12:43
Okay, everybody, it's just gone 2:00, so it's time for me to open this uh hearing session into the examination of the
12:49
South Tinside local plan. Uh for those of you who haven't attended previous sessions to introduce myself, my name is
12:56
David Spencer and I'm the planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent
13:01
examination of the submitted plan. Um can I just check
13:09
before we carry on too much further? Can people hear me okay in the room? Yeah, hope you can see me as well. Can I
13:16
please uh timely reminder, please ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their silent settings, please.
13:24
And for the benefit of those who haven't attended previously, can I please invite the council to take us through the usual
13:30
housekeeping matters? Thank you. Yes. Good afternoon everybody. Um, we're
13:35
not expecting a fire alarm. So, if alarm does sound, please can you make your way to the nearest fire exit just on the far
13:41
side of this room and then make your way to the far side of the hotel car park. Um, toilets are just outside this room
13:48
just across the corridor. Um, please note there's cables taped to the floor, so please be careful when you're moving
13:54
around the room. Um, and also the hotel operates a parking eye system, so if you have parked in the car park, please
14:00
ensure you've entered your registration details at reception. Thank you for that. Uh can I check is
14:08
anybody here present from the local press this afternoon? No. Now these sessions are being recorded by the
14:14
council and livereamed. So there will be a record uh of events for those who've
14:20
been unable to attend or wish to observe um remotely. Whilst that's going on, can
14:26
I just check with any does anybody else wish to make their own separate recording of this afternoon's session?
14:35
No. Okay. Well, these are public m these are meetings, hearing sessions that are held in public, but it's only people who
14:42
are seated around the table who have uh exercised their right to be heard. Uh so
14:47
it's I'll only be hearing submissions from those as say who are uh at the table who've made representations on the
14:55
plan. Um and hopefully everybody here this afternoon is for matter 5 issue
15:00
four and it's land to the north of town end farm which is in policy SP7 of the
15:06
submitted plan uh and it's site reference um GA3.
15:12
I'll be uh leading what I hope will be a a structured but relatively informal um
15:18
discussion. I'm keen that people have their right to be heard. It will be based on the agenda that I've previously
15:25
um published and that goes back to various matters and issues and questions that I
15:31
identified back in May of this year based on the various representations
15:36
that were made uh on the plan. So it's not necessary for people to read out what they previously provided in writing
15:45
uh back in January March of last year when the plan was um published for consultation.
15:51
One of the things I'm always keen to explore at these sessions from those who don't consider that the plan is um sound
15:59
or legally um compliant is to understand what needs to be
16:04
changed uh in relation to the plan. So it might be some people's view uh Mr. sendle from uh your side of the room the
16:11
pl this site it shouldn't be included um in the plan but I will be interested to explore whether there are more detailed
16:19
um policy wording changes that I need to consider um I won't be coming to any
16:25
kind of dramatic conclusions in this room I want to reflect on what's been said take things away uh and if there's
16:32
anything further that I need from the council as it's uh their plan I'll leaz
16:37
with them through the program officer uh if I need further information in respect of anything. Are there any questions at
16:44
this stage around just broadly how these hearing sessions work?
16:50
No. In which case, uh for the benefit of the recording and for other people who are in the room observing, uh you'll now
16:58
know who I am, but I'd like to turn to my right and invite Mr. Shadowavian to
17:03
kick off for the council's team this afternoon, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. My name
17:08
is Paul Shadowvian KC acting for the council.
17:13
Good afternoon. I'm Deborah Lamb, operations manager of spatial planning team at South Tide Council.
17:20
Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy officer at the council.
17:25
Matt Clifford, also a senior planning policy officer at the council.
17:31
My name is Trevor Mill. I'm service lead for strategic transport at the council.
17:37
Lucy Routlledge, historic environment officer at the council.
17:43
Katie Rumble, development director, Helen's Land Limited. Good. Good afternoon everyone. Chris
17:49
Smith, applying director at Lichfields on behalf of Helen's Land. So, we're also accompanied by Dr. Nick Bun from
17:56
Tetrate Tech and Mr. James Street from OScology who we may invite to the table just to deal with some of the the
18:02
matters later on the agenda. Richard Garland, managing partner GFW.
