriptive list of measures
50:22
which must be sort of implemented in terms of each site um coming forward. um
50:27
the the the appendix is quite clear that it says potential mitigation measures um throughout um I think obviously in terms
50:36
of the policy and what's being identified I think there is element of what can um effectively be delivered um
50:42
in terms of the element of control of what where those mitigations mitigation measures could be in terms of what we've
50:50
included within the the key considerations themselves but again I would refer back to the um the
50:55
supporting text to policy which does um lean into sort of wider mitigation
51:01
measures which could be options and considered at a plan application stage
51:06
um which does sort of mention the opportunities for um cycle um route
51:11
improvements, green infrastructure improvements as well throughout the green surrounding green belt.
51:33
Thank you. Thank you. I mean I think the point that's being put to me particularly by the um East Ben and Cleon Labor Party is when we look at
51:40
paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework talks about setting out ways in which the impact of removing
51:46
from land from the green belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and
51:51
accessibility of remaining green belt land. So this clearly land um that's not
51:56
uh that's would remain as green belt. I take the point that the green belt
52:03
review kind of set out potential options and a menu of things. I think Mr. Lammy
52:09
Mr. Lamb is saying, you know, there's there's an effective what can effectively be delivered. Um I don't
52:15
know if you can say any more about whether some of the the wider things that were considered
52:21
uh in terms of potential mitigation or potential enhancement measures in terms
52:26
of the wider uh it talks about enhancements excuse me to West Farm Meadow which I understand
52:33
is a local wildlife site. Um biodiversity uh enhancements to land to
52:40
the east of the site. um perhaps why they haven't
52:47
uh kind of flowed through into the plan itself.
52:52
I think uh in particular with regard to the site um opposite the the proposed allocation obviously that is in in
52:59
private ownership. So in terms of uh deliverability of mitigation measures on that site there may be difficulties um
53:05
in doing that. Um with regard to West Meadows, um I would have to um leers
53:11
with our um National Environment Manager in terms of whether that was in council ownership and whether that is something
53:17
where potentially there could be improvements, but we'll have to take that away.
53:34
Okay. And in terms of the council's referred me a couple of times now to paragraph 517
53:41
and saying you know uh compensated there could be other ways of dealing with compensatory improvements and we this
53:48
could you know come in at part of the planning application stage in terms of the kind of reasonable
53:54
prospect of you are the strategies plans
54:01
in terms of green infrastructure or um walking cycling
54:06
implementation strategies that a scheme could reasonably look to
54:12
uh in terms of compensated improvements. Yes. So the the Southside um green and blue infrastructure strategy does
54:18
identify potential um projects um throughout the burrow which could um
54:23
lend itself to offering um compensatory improvements. Um I know we also have a a
54:29
local walking and cycling strategy as well. Um which I'm sure the other colleagues will be able to speak about
54:35
in a bit more detail. Um but again that offers opportunities for for improvements through across the green
54:40
belt as well in terms of enhancing that um infrastructure.
54:46
I suspect others around the table would like to see a main modification that had a bit more kind of detail around this. I
54:53
don't know if the evidence would exist for that or whether there are uh potential benefits from the council's
55:00
view about maintaining some degree of flexibility as to what kind of compensatory
55:06
improvements could comprise.
55:16
Yeah, I I understand the point you're making here with respect to the wording of the policy and the requirements of
55:22
paragraph 142. So what I'd like to do is have the opportunity to discuss that
55:27
with the council to see um with respect to the various schemes and projects and
55:33
land ownership issues surrounding this within the green belt um whether that we can we can
55:40
uh modify the policy to bring a bit more clarity to to that issue
55:47
so that at development management stage there is the capacity actually to require those improvements.
55:55
Thank you for that. Noted uh Mr. Butler or Mr. Thompson who's going first?
56:03
Mr. Butler. Welcome that comment from from the council. I think it's imperative that if
56:09
this policy is going to work that the uh important elements on compensatory
56:16
improvements in the green belt study and as Mr. Sam has just said in the green and blue infrastructure strategy are
56:22
followed up in terms of if we are to see releases of land from the green belt on
56:28
exceptional circumstances not just this site but across the south timeside green
56:33
belt and I'd also point out that the church commissioners are one of the largest land owners across uh this uh
56:40
green belt area and there is plenty of opportunity for uh the discussions
56:46
between the council and themselves over the other land ownings they have to bring in compensatory improvements.
56:55
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, please. Thank you. Just a very quick quick point. I
57:00
know this might not be specific to to the green belt, but it just seems from a lay person's point of view. If this site
57:08
is covered, twothirds of it is covered by the wildlife corridor, how can
57:13
offsite compensation really address that issue?
57:19
I think in terms of what we're discussing now, Mr. Thompson, it's about the impact on the green belt rather than
57:24
bio biodiversity per se. So, it's the, you know, the openness um and other other purposes, but we will come back to
57:31
biodiversity. Can I hear from Miss Hamson and then we'll come back to the council, please?
57:38
Um, just responding to that point, the church commissioners are committed to looking at other sites within the
57:43
locality to include improvements and enhancements to both the green belt and bio biodiversity net game.
57:59
Thank you. I noted the um suggestion earlier, Mr. Shadow Raven, in terms of
58:05
looking at this. I think that's something I would um like the council to do.
58:11
I anticipated that much. And of course, one has to be aware that 142 isn't
58:18
doesn't direct one's attention to green belt which is near or next to um the
58:24
site in question. Uh so there would be any number of potential projects to which um the applicants um attention
58:32
could be directed. Um um and by reference also to P7.
58:39
Thank you. I thought it was less of an issue yesterday in Felgate because it's clearly a direct opportunity. I mean,
58:46
we're talking obviously about site um G2 today. It may crop up at other sessions.
58:52
I think the council can look at this perhaps strategically and as you say, there may be uh opportunities elsewhere.
58:59
the church commissioners seem to be positively signaling there might be there may be things that the council has
59:06
got in mind too. Um but I think it would be helpful when we look at a number of
59:11
these policies whether there is some further um detail content that could be usefully
59:18
put in to kind of have some further teeth at the uh the development management stage. I think we will deal
59:25
with it more strategically rather than by on a sightby-sight basis so we can have a consistent approach um across the
59:32
allocations um where particularly the allocations are as it were self-contained.
59:40
[Music] No, that's helpful. I appreciate when
59:45
we're looking at a number of sites they're relatively um they're of a certain scale relatively modest scale in
59:52
overall terms. um that reflect land ownerships.
59:57
Um so um yes, I think it think about the
1:00:02
overall extent of the green belt as well in South Tinside. To my mind that seems to lean into more of a strategic
1:00:08
approach rather than necessarily because I understand the green belt study has referred to um land uh and Mr. W's
1:00:17
client's control and I think they we have to be realistic about implementation and delivery if that site
1:00:23
is not available um for those purposes. Inevitably um if it's to be treated on
1:00:29
that basis then it may be more appropriate not to look at the allocations themselves but SP7 the
1:00:34
strengthening SP7 which will be applicable at development management stage but we can think about that.
1:00:45
Thank you, Mr. Butler. I noted you sort of initially said, you know, I think welcome the council having a further
1:00:51
look at this. My assurance to you in terms of if they come come up with something further,
1:00:57
uh I will be taking a view as to whether I'll invite people to comment on whatever the outcome of that process is
1:01:03
either whilst we're sitting in examination hearings or if we get to the stage of proposed main modifications. to
1:01:11
my mind this will be in a main modification territory. There will then be an opportunity for everybody to
1:01:17
comment on whether the council's suggestion um one of a better phrase
1:01:23
fixes the issue. Everybody will be given an opportunity to comment at that stage. Uh thank you sir. If it's helpful uh
1:01:30
I'll be making the same representations tomorrow on site G4 also in the ownership of the church commissioners.
1:01:39
Uh Mr. W please. Thank you, Sarah. I I think it's appropriate to mention, albeit the the
1:01:45
land to the east that it was put forward by Belway Homes in March 2024, that their site has the ability clearly
1:01:52
subject to allocation um to provide compensating improvements with the land to the north, which is in flood zones
1:01:57
two and three.
1:02:03
Thank you. Okay, I'm going to move on in terms of the the agenda. Thank you for those um contributions. Um I note the
1:02:11
action point um from the council that they're going to to look into. That's helpful. Thank you. Uh by moving to item
1:02:18
three, it relates to my MIQ 531. Again, it's looking at green belt uh
1:02:24
releases and exceptional circumstances um that any alterations and release of land is well related to or can be well
1:02:32
served by um a variety of transport including public um transport. uh and
1:02:39
I'd invite comments um submissions at this stage about how well this particular site proposed site is in
1:02:46
terms of its relationship to facilities in East Balden and whether the site is
1:02:51
well served by um public transport but in terms of the council first please and
1:02:56
it's picking up my MIQ 531. Thank you. Thank you sir. Yes, the site is well
1:03:03
related to um services and facilities in East Balden. Firstly, dealing with
1:03:11
retail services. There are three clusters of retail
1:03:16
um and other community services within East Balden. So, these are at Front
1:03:22
Street, St. beads which is otherwise known as black black's corner and
1:03:28
station terrace stroke Langhome Road and the first two designations
1:03:34
are identified as local neighborhood hubs in
1:03:40
the local plan and station Terrace Langome Road road is
1:03:47
designated as a local center and that reflects the evidence from the retail
1:03:52
study in particular the uh local centers and neighborhood hubs commentary and recommendations which is
1:04:00
the MP5
1:04:05
and in terms of um that study uh really emphasized that the local center
1:04:12
performed very very well conducted a health check um so
1:04:18
we feel that it's um got very strong
1:04:23
um attributes in terms of proximity to
1:04:29
those kind of community services and and retail provision.
1:04:35
In terms of active travel opportunities, appendix 8 of the
1:04:41
infrastructure delivery plan identifies both an existing travel and a
1:04:48
proposed active travel route close to the site. So moving on to
1:04:54
public transport, the site is well served by bus routes
1:05:00
and it's approximately 1 kilometer from East Boulder Metro Station. Um so we
1:05:08
feel this is a a really important attribute of the site. it's within walking distance
1:05:15
um and and on a bus route um linking it
1:05:20
to the metro line. And table four, the council's response
1:05:26
to MIQ 5.31 provides details of bus services.
1:05:32
Thank you. And I see from the council's map five in
1:05:37
its statement and observed on site that there are bus routes going along New
1:05:42
Road um to the north and some along Bokeh Lane as well. Mr. Mail.
1:05:50
Yes sir. I'm just going to reiterate the point that the council has got an adopted local cycling and walking
1:05:55
infrastructure plan. Um we've worked with local communities on formulating that plan. was adopted in 2021.
1:06:03
Um, and we've got a number of cycle routes in and around the site that we would like to bring forward, namely the
1:06:10
184 that runs sort of through the villages. Um, we appreciate that this
1:06:15
carriageway is indeed residential bound. But that said, we would like to think there's a there's a real opportunity to
1:06:21
build synergy between the Soland area and indeed facilitating links into the
1:06:26
the the Testo roundabout and then accessibility into the Gates Head and Newcastle wider areas. Thanks, sir.
1:06:39
Thank you. I can turn to um Mr. Thompson first for the forum, please.