18:07
Um, here representing the Jacobson Trust.
18:16
Peter Send, resident of uh, West Balden. And if my voice sometimes goes funny,
18:23
it's the effect of uh, having to take more.
18:28
Thank you. If at any time, Mr. Send you need we need a break or you know take
18:34
time just indicate and we can take a a short a short adjourment. Thank you. If
18:41
um should also say if at any point I mean if you want to sort of just make a state I'm going to try and run a
18:47
discussion covering sort of various kind of themes. You hope you've seen my um agenda.
18:54
If you feel no I want to just make a particular statement and that's me and I'll I'll leave at that point. you're
19:00
welcome to do so as well, but you might prefer or want to stay in and sort of hear as much of the discussion as you
19:07
choose. So, I'll I'll leave it to you as to what you'd like to do.
19:14
Well, I would like to make a Sorry, I keep forgetting. Oh, it is on. Okay. I
19:19
would like to make a a short statement at first if I may before the start.
19:27
Um, I will I will accommodate that. Um, and
19:32
then we will work into the the agenda. Um, obviously I've read your your representation uh that you made back on
19:38
the plan. So, I don't I don't necessarily need that read out to me if
19:44
that was the intention. No, I No, that wasn't Now we've explained it. No, it's it's not the intention.
19:49
Okay. Sort of short agendas, I think. Okay. That's what it'll be.
19:57
This is my third local plan um
20:02
over the years and I possibly at 79 it may be my last. I hope not but uh we'll
20:10
see what happens. Um I was a member of an environmental care group uh
20:17
previously um when the last two were held.
20:23
This time um I have donated to uh the
20:28
crowdfunding at Eastbald for uh their uh attempts to uh to
20:37
prevent what they don't want. Um, and I don't know to be honest with you
20:44
whether they have said anything at all to uh to help uh Westbold on this
20:52
particular site. Uh,
20:58
if I may just very quickly say I was when I was born in the village
21:04
it was virtually very very little here. There was a very small amount of social housing in Hall
21:11
Gardens. Um, and the the area we're talking about was I had two friends in the houses that
21:19
were there and I knew uh Mr. Locky, the farmer at Locky's Farm personally and it
21:26
was absolutely wonderful. It's the description that everyone says that
21:32
young people should have the opportunity to have somewhere to play.
21:38
somewhere to walk, somewhere to enjoy wildlife and the countryside
21:45
and that has gradually been eroded in the Bens
21:50
and this I feel is just in completely the wrong place and would to me totally
21:57
destroy which I've said in my representation destroy that part of uh West Ben. Thank
22:06
you. Thank you. Well, if you can signal to me at any point, Mr. Sendel, if you need a
22:12
break or to Annette, the program officer, and then we'll try and we will seek to accommodate that within um this
22:18
session. We're we're due to be here for the afternoon. Whether we'll need to sit all the way through to 5:00, which is
22:23
when I generally want to draw a line on things, we'll see. But um thank you for
22:28
that um introductory remarks. Um Mr. Mr. Send
22:35
obviously we're here for the the site at land at Townend Farm. As I say at the start, as I said at the start of this
22:41
session, it was put in as a uh it's in as a proposed allocation for 400 homes
22:47
uh within the submitted plan. Um the evidence base, excuse me, uh has
22:55
was uh provided by the council on plan um submission. There have been various
23:00
updates, but at a relatively late stage prior to these examination hearings, I
23:07
received correspondence um from Mr. from the um GF White on
23:15
behalf of their uh clients in respect of their land interest uh within the wider
23:21
uh GA3 site. I've now subsequently received a statement of common ground
23:27
between the two uh principal parties here before me. I appreciate there's
23:32
also a land interest I think with the church commissioners on this wider site
23:37
uh entered into um with the um with the council. And I have item two on my
23:43
agenda. I've read the statement of common ground, but whether I'd invite the parties, um I don't know who's going
23:50
to kick off on this uh from either um GF White or whether it's Mr. Smith for
23:56
Lichfields on where you kind of consider matters to currently be as we sit here today,
24:04
whether the statement of common ground moves things forward, whether there remains
24:09
uh potential issue that the examination needs to uh apply itself to.
24:17
Thank you, sir. We I'm happy to go first if you'd like me to. Um so I think to
24:23
describe our our position and it has moved on since our letter um as you've seen by the statement of common ground
24:28
but it to describe our client's position it's well rehearsed under paragraph 36 C
24:35
that to be sound the plan needs to be effective to be effective it has to be deliverable
24:42
um this site as this is the case with a number of strategic sites that I'm
24:47
involved in is in a multiple of ownership um as we've identified there are the two
24:53
major ownerships um between the the trust land as promoted by Helen's and my clients the
25:01
Jacobson's trust land in the middle of those two parcels which are built self-promoting so um as a whole the
25:09
allocation looks entirely sensible from a planning point of view if you take out the red land in the middle of the plan
25:16
which is provided to you in the statement of common ground um you're effectively left with the other major ownership being two entirely separated
25:23
parcels of land. Um we are in a position where we don't have any formal
25:29
commercial terms agreed between the parties. Um our client has up until the 17th of
25:37
June carried out a joint promotion with Helens and and the principle of the site
25:42
the entire site still being included between us as you've seen is accepted.
25:48
um what my client um on the basis of several last minute discussions and
25:54
discoveries prior to the 17th of June representations being submitted um since
26:00
that as made clear in our letter they are entirely clear that if their land is
26:05
not developable independently or is subject to ransom then it won't come
26:11
forward for development and it won't be available or deliverable. We appreciate that elements of this
26:18
stray into commercial agreements between land owners. Um and um however our
26:24
position on it quite clearly is that it does affect planning deliverability and and our client's position on that it
26:30
being available for development is absolutely clear. Um when we then look at the um
26:38
submission draft of the local plan and the key criteria of G3,
26:43
there was nothing in there to harmonize with the framework document which sets out the objectives, the constraints and
26:51
the principles and indicative layout for the site. There's also nothing in the proposed
26:58
criteria which deals with the site coming forward uh either as independent parcels or a number of indeed a number
27:04
of planning applications between uh within one ownership. Um what we do
27:10
appreciate is that the council and drafting that plan um as per our clients until 17th of June perhaps weren't aware
27:19
of what the actual position is between the parties. So we understand the background to the plan. Um however given
27:26
what we're faced with now um the proposals that we've put forward are
27:32
intended on a purely planning basis to make sure that this site comes forward
27:38
as an entire allocation. Um and it's our position that without those criteria
27:44
there is a very very material chance that it won't come forward in that way. And had that be the case I don't think
27:51
that we would be here talking about it. So, um, we I'm pleased to say we've had
27:57
several discussions offline resulting in a statement of common ground. Um, and that is agreed between the two major
28:05
land owners between you now. Uh, which I think is probably a huge step forward from where we were before. There's still
28:10
outstanding issues that we need to resolve between us, but I think if the allocation comes forward as required and
28:16
as proposed, then I think it addresses our planning concerns.
28:22
Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. Mr. Smith, is there anything further wish to add on behalf of Helen's Land Limited? Uh
28:29
yes, sir. And and just briefly, I think it's it's one I think we're pleased to have have reached the situation where we
28:35
we did on on Friday with the the statement of common ground. I think just to recap, it is the second largest site
28:41
identified within the plan. So, it's not unusual that you do find um multiple land ownerships. I think the council
28:48
probably testify to this that it's been relatively harmonious throughout the number of years on on the various call
28:54
for sites exercises and the the representations received in relation to the uh consultations on draft versions
29:00
of the plan. And I think this is just an element of commercial matters that I think we've you've um will probably have
29:07
seen that in a slightly unorthodox fashion has been aired in front of not only the council but you sir as well.
29:13
So, as I say, I think we're we're confident that the site is a whole, it remains very much the Helen's um land
29:19
preference that it comes forward as a as a single application. Um, and you'll see
29:24
the text that that's been incorporated into the statement of common ground to that to that fact. So, obviously the statement of common ground does conclude
29:31
with some some suggestions in terms of how the key considerations could be amended just to reflect the agreements
29:37
between the parties, but otherwise in planning terms, I think we are now aligned.