1:06:47
Thank you very much. Um just picking up a couple of points there. Um firstly the the distance from
1:06:55
the site um to the to the um shopping facilities. The main shopping facilities
1:07:01
are located uh in Langham Road um next to the metro station. And whilst it
1:07:08
probably is one kilometer as the crow flies, um the actual travel distance
1:07:14
from the bottom of of the site will be much much greater. It requires if you're
1:07:19
walking along um lit uh footpaths, a journey that would take you south to the
1:07:27
front street, you would have to walk along front street till you hit Whitburn Road. Then you would have to walk down
1:07:33
Whitburn Road to the shops. Uh this is a convoluted route. Um
1:07:39
the point um about access using um
1:07:45
uh public right of ways we deal with a little later in the agenda but I just
1:07:51
want to touch on that now. um the the route uh from the bottom of the site,
1:07:57
the north end of the site to tile sheds crossing where a public right of way begins, a cycle way begins is extremely
1:08:05
dangerous. It's an 800 wide footpath uh and all of the cyclists in this area
1:08:11
reported incidents uh around safety. So there there would be a need to upgrade
1:08:16
that. The condition of the public right ofway, the cycle way that runs parallel
1:08:22
to the metro line um from the crossing to the metro station uh is in a
1:08:28
deplorable and dangerous uh condition. To talk about a cycleway along the 184
1:08:37
is fanciful really. There is not enough space for a safe cycle lane. Um the
1:08:43
traffic um along that route is horrendous. Um and when we've talked uh
1:08:49
to the council about this issue, it's well recognized that uh the for cyclists
1:08:56
coming through East Balden um it is a very very dangerous area. Uh in our
1:09:01
submission to regulation 19, we we we included information regarding the
1:09:07
impact uh of of policies on East Balden. Um health services are in Balden Collure
1:09:14
and the background papers indicate there's little opportunities for new opportunity uh for facilities in the
1:09:20
village. Um the metro station car park
1:09:26
um is over capacity. Uh it's a significant problem for local businesses
1:09:32
and residents. Um the council has failed to properly identify how this issue can
1:09:37
be resolved. Um cars are left for long periods in residential streets and the
1:09:43
parking in clean lane for the industrial park is clogged with commute vehicles.
1:09:48
Um a car park extension at the metro station is identified in the investment
1:09:55
development plan. um and is considerably a desirable priority. Um it requires a
1:10:03
feasibility study. Uh it's earmarked for a million pound in terms of funding with
1:10:09
an indicative phasing of 2035. However, you know, East Bold
1:10:14
Neighborhood Forum questioned the feasibility of this proposal. The council failed to deal with the matter
1:10:20
as part of the planning process for the 202 house at Cleven Lane in part because
1:10:26
of the difficulty in finding appropriate land. And finally, sir, the bus routes
1:10:33
are good for this site. The problem is the bus service isn't. Um there's a an
1:10:40
hourly service which goes down to two hours um that that links this area to
1:10:45
the metro station. And the reality of the situation is most people who live in the village and beyond drive to the
1:10:54
shops um parking the council are aware that they've they've had recent intervention to to try and resolve this
1:11:01
situation and it is extremely difficult. The prospect of another 200 odd houses
1:11:08
coming forward will only make matters much worse. Thank you
1:11:15
Mr. Butler. Uh thank you sir. Um the the phrase is well served by public transport. Um map
1:11:23
five shows uh lots of bus stops. Um the table four shows this service. Um one of
1:11:32
the key uh services uh through the village uh from the uh complex here at
1:11:39
Balden through to South Shields is the number 30. that service has been reduced
1:11:45
to an hourly service in recent years from a half hourly service. Um, if we are talking about the ability
1:11:53
of u new residents for this development being able to access the post office uh
1:12:00
on front street um the convenience store there or perhaps more importantly the
1:12:05
chemist and the uh larger uh supermarket station terrace or wishing to link up
1:12:11
with the metro. As Mr. Thompson has indicated this is not going to be an easy task if you don't have a car uh and
1:12:18
you're going to be uh living on on on that estate. Um the issue of the metro car park uh
1:12:25
was raised uh last week on two occasions uh by uh representatives of Belway. This
1:12:32
car park has been an issue for East Balden for many, many years. And despite the lobbying of local labor counselors
1:12:39
with Nexus uh over that period, the inability to find an answer to a car
1:12:46
park that's been at capacity that spills over into residential streets and into the Cleveland Lane industrial estate
1:12:52
area is a severe problem that has failed to be resolved. Um during the
1:12:59
preparations for the neighborhood plan uh when we were considering the impact of uh the the failure of the metro car
1:13:07
park, we had discussions with Nexus about the possibility of a uh small bus,
1:13:14
mini bus uh service that could run from uh two hubs. could run from clean east
1:13:21
balden library along um front street and downstation road and terminate at the
1:13:29
metro station. This is something I think that with new technology uh we used to
1:13:34
talk about dialeride uh services in in many in many towns and villages new technology with apps etc could be a
1:13:42
viable service. So if we're looking um to develop a site such as this uh and
1:13:49
you are money to improve it, we really need to see uh big improvements in
1:13:54
public transport provision uh for places like East Balden. If not, the amount of
1:13:59
car ownership that will be generated by the site like this will further clog the
1:14:04
roads and we're going to come on to the issue of the road junctions later. So intervention um in terms of uh making
1:14:11
public transport more attractive to those future residents is essential in our view.
1:14:23
Thank you. Um Mr. Male, in terms of the issues that raised there, please.
1:14:28
Thank you, sir. Um I think as I said yesterday I think uh it's important to raise in terms of public transport that
1:14:34
there's a strong desire within the northeast combined authority to take over the control of the bus industry and
1:14:40
indeed the representations just made there regarding demand responsive transport are something that as a
1:14:47
council we haven't got an ability to bring forward such services under the current regulated deregulated market. I
1:14:53
think the desire of the Northeast may which is supported by Southside Council would in fact allow us to make key
1:14:59
decisions of this ilk. But again, I think it's important to raise that in any likelihood of a plan application
1:15:05
coming forward, we would probably foresee the need in a transport assessment being undertaken and those
1:15:11
respective requests such as improved public transport could be probably considered. Just to reiterate the point
1:15:19
that I made earlier, I wasn't reflecting on the 184 being a desired cycle corridor. It was the interconnectivity.
1:15:25
It's a residential bound carriageway. The desire would be to make improvements on Gordon Drive South Lane to then
1:15:33
connect to the wider um routing. So, apologies for not that clarification earlier, but thanks. Cheers,
1:15:40
Mr. Clifford, please. I'd just like to add to what I said
1:15:47
previously, point out uh I mentioned where there are clusters of retail activity and services
1:15:55
within pretty much the immediate vicinity or close vicinity of the site. There's also individual shops, there's a
1:16:02
library, um I think there's a pub. So, um,
1:16:08
local residents would in the immediate, you'll be able to to see this for yourself when you when you visit the
1:16:14
site. Um, there are facilities very close to the site.
1:16:32
Thank you again. And I think this will be uh a matter for my assessment. I you
1:16:38
know visiting the site where we'll take into account some of the issues that have been uh the issues that have been
1:16:44
raised uh this morning when I go back to kind of look at the some of the quality of these um these connections but I
1:16:51
think I'm clear on um respective uh positions on this. Mr. M is it
1:16:58
something further? Yeah it was just to provide further clarification. The current car park that joins East Boulder Metro Station is an
1:17:04
asset of network rail. Um I think we have over the years have campaigned
1:17:11
alongside Nexus to to see a sizable increase in that car park provision. I think the the re rationale as to why
1:17:19
that hasn't come forward has been private land ownership around the particular site. Um and I think that
1:17:24
there has been various representations um over the years to try and make this happen. Um, again, I think we would
1:17:32
advocate the need to improve that car parking facility, but again, it's it's not a council asset at this moment in
1:17:37
time. Thanks. Thank you. I see it is identified in the
1:17:42
council's infrastructure delivery plan and I think um it's been referred to me where that kind of sits in that that
1:17:48
process. I mean, is it you mentioned a moment ago, Mr. mail. You know, if this
1:17:53
site was allocated then subsequently be a planning application, a transport assessment, would the metro and
1:18:00
connectivity to the metro be part potentially be part of that assessment process?
1:18:07
Yes. Yes, sir. That that's correct.
1:18:26
Thank you. I'm going to move on to item four. Uh in terms of sort of brought a
1:18:32
number of things together as uh under the umbrella of achieving a well-designed place, I think it's
1:18:38
understanding um the ability of policy GA2
1:18:43
to work in tandem with the East Balden neighborhood plan and the separately published East Balden um design guide.
1:18:50
This was my MIQ um 3.2 and I think just an the policy obviously requires having
1:18:57
regard to um these two um separate documents.
1:19:02
Um if this plan is found sound and adopted, it doesn't take away that there will
1:19:08
still be a neighborhood plan and a design guide. Um, and you is that an
1:19:13
effective approach or does there need to be more detail within policy SP7 at GA2
1:19:21
that picks up design matters or some of the matters that are already contained within the
1:19:27
neighborhood plan or the design guide? I can ask the council first in terms of
1:19:33
its response to my MIQ um 5.32. I don't think there's any sort of
1:19:39
proposed modifications and that kind of cross reference to the neighborhood plan and sign guard is
1:19:46
sufficient. Uh no, so there was no proposed modifications to that part of the policy. Um the the council are confident
1:19:52
that the local plan is clear that development proposals in neighborhood plan areas should be informed by the
1:19:58
neighborhood plans. So that's sat set set out in paragraph 110 of the local plan and then reiterated again in policy
1:20:05
SP1 criterion 3. And as you mentioned, it's it's also one of the key considerations of policy GA2.
1:20:21
Thank you. I think I've read from the church commissioner's um statement there's no objection or concern about
1:20:29
having this reference back having regard to the the neighborhood plan and design guide.
1:20:36
No, we welcome the inclusion of it in the policy and likewise we don't think specific design elements from that need
1:20:42
to be deep placed in the policy for the plan to be found sound.
1:21:06
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. And then Mr. Butler or Mr. Butler, then Mr. Thompson.
1:21:12
Thank you, sir. Um, achieving well-designed places is is something that that really is dear to the hearts
1:21:19
of of of the East Balden Forum and all of those who support it. Um it is
1:21:24
absolutely critical in our opinion for the um neighborhood plan and its design
1:21:31
guide um to be highlighted uh as a site requirement and we're grateful for our
1:21:37
planning colleagues to actually put it within the body of the draft local plan.
1:21:42
um the impact of of of the the neighborhood
1:21:48
plan um can have a a really important effect in delivering good design and and
1:21:54
we we've seen that. Um don't know if Mr. Horseman is is with us today. Yes, he
1:21:59
is. And you know, he was able to use the the neighborhood plan to very good effect in the early stages of the Cleon
1:22:06
Lane design. However, anything within the the draft
1:22:12
uh plan that improves the prospect um of
1:22:17
good design has got to be welcomed and we've made several comments um on on
1:22:23
policy matters as part of our response to the council in how the plan could be
1:22:28
improved. Um I I just want to talk about the difficulty in achieving good design.
1:22:36
It's something very very dear to to my heart. The big problem that that we have
1:22:41
at the minute is the council continues to to fail its housing
1:22:47
delivery test and and there is this issue of of you know um I forget the
1:22:53
term but where where where schemes are put forward many of the policies have to
1:22:58
be put one side Mr.
1:23:04
presumption in favor. Presumption in favor. Thank you very much. Um and you know that is used by
1:23:12
developers to undermine the the the uh effect of the neighborhood plan. It's
1:23:18
it's used to undermine many of the policies within the existing framework.
1:23:23
Um so you know anything that we can do to to address that has got to be welcomed. And you know if this comes
1:23:31
through and the neighborhood plan is there we will work with our colleagues with the the idea of achieving good
1:23:38
design in mind. The big problem that we've got though um and it comes to
1:23:44
capacity is the issue of the impact on other
1:23:49
parts of the the village. This site can't be seen in glorious isolation.
1:23:55
its development has a massive impact on the other parts of East Balden Village.
1:24:02
Um, and we just can't brush that under the carpet. Um, yes, we can achieve
1:24:07
within the periphery of the site, you know, those aims. Hopefully we can, but
1:24:13
the impact of of the traffic and the way services uh will be accessed, the impact
1:24:20
on schools and other things that I know we'll come on to um just can't be be
1:24:25
magicked away. Um these numbers will have a profound effect on the lives of
1:24:31
people um especially those who live in houses along the A184 front street as we
1:24:38
call it locally. Um but nevertheless um we we are we are grateful um and we do
1:24:45
hope that you're able to to support the aims of the council in in in in
1:24:50
supporting the neighborhood plan. Thank you Mr. Butler.
1:24:56
Yes. Uh thank you sir. I think um from regulation 18 to to regulation 19, we've
1:25:02
seen uh a strengthening of the relationship between uh the proposed local plan and the neighborhood plan
1:25:09
following representations made by East Balden neighborhood forum. And I think that that is vital and as Mr. Thompson
1:25:16
has said um the we started a process uh
1:25:21
with the uh developers at Clean Lane where they made a submission uh without
1:25:27
any reference to a made neighborhood plan. Uh the uh inability of the
1:25:34
development industry to understand the importance of of a neighborhood plan and its design guide uh you took a lot of
1:25:43
effort from our point of view. So, so it is vital uh that if this site comes
1:25:49
forward uh that it's assessed by council officers in relation to the East Balden
1:25:55
design code uh and in relation to the detailed policies in the East Balden
1:26:00
neighborhood plan. Thank you. Thank you. And the site itself is
1:26:05
allocated for uh an indicative kind of capacity of 263 dwellings. The second
1:26:11
part of my item four agenda is about the capacity of the site to accommodate
1:26:16
sustainably accommodate uh 263 dwellings from a kind of a character or
1:26:23
design um perspective. So we're kind of jumping slightly to my MIQ539
1:26:30
um and perhaps invite the council at this stage as to how it's looked at arriving at that capacity. Um I'd
1:26:37
reference the site frameworks evidence and obviously through the strategic housing land availability
1:26:44
assessment as well. Miss Cooper. Yeah. So as we discussed uh last week I
1:26:50
think it was the site capacity as a starting point was based on the schlaw methodology um of a 75% net developable
1:26:58
area and 35 dwellings per hectare based on the location of the site. Um and
1:27:03
that's been sort of supported through the vision and work that the um site promoters have submitted throughout the
1:27:09
local plan process. Um the site frameworks document sets out the sort of key constraints on the site such as the
1:27:17
existing hedge rows, the small water course on the site. Um and it just sort
1:27:23
of demonstrates that they can be mitigated within the site while retaining that that development
1:27:28
capacity.
1:27:42
and sorry that um 35 dwells per day sort of in keeping with the surrounding area
1:27:47
as well.
1:28:00
Thank you. If I can just um come to either the neighborhood forum or the the
1:28:05
the Labor Party on this particular point. It was my MIQ
1:28:11
539 um in terms of the capacity of this site. Were this site to go forward um
1:28:19
into um a plan that I consider would be sound. I appreciate Mr. Thompson you
1:28:26
sort of inviting me in sort of two steps. one not to include this site but a kind of an alternative of a
1:28:34
uh a smaller a smaller parcel understand as a consequence of that would be it' be
1:28:40
less than 263 um dwellings.
1:28:46
Yes. Um thank you. uh the the effect on the wildlife corridor of course is
1:28:53
probably one of the most important aspects of this but then the numbers that affect the the rest of the village
1:28:59
uh as I've tried to outline um is is is of such significance um that that you
1:29:06
know we we honestly believe the capacity of this site should be be reduced and
1:29:12
land made available for for true compensation. um you know not in some
1:29:17
other area of the burough but in in a in a way that compensates I know this might
1:29:23
not be a legal requirement but does compensate people who live and enjoy the
1:29:29
village for the loss of that land. Um it it it it really is such an insult to to
1:29:36
people to to say you know everything will be all right. We'll compensate for the loss of green belt by doing some
1:29:43
planting uh in heaven. It it it really is is very upsetting. Um so yes, we we
1:29:50
would strongly urge you if you minded for this site to come forward to consider uh our representation
1:29:57
in terms of reducing the area um and and limiting the numbers. And you know as
1:30:04
far as um site density is concerned um a lot of that depends upon the type of and
1:30:11
form of the building that that that that we go forward with. We make the case elsewhere on this agenda um for housing
1:30:18
for elderly. You know um a threetory block for for for people who have
1:30:24
retired offers the means of increasing the density without loss of public space without loss of planting and and so on
1:30:31
and so forth. Thank you.
1:30:39
Thank you, Mr. Butler. Uh, thank you, sir. Yes, for the reasons outlined by Mr. Thompson and and and the
1:30:44
forum, uh, the the Labour Party would agree if you are minded to approve this allocation, it should be on a much
1:30:50
reduced site area, and you've heard the evidence as to how that could be achieved, uh, taking out the, uh,
1:30:58
northern one-third of the site. And I'd echo the the the points made about um
1:31:03
what type of development would then occur on the remainder of the site as to whether the number of units would be
1:31:08
reduced. Um we noticed in the viability study uh that uh a standard suggestion
1:31:15
of medium and larger scale dwellings is is the one that's been judged for
1:31:21
viability. Um however there will have to be uh uh 25% at least affordable housing
1:31:29
uh which will come on to and those units would be smaller. So there is the ability uh for any developer to come up
1:31:36
with a scheme uh that would have much less impact and would not mean the the
1:31:42
release of so much
1:32:12
Thank you. I can obviously go back through the evidence. Can the council remind me was this uh site allocation
1:32:18
through the strategic housing land availability assessment presented as one site or was it presented as two separate
1:32:26
individual parcels? Um just the allocation. Yeah, that was just one site. One site. Okay.
1:32:46
Thank you. Well, I'll take a view on what I've heard and um
1:32:52
in relation to the capacity uh of the site and the wider the wider issues obviously of the northern parcel I felt
1:33:00
was necessary to come out for soundness and I'm not saying I do at this stage obviously I understand that would have an implication on the overall capacity
1:33:06
of what this site could could deliver. I don't think there's an alternative of um 263 could be
1:33:14
uh reasonably accommodated on the remaining balance. So I think from all the evidence it's um the wider the whole
1:33:21
site is is needed to achieve um those housing um numbers.
1:33:27
Okay, thank you for that. I'm going to at this stage before we get into mass fire, I think probably a convenient
1:33:32
point to take a midm morning um adjournment before we come back to infrastructure. Uh, as I'm sure there's
1:33:38
plenty to say on item five. Um, I'm going to advocate a slightly shorter um
1:33:45
midm morning break because there kind of less of us here today. If we can be back at this room for half 11.
1:33:51
Thank you. And I'll resume the hearing session. Thank you.
1:46:34
Okay, it's coming up to half past 11, so it's time for me to resume uh these hearing sessions, please. Uh back onto
1:46:41
the agenda for uh this site at Landon North Farm, East Balden. And item five
1:46:47
uh and this picks up a couple of my MIQ um questions. The first I want to deal
1:46:52
with is probably more around social infrastructure at MI534.
1:46:59
Uh and my sort of question to the council and others at that time as there are no kind of uh social or other
1:47:07
infrastructure kind of considerations requirements identified in the policy itself whether that's justified approach
1:47:14
or whether the council's uh identified through its wider evidence base. there are issues that need to be
1:47:22
addressed. We recognize that it's identified in the infrastructure delivery plan and the normal approach
1:47:29
presumably would be around you know section 106 contributions where where
1:47:35
required. Mr. Clifford, thank you sir.
1:47:40
There are social infrastructure implications as has uh quite rightly been referenced the other side of the
1:47:46
table from this development. Um but we feel they can be dealt with through the
1:47:52
standard development management approach section 106 contributions.
1:47:58
Um in terms of uh what those implications are, well firstly regarding
1:48:06
primary school places, the assessment in the infrastructure delivery plan has identified that West Balden Primary
1:48:14
School and Whitburn Primary School could be
1:48:19
appropriately extended to accommodate the the impacts.
1:48:25
And I will point out that West Balden Primary School is highly accessible from
1:48:31
the proposed allocation. I acknowledge these distances are as the crow flies. Um but uh it's approximately
1:48:42
6 um 50 mters from the western boundary of
1:48:48
the site and 900 meters from the eastern boundary.
1:48:55
And regarding secondary school places, the the assessment shows that Balden
1:49:01
Secondary School has the potential to accommodate pupils from
1:49:06
the residential development in the area.
1:49:19
So I feel that we acknowledge there are social infrastructure implications
1:49:25
but they can be addressed through the relevant development management
1:49:31
policies. Peace.
1:49:51
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Next, please. Just a quick question, sir. Would the
1:49:57
officer confirm that he's putting forward Whitburn Primary School as a
1:50:02
means of satisfying the the extra numbers from this site?
1:50:08
Thank you, Mr. Cle. I mean, is this because there kind of schools are kind of or catchments are grouped by
1:50:15
particular area? Yeah, it's been assessed on a on an area basis. So I mean the way in which
1:50:20
primary schools are uh primary school need is is assessed it's divided into
1:50:26
six areas and this is area six which is the villages.
1:50:32
So it's assessed on an area basis. So it's the cumulative requirement from all
1:50:37
of the allocations in that uh in that area. Obviously,
1:50:43
first and foremost, given its its proximity, I would imagine West Balden
1:50:49
uh Primary School will play the the lead role. Um I I would also just add to what
1:50:55
I said that um there are specific policies in the plan which um cater for
1:51:05
uh which address um the development management requirements.
1:51:11
So for example, you have policy SP25 which is infrastructure
1:51:17
um and policy 59 which is delivering
1:51:25
infrastructure policy 60 developer contributions and policy 50 social and
1:51:30
community infrastructure. So when you look at the plan as a whole we've got we feel the strong policy
1:51:37
basis for addressing impacts
1:51:49
Thank you. Before I bring others in, Mr. Clifford, just to kind of complete the the circle, does the infrastructure
1:51:56
delivery plan identify um some of these potential um solutions
1:52:04
that you referred to particularly in terms of say West Balden Primary School? Does that have a a scheme or a project
1:52:11
in there. It doesn't have a specific project but
1:52:17
it does identify the need. Um it is referenced within the education section
1:52:25
there is a uh at the end of the education section of the infrastructure delivery plan. Uh there's a delivery
1:52:33
section if you like which um references sites to
1:52:40
where capacity can be provided. Um so there are schools that can actually
1:52:47
accommodate the demand there. There's it's drilled down to that level.
1:52:55
Thank you uh Mr. Thompson again please and then Mr. Butler. Thank you very
1:53:00
much, sir. Um, can I just say first of all, Witburn Primary School, as the crow
1:53:06
flies, is three miles away from this site. Um, the infant school that currently exists
1:53:14
in East Balden Village is at capacity. It's a Victorian building and there
1:53:19
isn't any room at all for its expansion. Um many many of the uh residents who
1:53:26
spoke to us uh as part of the neighborhood forum consultation highlighted the value of it of its
1:53:32
schools. um the infant school, the uh nursery school uh and the primary
1:53:38
school, the junior school are all outstanding and it's one of the reasons given why people uh want to live in the
1:53:46
village area and that is probably why they're so concerned about these numbers
1:53:52
and the uncertainty uh of of of the authority as as it deals with this this
1:53:57
issue. you know, we don't know um if uh West Balden's primary school um which is
1:54:05
a class building of many years is suitable for expansion. We haven't seen a feasibility study to demonstrate its
1:54:12
capacity. To think that people might have a child at East Balden Junior
1:54:18
School and then have to take another sibling across to Widburn at the same time is just not a sensible way to
1:54:26
proceed. Um from the earlier consultations the the requirements for
1:54:31
school places has has almost doubled. Um the um primary school places in the
1:54:38
Balden area um is now identified as a almost one form entry um that is to say
1:54:45
210 additional um places that are are required. Um so you know th these
1:54:53
numbers and the uncertainty around how the authority will proceed um could
1:54:58
precipitate a a major restructuring of of the education officer um within the
1:55:05
forum area and it's something that people are desperately worried about. Um
1:55:10
it's something um that causes people real concern who have two three and four
1:55:16
children. um juggling that is is is very difficult. But above all, the value of
1:55:22
these existing schools are really important to the to the whole community
1:55:28
really. And we in fairness to people, we need to understand what the implication
1:55:34
of of this site coming forward is as far as education's concerned. There are real
1:55:40
concerns around this issue. Sir, Mr. Butler, please. Uh thank you sir.