29:43
Thank you. It is uh an interesting area because presumably I mean I'm think I
29:49
have in my mind did the council submit a sound plan based on all the plan making and preparation that the council
29:55
undertook and I'm assuming from the council's perspective when the sites were promoted to through the schlar uh
30:02
and other mechanisms. is very much presented as a a joint
30:07
site and a deliverable site and it's only at the well it's it's beyond planned submission that we now face or
30:14
we've been had these kind of issues aired around its um its uh potential
30:20
delivery. I have to be alive to that because from time to time these these issues crop up about whether sites are
30:28
um genuinely deliverable but I don't think there's any criticism of the council in terms of what it had in front
30:34
of it and how it dealt with it up until the 17th of June. The site has been promoted through the
30:40
local plan process in good faith and based upon the representations made by
30:46
land owners. So to be faced with this at the last minute actually is very concerning
30:57
in terms of moving potentially moving matters on. Both Mr. Garland and Mr.
31:02
Smith have referred to the recent statement of common ground. They're both pointing me already to
31:09
proposed modifications within that statement of common ground uh presented I think at paragraph
31:17
7.2 um which I think they're inviting me to
31:23
consider as being necessary changes um to the plan uh for plan soundness.
31:30
Um can I just understand though the council's position where paragraph 5.6
31:35
six of the statement of common ground. It says it considers that these modifications are not necessary for
31:43
soundness.
31:50
That that is our position at the moment. Um bar perhaps one particular issue. Um
31:58
that is our position. Um and that one issue is whether or not the site should be delivered as as a comprehensive
32:05
development. Um we would be happy to accept a
32:10
requirement in the policy that the approach be integrated and comprehensive so as to ensure consistency and to um
32:20
preclude peacemeal development of the site. Uh we do not believe um that the
32:28
eventual layout should be in conformity with the framework document that is
32:35
purely an illustrative exercise. It has no statutory significance and of course things change
32:42
over time. Um so whilst we are happy with a comprehensive approach to the delivery
32:48
of the site uh we do not believe it should be tied to a frame the framework
32:54
document. Uh no other site you will be aware is tied to that document.
33:03
Other than that, I will simply make this observation on behalf of the local planning authority is not part of this
33:09
process to resolve land ownership issues and issues of value
33:16
um between parties through the local plan process
33:21
[Music] in indeed. But if evidence comes before
33:28
and during the examination that part of a wider allocation might not be
33:33
deliverable or part of that process. I think I need to understand
33:41
what that could potentially mean for the allocation, whether if that site was removed, whether the residual is
33:48
acceptable um and um
33:54
justified, effective and meet all the other other tests. uh perfectly
33:59
understand um the situation this puts you in and puts us in
34:06
um at great and considerable public expense as well in the process. Having
34:12
said that, there are other means of assembling sites as a last resort. I won't go into that now, but it's
34:19
something which could be considered in due course if necessary.
34:26
Thank you, Mr. descend. UK
34:32
just uh a very small point. There's a parcel of land just off downhill lane
34:39
which was colloally known as Stories's garden which was always considered to be
34:44
a private area. No one knew who it belonged to. I don't know whether anyone
34:49
is aware of that at all about this site.
34:56
I don't know if you've there was a a recent statement of common ground, Mr. Sendel. I don't know if you've you've
35:02
seen it. It was published on Friday. Um it has a plan at the back of it. I don't
35:08
know if there's a spare copy, but it covers the area or includes
35:13
the area that was um put in was covered by policy GA3.
35:19
Uh and what's being put to me is that there are effectively three land ownerships.
35:26
Um the majority is is it the Natress family?
35:31
Oh, there's a spare copy coming to you.
35:37
Okay, thank you. So the the majority of site is owned by the n uh is under the
35:42
the naturous family including the sort of the larger field closer to um to Balden Hill
35:51
and then between the separate natures there's a small area bounded by blue
35:57
which is um owned by the church commissioners and then the area we're talking about
36:03
principally at the moment Mr. Sendel is the area edged in red which is owned by or has um is the J Jacobson Trust
36:11
uh land uh and the the issue we're discussing is about how this all kind of comes
36:17
together and is uh delivered uh as a as a whole given the the various land
36:24
ownerships. I've obviously heard there from the council's clarification of its position
36:32
at paragraph five uh is it 5.6 six of the statement of
36:39
common ground that it doesn't consider that that whole paragraph is necessary.