1:55:47
Yes, the Labor Party shares those very strong concerns uh given by Mr. Thompson
1:55:54
there. Um we're looking at the moment uh at this particular site uh the Clean
1:56:00
Lane site subject to appeal and and another site uh small Brownfield site
1:56:06
coming along that would amount to 733 new homes. uh when you take into account
1:56:13
uh the um allocation G4 at Mole and Cleon um the IDP25
1:56:22
only produced since uh the uh plan has been brought forward to examination sees
1:56:29
a doubling in the number of additional primary places compared with the IDP 23
1:56:35
uh submitted for the regulation 19 plan. Um there's clearly been a reassessment
1:56:41
based on uh the area of the villages uh that the need for primary places is
1:56:47
going to be severe relating to these housing developments. And to suggest uh
1:56:53
to the community of East Balden uh that Whitburn Primary School is a suitable
1:56:58
alternative uh for their children is just not practical uh in our view. uh as
1:57:06
we see West Balden is being suggested uh not East Balden itself. Um and obviously
1:57:13
we would want to uh examine with the uh local education authority how this would
1:57:20
uh play out in practice uh and obviously discuss with our colleagues uh in the
1:57:26
Balden Collery ward uh where this uh this school is is located.
1:57:31
Um so from th those points of view we have grave concerns uh about the impact
1:57:37
on school places uh and uh the community has long seen that as one of the major
1:57:43
elements of concern relating to additional housing in the village. Thank you.
1:57:56
Thank you. Is council able to advise I mean presuming in this area Mr. Clifford South Tinside as a unitary authority
1:58:04
has the local education authority responsibility. So do you have
1:58:09
colleagues who are kind of pupil forecasting and um working through what
1:58:16
that could mean and where additional capacity might be required. Yes sir. Uh I'd like to respond to a
1:58:24
couple of points but deal with your question first. We do work with school
1:58:29
places planning manager um with IAS very closely and
1:58:35
um the school places planning manager provided the the forecasting work
1:58:42
um not just obviously for this site but for
1:58:48
um the whole local plan demand.
1:58:56
There's a couple of other points I'd like to uh to respond to. Firstly, we're
1:59:01
not advocating that that Whitburn School is necessarily the solution. Um, as I've
1:59:08
stated, it's been looked at on an area basis, that's how obviously in practical
1:59:14
terms, just to reiterate, first and foremost, the school that's closest would be we would envisage playing the
1:59:21
the principal role in relation to this site.
1:59:27
Secondly, in in respect of feasibility, um the council has done high level
1:59:32
feasibility work and where we're referencing schools are capable of being
1:59:38
extended that is informed by that that work.
2:00:09
Thank you Mr. Butler again please. Thank you sir. Relating to uh other
2:00:15
facilities uh we've made a comment in our submission about the uh strain on
2:00:20
the health facilities uh which serve East Balden. Uh the GP practices are
2:00:25
located in Balden Collery although no GP practices in East Balden itself. Uh and
2:00:30
we pointed out that the strain over the last two years led to one GP surgery
2:00:35
temporarily closing its doors to to new patients. Uh we note in the IDP
2:00:42
uh that there is uh the uh recognized uh
2:00:48
difficulties over consultation rooms as the way that they assess uh primary
2:00:54
health care need uh and this is something that we believe uh needs far
2:00:59
more attention uh if we are to see any new housing in the villages.
2:01:05
Thank you. be clear from the position of the Labor the local labor party and um
2:01:12
the East Balden neighborhood forum again coming back to what may may need to be modified in the plan is your sort of
2:01:18
starting point the infrastructure capacity is not there at the moment or
2:01:24
likely to come forward that these sites again should be removed from the plan or if that they go in and remain in the
2:01:30
plan there needs to be more policy content specific specific to this
2:01:37
site, specific to Balden, as opposed to what the council's telling me that there's a a number of policies in the
2:01:43
plan that would also apply to this site in terms of education, health, and other
2:01:49
other requirements. Is that is that the way I should be looking at things?
2:01:54
Yeah. Well, that's that's the case. the the point I'm probably making very badly
2:02:00
is is is the fact that to ordinary people there isn't any clarity um in in
2:02:06
the implications here. You know, we we're not we were led to believe uh at
2:02:12
regulation 18 and 19 a certain number of school places uh would be required which
2:02:18
led people to to to worry. But now at the very late hour we see almost a
2:02:23
doubling of those figures. Um and you know people need to be reassured. Um
2:02:29
people chose to live in East Balden because of the schools and if there if there are fundamental changes to that
2:02:36
education officer offer um th those people need to understand exactly what
2:02:43
it is. um it isn't beyond the realms of of the authority to look at West Balden
2:02:49
Primary School and decide its capacity and whether it can offer um you know a
2:02:55
nursery extension um a a se a junior school extension but
2:03:02
again it it runs through a lot of the issues that we're talking about dear there is this this uncertainty and lack
2:03:11
of clarity which is very worrying being to be honest. Thank you
2:03:17
Mr. Put. Thank you sir. Clearly the starting point of clean east bond labor party is that the uh impact of uh this
2:03:25
site and in addition uh the likely uh development of the Cleveland lane estate
2:03:31
is that the infrastructure demands we're going to come on to to traffic in a minute uh would mean uh the impact would
2:03:39
be so severe on this village we would not want to see the allocations in place. However, uh we have to consider
2:03:45
uh that you may allocate the site and in doing so uh we are trying to show to you
2:03:52
that we don't believe uh should an application come forward immediately after you allocated this site that the
2:03:59
council has the ability to react uh in terms of of uh these facilities. Uh the
2:04:07
viability study suggests that the developer would contribute around 1.3 million pounds towards education in the
2:04:14
section 106 agreement. We have the same issue uh with the Cleveland lane developer. How is that money going to be
2:04:21
used? Is it going to be used to put temporary classrooms on a primary school
2:04:26
site or are we talking about proper uh redevelopment of our older schools? And
2:04:33
so these are key issues that have to be addressed if we're going to see exceptional circumstances
2:04:39
uh position taken with with land taken out of green belt around our villages. Thank you.
2:05:00
Thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to move on to other uh aspects of um infrastructure and second uh area under
2:05:10
item five was impacts on the road network. I include nearby um level
2:05:16
crossings. I think that was a specific reference to network rail and the council's um responded um to that. In
2:05:23
terms of the road net, the wider road network um various things have been identified
2:05:31
um to me or brought to my attention through various representations. I think not least in relation to this site, the
2:05:37
Bokea Lane front street um junction on the A184.
2:05:43
Um
2:05:48
I think in in the first instance I mean I don't know if the council wishes to add anything to what's already before me
2:05:54
in terms of the infrastructure delivery plan which identifies a number of
2:05:59
I'll call them offsite highway um improvement works whe there's anything that could be
2:06:05
said in relation to the timing and delivery particularly the bokea lane of any sort of bokea lane front street
2:06:12
improvement. So the timing delivery will uh depend on
2:06:18
when we receive the planning application and and how that is uh responded to. Um
2:06:25
I can only really reiterate what we we've already stated that um the local
2:06:30
road network assessment has identified which junctions would need to be mitigated
2:06:36
and there's a high level assessment of the mitigation necessary.
2:06:51
Thank you. And that's that's fed into the infrastructure delivery plan.
2:06:56
Yes sir. That that's reflected in the infrastructure delivery plan.
2:07:06
Thank you. If I come to the local community then in terms of I think very
2:07:11
clear from your representations from the forum Mr. Thompson.
2:07:18
Yes. Thank you very much indeed. Um this is probably the most important um
2:07:25
thing I can talk about um this morning and you know I feel a great weight of responsibility here. Um I just need to
2:07:33
explain a little bit about East Balden. You've said sir that you've visited it. You'll have seen that the 184 or as we
2:07:42
we call it Front Street um runs through the length of the old village. Um it's
2:07:49
not dual carriageway. Um traffic comes down to two two lanes. Um
2:07:56
it runs through um houses, um schools,
2:08:03
um shops, pubs, churches that are built up hard against the the highway. It it's
2:08:09
a Victorian inner core. Um
2:08:15
so the traffic that will result from the figures that um Mr. Butler talked about
2:08:20
the the combined um numbers um will have
2:08:26
a huge effect on the people who who live um who work uh who go to school there
2:08:33
who who pray there and like Mr. Hutcherson who goes to the pub there.
2:08:39
Um so our chairperson who is a practicing GP and and can't be with us
2:08:45
today um because of work commitment really wanted me to point out the effects of of noise the effects of air
2:08:53
quality on the health of of people who who live in our village you know especially young children uh especially
2:09:00
those with respiratory conditions.
2:09:05
So that is what we've got to contend with. Um, if I can turn to the 2023
2:09:11
traffic assessment local plan report. Um, it it broadly deals with with the
2:09:17
Baldens um in addressing the the A184, the road that I've just mentioned, and
2:09:23
then it looks separately at New Road. Um, the three junctions that that sort
2:09:30
of affect the Baldens. um starting at at at West Balden is at the Hil the Hilton
2:09:36
Lane um junction uh and then the BA Lane junction that leads to to the the
2:09:43
proposed site and then the Witburn Road junction um or Black's Corner as it's
2:09:48
it's known lately uh locally. Um these are numbered 2021 and 22 in the traffic
2:09:57
assessment local plan. The modeling indicates that there's already queuing to some extent at each junction and
2:10:04
highlights that the additional numbers will require mitigation.
2:10:10
Now, I find traffic assessment re reports extremely difficult to to to
2:10:16
read, but my reading of it suggests that that they feel that normal um
2:10:22
improvements um are extremely difficult to to mitigate. And what they do is they
2:10:30
set out a whole range of possibilities. And I I I use possibilities uh in in a
2:10:38
very deliberate way that that would try and address these additional numbers and
2:10:44
and deal with the additional queuing that that would result. Um but before I
2:10:51
I actually address that the the queueing issue it it is here it is not just about
2:10:59
the delay to drivers you know it is not just about how long someone will sit in the car waiting to get through the
2:11:05
village because of the structure of the village that I've explained it has an impact on the people who live there so
2:11:13
that is important to remember as we we talk about this but the mitigation measures that that
2:11:19
are are discussed in the traffic assessment local plan um seem to revolve
2:11:25
around trying to slow everything down so that um access from side roads can can
2:11:32
be achieved. Um they talk about the introduction of a 20 m an hour um zone.
2:11:38
Um public realm improvements, pedestrian crossings um and smaller large scale
2:11:45
sustainability transport improvements. Um, it also says that there may still be
2:11:51
a requirement uh for local or wider sustainability transport
2:11:56
improvements that might include a park and ride car park extension at at Balden. Um, and we know that the latest
2:12:05
infrastructure delivery plan um in includes a possible uh um work to to
2:12:13
provide that which that we talked about earlier. Um but the mitigation uh
2:12:19
measures also talk about you know um addressing these uh these queuing
2:12:27
situations by uh encouraging home working um providing fast broadband and
2:12:34
the provision of offices within new dwellings. Um it also talks about
2:12:39
restricting parking provision. Um and it also talks about providing
2:12:46
cycle parking and ensuring development encourages sustainable travel um
2:12:52
particularly to local facilities through their design something that we also talked about earlier. Now
2:13:01
perhaps apart from restricting parking provision
2:13:07
all of these measures are lordable um and the neighborhood plan supports them.
2:13:13
but to believe that these measures will actually deliver effective outcomes that
2:13:18
that will make the people's lives who live along the 184 bearable I think is
2:13:26
at best fanciful. But to say that you're going to restrict parking um in a village setting would
2:13:34
just lead to absolute chaos. And it's a concept I think that's been you know dismissed. I I remember pickles in
2:13:41
parliament talking about you know th this this concept as being nonsensical
2:13:46
and that new developments that come forward with that concept would just it would just ended in chaos with people
2:13:53
parting on footpaths and so on. Um so that's the 184 these these these three
2:14:00
junctions. Um and it if I turn now to the uh new road situation um the the uh
2:14:08
traffic assessment local plan report um looks at junction two and that's that's
2:14:14
the junction the intersection of both lane and new road where it does recognize that improvements can be made
2:14:21
physical improvements improvements can be made and I think uh a budget of
2:14:27
£300,000 has been included did for that. Uh it
2:14:32
looks at the um mini roundabout at the um tile shed end of New Road. Um and in
2:14:41
spite of their um drawings indicating queuing, it doesn't identify any work
2:14:48
that's necessary, which to people who live in the area find it immensely strange because it's probably one of the
2:14:54
most dangerous mini roundabouts that exists in the whole authority. However,
2:14:59
the report does not study the implication of a further junction
2:15:05
between these two. Um, and that is the access proposed into the site from from
2:15:10
from North Road. Um, and it seems to be a a real missed opportunity to to give
2:15:17
evidence to everyone uh concerned with this of of how it might work. But clearly if if we do
2:15:24
introduce a junction between these two points
2:15:30
there's m major consideration. Will it be a mini roundabout? Will it be traffic lights? And what will that do to to
2:15:37
queueing um at these junctions? And and will that impact on on the crossings at
2:15:43
um at tile sheds? So um a lot a lot of a lot of um you know ideas put forward but
2:15:51
not none that we can see will really affect um the village. Um the
2:15:58
infrastructure delivery plan 2025 um does contain budgets. Um the new road
2:16:06
book lane junction that I've just talked about does have the £300,000
2:16:12
uh included. Um it's classed as essential uh work and a feasibility
2:16:18
study is required. The 184 Front Street Sent Road B 1229 station road junction
2:16:25
uh at East Ben Blacks Corner as I referred to it earlier. There is a cost of £250,000.
2:16:32
It's classed as essential. Um the 184 Front Street Balain junction, the
2:16:37
junction immediately um adjacent to the site. Um there's a it's classed as uh
2:16:44
essential and there's a cost of a half a million pound. The A184 Hilton Road
2:16:50
Junction at West Balden, there is a a budget of £750,000 and that's classed as critical. On the
2:16:57
one hand, we see the earlier reports saying that mitigation can't actually be
2:17:03
improved through physical improvements apart from the junction of new road and
2:17:08
bokea lane. Um, and they put forward all of these uh other means of of trying to
2:17:14
address the problem. And and yet the infrastructure delivery plan has all of these massive budgets in place, but
2:17:21
there is actually no detail. Nobody's explaining to local people what this
2:17:27
would look like in reality, how it would work, how it would impact um the
2:17:32
village. And that that is really important. It's a really important emission.
2:17:39
Um the council's 2025 instructor delivery plan also has an allocation for
2:17:45
car park extension at East Balden Metro Station, which we've talked about. a
2:17:50
million pounds is identified for that. It's classed as desirable, but again
2:17:57
there is no detail whatsoever. Um Okay. Um Mr. Thompson, quite a bit there
2:18:03
to you've been through. I understand it's a significant issue. Yes, I do apologize. I think I could put
2:18:10
a glass eye to sleep on on on this matter, but I just feel it's so important to try and make the point. So, I do apologize.
2:18:16
Please don't. I mean this is uh significant you know serious matters
2:18:21
we're talking about so it's important that I I hear and understand uh what
2:18:27
communities are telling me just again coming back to where I may need to take
2:18:32
things and what you would like me to sort of come away from this with is your submission Mr. Thompson that the plan
2:18:39
needs more evidence or more detail on transport
2:18:45
uh highway improvements or that what's being sort of put in the sort of the package of uh measures within the
2:18:51
supporting evidence is will not be sufficient or is it a combination of the two?
2:18:57
I think in the first instance um it won't be effective. it won't provide um
2:19:03
measures that could allow the village to deal with these additional numbers that
2:19:08
that come forward. I think the second point is you know the lack of clarity um
2:19:15
and being um allowing the community to understand what is required um is a maj
2:19:24
major emission in in my my humble opinion. So those they're they're the two two main points.
2:19:32
Thank you. Obviously Mr. Thompson's taken us through in quite a bit of detail there, Mr. Butler. You may well agree with a lot of what he said, but be
2:19:39
particularly interested if you've got any sort of further or additional points you may wish to bring to my attention.
2:19:45
Thank you, sir. Yes, a comprehensive uh explanation really of the concerns of
2:19:50
the community in relation to our road network and the difficulties we have. Um
2:19:58
the there's no doubt um the traffic assessment has shown that the junctions
2:20:04
uh in East Balden are at capacity uh at mornings and particularly at evening
2:20:10
peaks and any further traffic generated by this development, by the Cleon Lane
2:20:16
development and by the development of Mor Lane in Cleon uh where those drivers
2:20:22
will undoubtedly pass through East Balden will uh exacerbate the the
2:20:28
current problems uh which uh are fairly unique with having uh a major level
2:20:34
crossing for gated and two other level crossings partially gated uh in the in
2:20:40
the area as well. Um we're at loss to see uh how the proposed mitigations in
2:20:48
the traffic assessment will provide this solution. The things that Mr. Thompson's
2:20:53
explained to you and we're also at a loss at the moment to understand the concepts of the any improvements to the
2:21:02
key junctions that this site would serve. Um monies have been allocated uh
2:21:10
talk of the um schemes being looked at in 2030. Uh Mr. Clifford saying these
2:21:17
would be matters for a traffic assessment uh following a planning application. Um these issues just would
2:21:26
not uh be sufficient as far as the community are concerned. We've had some
2:21:32
improvements made to the traffic signaling network on the 184. Um some smart signaling work, but the cues are
2:21:38
still there. um cues to Sunderland football club, the
2:21:43
cues to the Sunderland Greyhound Stadium that constantly come through the village. Uh those matters uh make it
2:21:51
very difficult uh for for for people to move around. Um so from those points of
2:21:56
view totally echo the evidence that you've heard from uh the forum over
2:22:02
those issues. Uh could I go on now sir to the to the level crossings themselves?
2:22:08
Yeah. Thank you. Um in terms of uh the council's evidence, uh it says that um
2:22:17
the matter for the level crossings again would be subject to a transport assessment on any planning application.
2:22:26
Um we know uh that uh for tile sheds in Benton Lane crossings, Network Rail have
2:22:33
a proposal uh to bring in full barrier control for safety reasons. This has
2:22:39
been a matter discussed with the community over the last few years. We're not clear when the funding will come
2:22:45
forward for that. Um the impact of the Cleveland lane development should that
2:22:51
proceed uh on both sets of crossings is already a a real concern uh for
2:22:57
residents to have a further impact of 263 uh houses on top of that for the
2:23:03
crossings uh brings further concerns. So our position is is that um the uh
2:23:11
fallback position of using um policy SP26
2:23:16
uh for dealing with the issues of the of the level crossings isn't sufficient and it should be uh dealt with uh at this
2:23:24
stage in terms of the allocation impact uh and and we're clear that the traffic assessment uh doesn't do that at all. So
2:23:31
in summary, uh the council themselves say in their evidence that this site would have significant impacts on the
2:23:38
proposed development of the highway network that require mitigation. It shows that there are five junctions
2:23:44
requiring mitigation to which this site is one of the top five contributors during peak periods. Um we have uh
2:23:53
there's no doubt that that this needs to be resolved uh and should be resolved before any allocation is is considered
2:24:01
uh for this for this village. Um just a final point um trying to get clarity
2:24:09
over the proposed modification on the public right of way which you've also mentioned and it seems now uh in terms
2:24:16
of the statement of common ground the position of the council is that they will agree uh with the church
2:24:23
commissioners to contribute to the enhancement of the surrounding public right ofway network which we would
2:24:29
clearly um support. However, in their uh statement to you, they proposed a
2:24:34
different modification which was to enhance the public rightway network that runs through west to eat and parallel
2:24:41
north to south of the site. So, if they are the two public rights away that they're talking about um then I would
2:24:50
seek clarification with the council that. if it's to the wider public rightway network as well as suggested by
2:24:55
the uh green infrastructure uh green infrastruct blue and
2:25:01
infrastructure study then I would also welcome that. Thank you.
2:25:07
Thank you. Let's see if we can sort of bring uh matter five um to uh to a
2:25:13
conclusion um today in terms of what's being put to me. Can I ask the council
2:25:18
if I go back to the local um transport sorry the local highway assessment I
2:25:24
think it's document IM5 um in terms of just understanding
2:25:31
um the ability and potential to kind of reduce um significant impacts and the
2:25:39
schemes that have been identified the level of detail that is available at
2:25:45
this stage I appreciate this is an allocation and evidence needs to be proportionate to that but kind of high
2:25:52
level kind of scheme solutions being identified. Yes sir as you rightly state it's it is
2:26:00
a high level study we feel it's proportionate at the plan making stage what it's basically setting out is is a
2:26:07
broad strategy along that corridor and that strategy is very much consistent
2:26:14
with the vision-led approach which we discussed yesterday so I think it's really important to emphasize that first
2:26:20
and foremost with any planning application we will be seeking to encourage
2:26:26
provide opport opportunities for modes of transport other than the private motor car. So that would be the the
2:26:33
first and foremost aspect of any strategy. But obviously there would be
2:26:38
other measures as well. But the actual detail to those measures would be at the
2:26:46
planning applicant application stage. I mean it's been mentioned the other side of the table for example that the
2:26:52
assessment didn't um assess a junction which doesn't exist at the moment you know that that might be necessary as
2:26:59
part of a planning application well I don't think a high level plan making study can do that we don't know what the
2:27:05
what's going to be proposed by the applicant as a specific uh solution in
2:27:11
terms of access etc um so there are some things which inevitably will come forward at the
2:27:18
Planning application stage.
2:27:34
Thank you. I've got in my mind to the council obviously the national planning policy framework says that things should
2:27:40
only be sort of prevented on highway grounds if the impact um the residual
2:27:46
cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. So that's not saying there might be some adverse or some
2:27:53
degree of kind of adverse uh effects. But I seem to recall from when we've started to look at kind of how transport
2:28:00
um assessment work has been undertaken um
2:28:06
it's my recollection is it is I want to sort of always want to describe it as worst case scenario but there are
2:28:13
potential um things that could be done that could
2:28:18
improve things like modal shift. So that what the study is identifying is this
2:28:24
would be the sort of the extent the sort of the highest extent of the impact but it could be with further modeling work
2:28:31
on a individual site basis it could turn out to be less Mr. M.
2:28:38
Yes sir I was just going to reiterate the point about sort of air quality in the area we undertake a continuous
2:28:43
non-ontinuous and continuous moning in around the area. The junctions that we assess are Boca Lane station road
2:28:50
station approach to where the metro station car park access is as well as blacks corner. Um we report this into
2:28:57
deferra on an annual basis and I can account that there's been no exceedences uh over the last 5 years at any of these
2:29:03
junctions. So whilst there may be congestion taking place, it's certainly by no means in exceedence of air quality
2:29:10
issues.
2:29:16
And just to respond to your specific point, sir, yes, I can confirm that the study did not identify impacts as as
2:29:23
being severe and it took if if you like um a worst case scenario.
2:29:31
Um and that uh we're confident through a
2:29:36
vision-led approach uh a viable strategy can be delivered that will mitigate the
2:29:42
impacts and bringing in the public rights of
2:29:48
way. This is something that has been identified through the submitted policy in terms of enhancing,
2:29:54
excuse me, I emphasize the word surrounding public right of way network
2:30:00
to the um and um the proposed modification through the um statement of
2:30:08
common ground is to is to clarify that' be a contribution to the enhancement because I presume some of the
2:30:13
surrounding public rightway network is not under the control of the church commissioner.
2:30:19
But in terms of the point that was put to me that you know is there is this a concern it's going to be just the public
2:30:25
right of way on the site itself. I would have thought the wording surrounding points something that's wider or further
2:30:32
a field
2:30:38
by the wording. Sorry. Yes sir. That is suggested by the wording.
2:30:45
Okay. Thank you for those contributions. and I'm going to reflect on what's been put to me. A very brief sort of further
2:30:52
point, Mr. Thompson, because we've still got quite a bit to cover. Sorry. Yes. Very, very quickly, just I
2:30:57
agree with everything uh Mr. But Butler said, I just wanted to make one further point about the level crossing. Um it
2:31:05
isn't that long ago when this particular issue was was identified um as a as a a
2:31:12
real stumbling block for housing numbers in the area and the council consulted on
2:31:17
a a road diversion and fly over. Um this this affected tile sheds uh nature
2:31:24
reserve. Um and it just seems strange that you know we don't have any details coming forward and people worry that you
2:31:33
know is this a proposal that will come forward again um I believe the vast majority of people who responded were
2:31:39
were against the proposal and given its effect on the environment um people are
2:31:45
re rightly concerned. Um the um the issue of of of um of of pollution um we
2:31:54
wonder if any modeling's been done um where we have the numbers actually inputed the increase in the numbers
2:32:01
coming through BA Lane um is identified uh the junction with Front Street as the
2:32:08
seventh most most polluted spot in in South Tinside. So you know once we see
2:32:13
these higher numbers coming through what is the understanding of pollution at at that point. Um and finally the public
2:32:21
rights of way. You know the um site is actually very very well located for
2:32:26
these um we we've mentioned the um connection to East Balden Metro Station
2:32:32
but to the west um the site is adjacent to the River Dawn cycle way that in turn
2:32:39
um connects the site to Nissan to AMP and to this business park that that
2:32:45
we're holding this uh this inspection. So that investment you know from the millions of pounds that the develop will
2:32:52
make um should be allocated to alleviate you know the issues that we've talked
2:32:58
about. I'll shut up for now. Thank you very much. That's fine. Okay. Um
2:33:06
there's nothing further on um transport infrastructure rights of way. I've got the council's proposed modification
2:33:12
within statement of common ground. I'll reflect on the submissions that are made to me in terms of whether there needs to be further um detail
2:33:20
uh and further evidence um at this stage and I'll I'll think about that in terms
2:33:25
of u my sort of preliminary um uh findings in regard to what the council's
2:33:31
told me and the work that it's it's undertaken. Matter six, environmental
2:33:36
considerations. Um had a reasonably long discussion there on transport. I think
2:33:42
if we can encourage people to make uh more focus or shorter contributions on
2:33:48
the environmental aspects. Appreciate we've got a number of areas to cover here. The first is around the wildlife
2:33:55
um corridor issue and it was my MIQ533. Uh I understand from the council's
2:34:01
evidence and what I was told yesterday, land that's approximate or close to
2:34:07
water courses has as a matter of kind of principle and approach been included
2:34:12
within um wildlife corridors. Are any other specific wildlife designations at
2:34:19
this site? I understand it is close to the trips, close to local wildlife
2:34:24
sites, but are there any other than the wildlife corridor? Are there any other
2:34:30
designations at this location on on the site itself? Um there's nothing further to add in
2:34:35
terms of uh what is on the the allocation itself, but it's worth noting that the site next to it is also
2:34:41
identified as a stepping stone site in the um the wildlife corridor review document.
2:34:49
I think is that Mr. Wolf's site? Yeah.
2:34:56
And in terms of we discussed this yesterday, but in relation to this discussion, Mrs. Lamb, a wildlife
2:35:02
corridors in themselves a kind of a uh an areas that you know automatically
2:35:11
prevent development or is it something that needs to be taken into consideration and the detail of a scheme
2:35:18
respond to that that that um the potential of those areas for wildlife?
2:35:24
Uh yes. So um I'll refer back to the the the paragraph and that we looked at
2:35:30
yesterday in terms of the wildlife corridor review on page 61 which um identifies that uh development within
2:35:36
wildlife corridors must be accompanied by appropriate mitigation in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy in MPPF.
2:35:43
Um and again that has informed the the the the writing of local plan policy 34
2:35:50
which specifically sets out um mitigation required um for developments within the wildlife corridors within
2:35:56
South Tinside.
2:36:14
Thank you. If I can turn to is it going to be Mr. Thompson first in terms of the wildlife corridor issue or Mr. Butler?
2:36:22
I'll go first, sir. That will assist Mr. Thompson arrest. Um as I said last week
2:36:28
uh in terms of the uh discussion we had relation to um
2:36:35
Mr. Martin's comments on the the east field um and Miss Rorcliff's evidence
2:36:41
the wild life corridor network review undertaken by South Tside in conjunction
2:36:48
with Sunderland and Gatesad brought huge amount of clarity to the importance of
2:36:55
uh the green belt southside green belt and its biodiversity value and you've
2:37:00
heard from Mrs. Lam that um the uh corridor uh does cover uh considerable
2:37:07
part of the site and importantly uh that linkage to the tileshed burn and indeed
2:37:15
uh the uh other elements uh around the burn and the the railway embankment but
2:37:22
most importantly the east field in the ownership um private ownership butway's
2:37:28
Press.
2:38:04
reflection of what's deliverable and under the control of of this site and
2:38:09
that's been put forward to me. But I'm now curious as to whether there's potential other opportunities beyond the
2:38:16
site um that mean that we that modification
2:38:22
may not be necessary.
2:38:28
We we can explore that uh and and just see what uh results from
2:38:35
discussions um with a view to providing uh suggested
2:38:41
modification. Thank you. Uh and in terms of the wider
2:38:46
points that are being made by the um lab local labor party and the Balden Forum,
2:38:54
the policy obviously contains a number of key considerations that relate to the natural environment uh in terms of um
2:39:03
retaining the existing uh trees, hedros, etc. landscaping
2:39:08
obviously got in mind how to the site frameworks document shows areas for um
2:39:15
open space etc. could gauge the council's view or response at this stage
2:39:21
as to whether the policy would need any further detail or specificity
2:39:27
around um the natural environments responding to
2:39:32
the wildlife corridor whether any of that would be necessary for soundness and what the implications could be were
2:39:39
I to accept or be minded to accept what's being put to me in terms of
2:39:45
effectively not having any built development on the northern part of the site.
2:39:51
I think in terms of the local plan policies that stand at the minute, I think policy 34 is fairly robust in
2:39:56
terms of how um wild corridors will be dealt with at plan application stage. Um
2:40:02
therefore I think our sort of initial feelings are that the the key considerations are sound as they are um
2:40:11
and went into context the the other policies within the local plan.
2:40:23
Mr. Butler please. Thank you sir. In relation to Miss Hansen's uh uh helpful intervention
2:40:30
there, the tarshed burn does flow northwestwards under new road and uh
2:40:38
further along to past the west meadows uh trips. So I think the church
2:40:45
commissioner's interest and ownership there uh would link to the proposal in
2:40:50
the green and blue infrastructure uh to look at further improvements along the tile shed burn.
2:40:58
Thank you. I think the council's um recognized or has offered to kind of look into that and clarify that a bit
2:41:05
further. Um not losing sight of a wider issue around just compensate strategic approach to compensatory um
2:41:12
improvements. I'm going to move on to flood risk if I may. Um as we've been
2:41:17
talking about the tile shed burn it was my MIQ 537. I think the council was
2:41:23
advising that this whole this site is wholly within flood zone one. Is that the in terms of the developable area or
2:41:31
is there an issue that the tunnel shed burn itself is flood zone three and
2:41:37
possibly has a a margin of flood zone two.
2:41:45
So I think there might be a higher level of flood risk immediately within um Taj
2:41:53
B. Uh however the approach very much acknowledges that and it requires an
2:41:59
appropriate buffer around the local water course to ensure it remains free
2:42:05
from the development and allow maintenance activities to continue.
2:42:20
Thank you Mr. Clifford. When you say in terms of avoiding that, is that in terms of wider policy requirements or
2:42:26
something that needs to be put specifically into this part of policy SP7 for site GA2?
2:42:39
Sorry sir, I apologize. I was a bit distracted there. I can just confirm actually the whole site is in flood zone one
2:42:49
including the tar shed burn. Uh yes sir.
2:42:56
Thank you. I'll invite others. Um Mr. Butler and then Mr. W please. Sorry sir. Sorry to there's a flood
2:43:03
flood plane immediately next to the tile shed burn
2:43:09
which will be kept free from development. Okay, that's where I thought we were. I was kind of bit when looking at the
2:43:15
green belt review uh mapping. It certainly seems to show an absolute constraint just in the norththeast
2:43:22
corner of the site which I assume to reflect the tile shed burn. Obviously that's not an area appropriate for um
2:43:30
development. I'll take a view as to whether the policies of the plan provide that or whether we need something more
2:43:36
specific within the policy itself to just make sure of that. Um Mr. Butler please. Uh thank you sir. Thank you for
2:43:43
that clarification for the council. It's clear uh in the site frameworks constraint plan that the tile sheds burn
2:43:50
and its environments are in flood zone two and three and they have been shown as a constraint to development in that
2:43:58
document and in other documents. Um these fields have been subject to
2:44:03
surface water uh flooding o over many years and clearly that the farmer manages that process uh and you often
2:44:10
see uh surface water laying both in the south sorry northwest corner uh and the
2:44:17
northeast corner of the fields. Um so we have concerns uh about the site's
2:44:25
suitability. Um there is a Suds proposal being made uh as part of the indicative
2:44:31
framework and was also suggested by the previous site promoters evidence. Um
2:44:39
we're not clear though whether other surface water retention measures may be needed which will be expensive. We're
2:44:45
seeing this at the moment on other developments. office or it in a small brownfield development at Mayfile Glass
2:44:51
and we have a major proposal at Cleven Lane for retention tanks uh for pumping
2:44:58
and for uh in extreme circumstances tanker take away from those. So surface
2:45:05
water retention is is a major issue in this area and obviously you've heard the evidence uh relating to sewage disposal
2:45:14
uh last week. Uh and again we're seeking clarification as to where the sewage
2:45:20
from this site would be disposed. Uh we talked about whether there was a catchment area plan. Apparently that is
2:45:26
not in evidence. Uh however it would be useful to have that resolved please.
2:45:32
Okay. Thank you for that. So I mean in terms of the approach to surface water uh this
2:45:39
site would be surprised to hear the council say that you know s is the way forward um for this this site that
2:45:46
nothing abnormal or unusual is required or identified in in the
2:45:52
evidence. That's correct sir. There's there's
2:46:00
nothing's been identified that uh is what use the term abnormal. I think
2:46:07
nothing has been identified that would be abnormal in that respect.
2:46:14
Thank you. I think Mr. Butler's clarified. I mean I think I referenced last week I thought I'd seen a map. What
2:46:20
I thought what I'd actually seen in terms of network sewage network catchments was a reference. Um but the
2:46:26
council has provided an answer to my specific question I think it's MIQ 3.9
2:46:32
at matter three in terms of at a high level strategic basis where it sees um
2:46:41
foul water being treated whether it's going to Henden or to Howen. So I've got
2:46:46
that evidence and I'll reflect on whether I need anything further from those discussions. Mr. Was there
2:46:52
anything you wanted to come in on this particular point? You hesitate hovering?
2:47:00
There was, but it was covered by others.
2:47:12
And I added first thing this morning an item three under item six around
2:47:17
agricultural land quality. I've discussed this already at other sites, but it's obviously relevant here. My
2:47:23
understanding from the council, Mrs. Lamb, is that at the moment the mapping goes as far as say this is grade grade
2:47:29
grade three. There isn't yet the detail beneath that to kind of separate whether it's 3A or 3B, but the council
2:47:36
nonetheless has taken a sort of a more precautionary approach to assume that it would be 3A and to
2:47:43
assess the plan um on that basis. Uh yes. So through the the sight
2:47:50
specific assessments that were undertaken through the sustainability appraisal the data set available at the
2:47:55
time that they were undertaken um assumed that all land and surf time side was grade three regardless if that was
2:48:02
3A B or C. Um obviously as shown in the our hearing statement for this site um
2:48:09
we have um added a map which is an update from the defa magic maps that
2:48:15
does show uh a small portion of the site being 3 3A in the the northwest of the
2:48:20
of the site but like I say through our assessments and the plan preparation we've sort of taken that precautionary
2:48:26
approach um and considered all land as being three throughout the the
2:48:37
Thank you, Mr. Butler. Did you you raised this this morning, so I think you want to come in on this.
2:48:43
Thank you, sir. And um again, thank you to to Mrs. Lamb for that clarification
2:48:48
that information is now available from the magic map. uh it shows uh that the
2:48:54
highest quality uh agricultural land is in fact in the northwest corner north of
2:49:00
the public right of way and I'd ask you to uh put that into your considerations
2:49:05
when considering um if you are looking at a site reduction and I'd also like
2:49:12
clarity over how the council and the uh developers would proceed uh following
2:49:17
their statement in the statement of of common ground where they say at 4.10
2:49:22
that no recent sight specific testing has been undertaken to establish if the site is subgrade 3A or 3B and then they
2:49:31
refer to paragraph 174 and and the balance that you'll have to take over over whether uh best and most versatile
2:49:39
land uh should uh be a consideration. So we have a magic map which has suddenly
2:49:45
appeared as part of the hearing statement. Um we've had a position uh
2:49:51
for much of the local plan process that this the land in South Tide is largely u
2:49:58
grade three. Um so is it the case that from the magic map there has been some
2:50:04
site testing or is this uh a very indicative position uh that has been
2:50:10
taken? Uh so I just like some clarity on that please. Thank you. Very brief. I don't Mrs. Lamb
2:50:15
the source of map 7. Uh yes. So there hasn't been any specific site testing undertaken on this
2:50:20
site. That is a data set held by DERA at a national level um which has been updated at the beginning of this year as
2:50:27
far as I'm aware. Uh therefore we've decided to use that information for transparency in terms of the production
2:50:33
of our hearing statements.
2:50:39
Thank you. I I don't recall seeing it anywhere but Mrs. Lamb. But I mean in terms of this issue of grade three and
2:50:45
separating it out in terms of the latest um defa mapping has it kind of revealed
2:50:51
that grade two possibly is it just really clarifying within the grade
2:50:57
three. Yes. So the the mapping across the bearer is very much predominantly grade
2:51:02
three um with very small pockets of 3A that's identified um say small pocket
2:51:09
here um two small pockets on the fgate site as well.
2:51:14
Thank you. I'm going to move on if I may to item seven on my agenda. Uh and it's
2:51:20
the housing mix uh that's like to come forward at this site. Obviously um there
2:51:27
is accompanying uh viability work. I think this is a location um that I think
2:51:33
is identified as being able to support 25% affordable housing. And I appreciate
2:51:39
that could be a variance to what was in the um neighborhood plan, but I appreciate this looking at the uh the
2:51:46
local plans viability um evidence. Uh so I think just like to hear briefly
2:51:53
from the council in terms of the uh justification
2:51:58
uh and effectiveness of seeking 25% affordable housing on this site please.
2:52:06
Yeah. So the affordable housing requirement throughout the plan is based on need identified in the strategic
2:52:12
housing market assessment as well as the local plan viability update and that identifies an affordable housing
2:52:18
requirement of 25% in in this area. Um and that's also in line with the
2:52:24
recommendation at paragraph 7.10 10 in the schma.
2:52:34
If we do deal with affordable housing first, I'm taking it from the forum and from the Labor Party. If this site was
2:52:41
to be allocated, you'd be seeing it seeking a higher affordable housing figure.
2:52:48
Thank you. Um, so you intend to talk about affordable housing and what about accommodation of elderly people and the
2:52:55
housing mix generally? I want to deal with that as well, but just deal with affordable housing first and then we'll come on to older persons.
2:53:01
Yeah, just just two very quick points. Um the the uh regulation uh 19 uh
2:53:08
consultation indicated that affordable housing figure would be 30% for this
2:53:13
site. Sorry, the regulation 18 consultation indicated a 30% um target.
2:53:20
This has um been reduced to 25%. Um it it matters to the neighborhood
2:53:26
forum because the one of the strong themes that came back in our consultation was you know the um cost of
2:53:34
housing in the forum area. People wanted their children to stay in the village. They wanted to be able to afford to move
2:53:41
about within the village. Um and so the affordability mix is is really
2:53:47
important. And I just wanted to connect that to what seems to be happening nationally where the government um is
2:53:56
first of all making additional funding available for affordable housing. So that might change the dynamics. Um and I
2:54:04
think the recent consultation from the government is indicating that the affordable housing offer might actually
2:54:12
um enable other schemes to come forward more quickly. I know that might not be
2:54:18
applicable here but it's it's worth worth um understanding.
2:54:23
Thank you Mr. Butler please. Thank you sir. In regard to the uh the
2:54:29
the ward position, um between regulation 18 and 19, uh the local plan viability
2:54:36
uh study uh came up with a view that Cleon and East Bolan should be decoupled
2:54:43
and uh the study looked at uh uh how sales and provided limited evidence uh
2:54:51
uh unlimited evidence that East Balden should be reduced to 25% whereas lead
2:54:57
remains at 30%. Um we don't see the logic in that. Um we feel that um the
2:55:05
sites uh in terms of the development industry are equally uh attractive in
2:55:11
terms of viability in either village and therefore why is it uh that the figure
2:55:16
for for East Balden should be 5% lower. This is a large site. Uh we've already
2:55:22
pointed out to you the uh the the likely profit margins uh for this site and
2:55:28
therefore we consider uh that the figure should be 30%.
2:55:38
Thank you Mr. Clifford. Please just to explain the reason for the
2:55:45
difference. Obviously the viability study was informed by
2:55:51
evidence and the evidence which Mr. who you met
2:55:56
yesterday found was that although the housing market in both areas is very strong, Clayton it's
2:56:05
particularly strong and there are higher sale sales values. So hence why there is
2:56:12
a higher requirement in Clayton.
2:56:18
Thank you. Well, I'm I'm clear I think Mr. Butler, Mr. Thompson, what you would be seeking by way of a modification uh
2:56:25
in terms of the affordable housing. If I can move on to the older person's um uh
2:56:31
accommodation uh perhaps invite Mr. Thompson first. I think clearly read
2:56:36
from your uh the forum's representations. You think there's a specific need or a specific need should
2:56:42
be identified in the plan to provide for older persons accommodation on this site?
2:56:48
Yes, thank you. um both the um neighborhood plans housing need assessment um and the evidence that the
2:56:55
council has put forward you know identifies this critical need. Um the
2:57:01
difficulty for the council is that virtually all of its local plan delivery is is by private developers. Um so it's
2:57:09
really important that um you know accommodation for elderly people um is
2:57:16
is is given um every support. Our experience however is that um
2:57:23
commercially driven developers are less likely to promote this type of development um and the offer that comes
2:57:30
forward from them um in our experience is is inadequate uh and very very poor.
2:57:38
Um the forum has put forward a mechanism uh a suggestion of a mechanism that the
2:57:44
NPPF identifies in par paragraph um uh 0 12
2:57:50
and 13. Um and we also support the idea that the site requirements should
2:57:57
stipulate uh a requirement for for elderly people. Um as far as the
2:58:04
neighborhood forum areas concerned, many large houses um three four bedroomedroom
2:58:11
are occupied by people who um want to move um and can't find the right
2:58:19
accommodation within the village to move. Um if that was facilitated, many
2:58:24
more family houses would would come forward. Um and the community as a whole
2:58:30
would be much better for it. Um, so that's all I want to say on that.
2:58:35
Um, thank you. Is there anything further you wish to add on that, Mr. Butler? Just to
2:58:42
reiterate the uh the figures um in relation to the strategic um housing market assessment, a shortfall of 3,361
2:58:50
units across uh all classes of accommodation for pe for older persons.
2:58:56
And as Mr. Thompson says, "We are aware in the community of the real need for older person's housing in our ward and
2:59:03
recognize uh that it was a big issue during the neighborhood plan process in East
2:59:08
Balden. There are a number of examples of successful retirement apartment facilities both for sale and rent in
2:59:16
both villages. Uh and we see that um this site provides another opportunity
2:59:22
as did Clean Lane for the housing uh market to come forward for more of this,
2:59:28
but they're simply not interested. They're only looking at the larger uh three and four bedroomedroom units to
2:59:34
maximize profits. Thank you. If I turn to the council,
2:59:40
please. is obviously the national planning policy framework. Um version we're working to paragraph 62 talks
2:59:46
about um planning policies uh reflecting the you know the needs for
2:59:51
different the housing need for different types of groups in the community um including amongst other things um older
2:59:58
people. Um, I think the council's going to direct me
3:00:03
to it's got other policies in the plan that would um that could um
3:00:10
be implemented or u be taken into consideration in terms of providing um
3:00:16
older persons um accommodation. Is that the principal
3:00:22
way that the council's seeking to uh meet the housing needs of
3:00:27
this particular group or do do you make any other specific allocations in the plan for older persons housing?
3:00:35
Um so yeah, you're correct in in that policies 19 and 20 specifically um would
3:00:41
look to accommodate um provide accommodation for older people. Um there are some allocations in the plan that we
3:00:48
envisage would be for um supported accommodation. Um
3:00:55
but yeah, it would be policy 19 and 20 in in terms of this site that would
3:01:00
provide that need.
3:01:26
Thank you for that. I don't know if from the church commissioner's perspective, Miss Hampson, um obviously the site is
3:01:33
put forward for housing. Um there obviously a strong view in the local
3:01:38
community for specific types of housing is if the church commissioners have seen
3:01:44
that or have a view on that in terms of um how the site could potentially come forward.
3:01:50
Um there's nothing particular to add other than what the council has said. Um obviously we would look at the size
3:01:55
specific um requirements as and when we bring forward a plan application and uh sort of align to market need at that
3:02:01
time. Thank you. I think I'm clear on what the
3:02:08
uh the Labour Party and the the forum are seeking in terms of a potential modification to this policy.
3:02:33
Okay, fine.
3:02:43
I think I mean I mean it strikes me that the potential modifications could be around the lines of either a certain
3:02:51
quantum of older person's provision is identified for this site or a policy says you know um provision has to be
3:02:58
made on this particular site. The exact the exact extent or nature of that would be would
3:03:05
have to be determined and considered as part of a planning application, but it would be a key um consideration.
3:03:13
I probably need to reflect on that more fully because it's probably not a a matter unique um to this particular um
3:03:20
site, but I take the point from East Balden that they think there is a a particular need for their the housing
3:03:26
need of their their community. Um I'm going to come to the final point
3:03:32
of this morning's agenda and discussion. It's just around the delivery time frame. This is just to help me as I'm
3:03:38
sort of pulling together in my mind the overall housing trajectory and whether there'll be deliverable and developable
3:03:45
supply particularly the form of the deliverable supply uh on plan adoption.
3:03:50
And a note from the council's response to MIQ 540, I think in the statement of common ground, that this is a site that
3:03:57
should this plan be adopted is envisaged to come forward reasonably quickly and to contribute to the deliverable 5-year
3:04:05
supply with completions starting as soon as the year 2028 29. I think it's just
3:04:12
understanding the evidence and some of the the reasonleness about that that particular
3:04:18
profile. Thank you. Yeah, that's correct. Um, so we've kind of come to that position based on the
3:04:26
constraints on the site and the, you know, the site's in a single ownership and it's available for development. Um,
3:04:31
the site promoters have made clear that they're sort of the site is available and ready for development as soon as as
3:04:37
possible really. Um we base the sort of buildout rate on the the schlaw
3:04:43
methodology but the um site promoters have made clear in the statement of common ground that they envisage a
3:04:48
quicker buildout rate than than we've assumed in the schlaw.
3:05:09
Thank you. From the church commissioner's perspective, I presume me you're not directly going to deliver or
3:05:15
develop these homes. So there's a disposal process. Um I mean to my mind to get to delivery
3:05:23
of 2028 29. So that's working back construction possibly starting in 20
3:05:31
Uh yeah, certainly at some point in 2027.
3:05:36
Um think back to you need a planning application section 106 discharge of
3:05:42
conditions plan being adopted in 2026. This feels relatively tight I have to
3:05:49
say from um my experience perspective.
3:05:55
Is there is there anything you can say that kind of can help persuade me that that's that's a realistic time frame?
3:06:02
Um I do do acknowledge your point there. Um and we have spoken with the church commission's commercial advisers um and
3:06:10
suggest that that's probably a year earlier than we would expect. So we'd like to suggest that would be the first
3:06:16
ones delivered in 2029 2030 and that would be the first 100 homes. to still the first 100 homes within the first
3:06:22
five years of the plan period. Um also just to add um we we are in the
3:06:30
midst of starting to prepare our plan application um and we have obviously received um significant interest from
3:06:36
developers in the site. Um so we there's nothing to say this won't come forward within those time frames.
3:07:06
So, can I just clarify, Miss Hamson? So, I'm looking at paragraph 43 of a very recently signed um statement of common
3:07:13
ground. So, saying there delivery phase one 100
3:07:18
units 20 to 20, excuse me, in the period 28 to 29.
3:07:24
I think from what you're saying a moment ago, earliest delivery might not happen as soon as what's put out in the
3:07:33
uh table five of the council's evidence which I think is undertaken from the strategic housing land availability
3:07:39
assessments. Uh yes, that's correct. Obviously, we would like to bring it forward sooner,
3:07:45
but we are just mindful of um where the local plan process is and any any
3:07:50
potential delays it might have with our planning application. Therefore, that's why we've chosen a slight reduction in
3:07:57
that time frame. But, um as I said, there's nothing to say that if everything proceeds smoothly and quickly
3:08:03
that that might still occur in 2028. We just wanted to take a slight more realistic view there in light of your
3:08:08
comments made yesterday.
3:08:17
Okay, I'm going to get very confused by figures here because um
3:08:24
previously through the student housing land availability in the same period I'm counting uh 58 units possibly um
3:08:32
slightly less depending how the statement of common ground has been um
3:08:38
where we're looking at in 28 29 Um
3:08:44
and it's whether if there was a slight delay or we push things back by year, whether there's kind of recovery um
3:08:51
within certainly the deliverable period of the deliverable years to kind of recoup
3:08:58
pushing the 28 back. Yeah.
3:09:05
If we can't get to the bottom of it right now, I think it might be helpful.
3:09:12
might be helpful if we had a chat during the lunchon adjournment actually
3:09:17
um that yes I probably I'm going to bring Balden to conclusion
3:09:23
yes but um just just to whilst the church commissioners are here
3:09:29
yeah okay I think I think I'm my view would be 2028 29 is very optimistic for
3:09:36
for units built and it's whether there's a revised Ed trajectory profile that
3:09:42
needs to be considered. Um now it may be that it kind of does talk to paragraph
3:09:49
4.3 the statement of common ground whether it's those specific years but
3:09:55
uh in terms of um 2830 whether the site could yield more
3:10:02
on an annual basis. Um but I think I'd like to leave that as
3:10:07
a point for the council to help clarify. Absolutely. Yeah.
3:10:15
Y and can I just understand from the council before I come to Mr. Butler or
3:10:21
anybody else? We've obviously talked about various infrastructure delivery um
3:10:27
uh plan elements, not least uh potential offsite highway um improvements. Does
3:10:34
that correlate to the buildout rates or linked to the buildout rates that are are shown or is that something else we
3:10:40
need to have in mind in terms of whether there's anything that's going to potentially need to be done before first
3:10:48
completion or occupations?
3:11:04
Sarah, in terms of um the infrastructure delivery plan,
3:11:09
as was mentioned previously, the um the junction improvements have not been
3:11:15
timetabled. Um I think there there might be a broad
3:11:20
kind of overview of when they're needed in relation to the development trajectory.
3:11:27
Um but that will obviously be informed by when the planning applications are are actually submitted.
3:11:34
um and the transport assessments that are
3:11:40
submitted with the planning applications and DTO in terms of
3:11:46
school provision and health um improvements.
3:12:06
Can I ask for the council when looks more again at this particular kind of profile of this trajectory?
3:12:12
What I have in mind is the IDP from my reading of it appears to say that there are particular junctions that are
3:12:19
critical in terms of the Bokeh lane front street improvements by 2030. And I
3:12:25
just want to be assured that whatever profile for this site uh
3:12:31
ultimately is agreed hopefully with the church commissioners. It also reflects whether there are any
3:12:38
critical infrastructure improvements that need to be done prior to any kind of first occupation
3:12:45
at this stage based on the evidence we have before us. So I could take possibly
3:12:50
a more uh robust view about where this site might come into the the trajectory. I
3:12:57
appreciate there may be some uh optimism over time if further work
3:13:02
shows through modal shift etc that that improvement doesn't need to come in at that particular point. I think just
3:13:09
think about a kind of a keep coming back to kind of a worst case
3:13:14
scenario um because we there are ways in which we can look at this when we come on to the housing trajectory
3:13:21
um in terms of how things are profiled I'm very keen that we have a plan system
3:13:28
as part of that we have all the sites that are identified particularly in deliverable supply elements
3:13:36
got reasonable confidence And it may be just how we look at the trajectory and
3:13:42
going to start using the word stepped uh or other things we can look at to kind
3:13:48
of just put the council on a a firm footing. I understand. Thank you, Mr.
3:13:54
Butler, please. Uh thank you, sir. I share your uh analysis of the likelihood
3:14:00
of this site coming forward in the period that was suggested in the statement of common ground. and you know
3:14:06
to have a statement of common ground submitted to you and yet during the hearing of the day have that statement
3:14:12
of common ground torn up in terms of the strate uh strate strategy of of delivery is is
3:14:20
a real concern. Uh the second point is the the local community will be absolutely dismayed to hear that the
3:14:28
church commissioners are considering a planning application before you have made any decision about the suitability
3:14:34
of this site. Um you have to decide on whether there's exceptional circumstances to go into the green belt.
3:14:42
You have to decide and you've already indicated to the council there as to whether this site is suitable to come
3:14:48
forward in relation to the infrastructure concerns that you've have just given. Uh and I was going to point
3:14:55
out in terms of the trajectory uh we don't have any detail of when these junction improvements which are critical
3:15:02
to development would come forward, how they would come forward, how they would be funded. So I would urge uh the church
3:15:09
commissioner's agents to go back and and reconsider putting a planning application forward. If they are
3:15:16
considering to do so, I would urge them to immediately contact the East Balden neighborhood forum to start the earliest
3:15:22
possible discussions about how they see an application going forward. And
3:15:28
clearly if we are into application uh process before this plan is determined
3:15:34
uh then I would urge the council to uh give the weight of the east boulder neighborhood plan. This this site is
3:15:41
outside the uh settlement boundary of the eastb neighborhood plan and the
3:15:46
current framework means that the test of exceptional circumstances would be needed before the council could be
3:15:53
assured of this uh site's uh decision purely on a planning application. We have the housing delivery test
3:16:00
situation. The presumption in favor situation pushing uh the council into a
3:16:07
into an early decision of a planning application is being brought forward. So I urge them to reconsider that.
3:16:15
Thank you. And I should also add it's not been lost on me from the early days of this examination examination
3:16:21
hearings. When we come back to housing delivery and overall numbers, um we will need to look with the council on the
3:16:28
Cleon Lane site and where that's accounted for or where it should could possibly be accounted for. So that's
3:16:36
in the mix as well. I'll come to Mr. W first and then to Mr. Thompson and then we're probably going to adjourn um for
3:16:42
lunch and bring this session to a conclusion. Mr. W. Thank you, sir. Um it'll come as no
3:16:49
surprise obviously speed of delivery is is clearly a key consideration to meet the housing need in the burough.
3:16:55
I'll refer to the written evidence we've previously submitted in regards to why the eastern portion of the site of which
3:17:01
I'm representing Belway Homes is being discounted in place of the western parcel of the site. Clearly we're a
3:17:07
national house builder. We can deliver promptly. We can deliver improvements to the green belt along the wildlife corridor to the north. We can deliver
3:17:14
quickly on the site to the east. shots not lost on you.
3:17:20
Okay, Mr. Thompson, please. Well, we are dismayed to hear that a
3:17:27
planning application is is coming forward, especially at a time when the the council uh it continues to fail its
3:17:33
housing delivery test. And I just wanted to tease out this particular aspect, how
3:17:40
difficult it is to achieve um good design. Um the uh pressure that the
3:17:47
council is put under in this situation is incredible and time and time again we
3:17:53
we see developers turning around looking at the neighborhood plan and playing no
3:17:59
regard to them whatsoever. This is always complicated by pre-application
3:18:05
discussions. the uh NPPF does not give authority for a um a local
3:18:12
authority like South Tinside to insist that neighborhood plans uh are considered and the neighborhood forum is
3:18:19
consulted. And what we end up with and and this is so common um the initial
3:18:25
outline um design for the site which is informed by the developer's bottom line
3:18:31
becomes almost set in stone before the community is consulted and it is so so
3:18:38
difficult to actually move anything in the right direction to achieve good design. I don't know what can be done
3:18:45
about it but it really is a difficulty for us. So, I just wanted to make that
3:18:50
point. Thank you. Thank you for that. I'm going to bring this morning's or today's session on
3:18:56
East Balden um to conclusion. Can I thank everybody for their contributions to this session? There are a couple of
3:19:02
things I'll need to record with the council as kind of action points um going forward and reflect on the
3:19:07
proposed modifications that have been put forward in the the statement of common ground,
3:19:13
but I'll pass that through in the usual way through the um uh through the program officer. Just want to clarify,
3:19:19
Mr. Thompson, uh I've been sitting here now for uh best part of a week and a
3:19:24
half and I'm going to be sitting here tomorrow and I'm I'll be very tired. Where was this miraculous place that
3:19:31
kind of res restore people? Was it the gray horse? The grey horse. Okay, I'll bear
3:19:37
I'll bear that in mind. Okay, thank you everybody. Uh I'll be seeing some of you again here 2 o'clock for
3:19:45
town end farm. Thank you.