36:45
There's a kind of a an alternative about including something around sort of comprehensive delivery.
36:53
Perhaps I'll turn to Mr. Garland in the first instance as to whether that's
36:59
sufficient or whether um from your perspective the way the plan can be only
37:05
whe the plan can only be found sound with the entirety of conform not only just comprehensive or ensuring
37:11
comprehensive delivery or something along those lines but also uh requiring conformity with the
37:17
indicative layout plan. Thank you sir. Um
37:23
I I'm not aware that we've got a a specific wording which um which
37:29
represents the council's position on that which is unfortunate. I'm sort of trying to interpret that on the hoof as
37:34
it as it were. it I come back to the key criteria
37:41
included within the plan allocation um are
37:47
contain no specific uh guidance on
37:54
how are any principles around how the site should be specially laid out and
38:00
delivered as it comes forward and even more so or even less
38:05
uh detail about how that would happen if it came forward as more than one planning application. Um and
38:15
appreciate there's there's no statutory basis to site frameworks document but it
38:21
was a document prepared by the council in the preparation of the local plan. Um
38:29
it clearly identifies the site in its entirety, the constraints, the
38:34
opportunities and then comes up with an indicative layout. Now indicative means exactly
38:41
what it says on the tin, but it does show you the design principles behind
38:47
that site coming forward. Now what we're seeking to do in our agreed
38:52
representation is to say well those principles and general conformity
38:58
with them should be part of any planning application that come forward from the site.
39:05
Now without that and of course we sitting here now a planning application
39:10
for the site could come in tomorrow next year five years we have to be clear enough on what the
39:16
principles are behind the allocation that will be acceptable when it come and
39:22
again I'm involved with a number of sites in multiple ownerships some of
39:27
those criteria that we've put forward are actually replicated from other local authorities for their strategic sites
39:34
So that tried and tested they're also based on the council's own indicative
39:40
layout. So um I think if if there was a fundamental problem in that those principles would have expected that to
39:47
be um flushed out at that point in time and our point overriding point is
39:52
without that how do the council then make a decision on a planning
39:58
application if it comes forward independently on two parcels of land. Well, how do we know? Um,
40:05
the words think used were were were comprehensive,
40:11
but comprehensive is is a principle that gives you absolutely no um
40:17
guidance as to what the layout should be looking like and how you indeed determine a very important planning
40:24
application which is going to come in on the back of it. And it's sufficiently
40:30
vague for me to sit here and say I can't understand what that means for my clients land in the middle of this. If
40:35
an application is put in around them, not including them and at what level of
40:41
comprehens comprehensive agreement do you need for that to be acceptable? Um we
40:49
we are all hoping I hope that the site will come forward together. Um but if it doesn't and there's a material chance
40:55
that that it won't for reason for explained in our letter um we need to be clear how it would be dealt with if it
41:02
comes forward as an independent planning application and from the drafting in the key criteria and the words that I heard
41:09
um the council before I can't get to a position of comfort on that and I come back to my client's position is if if
41:16
that's sufficiently endowed there's a real danger that their land just won't be developable.
41:24
Okay, thank you. If I turn to Helen's Land Limited, please minding from
41:30
reading the statement of common ground, you would have no issue or would indeed
41:37
support this proposed modification to the policy. Yes, sir. I think I think we are we are
41:44
somewhere in between in that we time wasn't infinite. Come come come the deadline on Friday for agreeing the
41:49
statement of common ground. I think it's a suggestion. Um, we're open-minded about potential changes to that, but I
41:56
think that I'll go back to what I mentioned a few minutes ago in it is right to recognize it is the second
42:03
largest allocation within the plan. If if if we do look at like the felgate allocation for instance, there is an
42:09
element of comprehensive planning built into the separate policy that that is um associated with that site. So I think
42:16
that the principle of incorporating something around the principles of comprehensive master planning and delivery should should helpfully um
42:23
account for any scenarios should the site come forward either as a single application or as or as or as a multiple
42:29
applications. Um I mean there's key wording in there that that we we have worked closely on in terms of you know
42:36
should the site come forward either in phases or or multiple plan applications the important step is not to prejudice
42:41
the wider delivery of of the allocation. So I think the wording is there. Um it's all just about whether or not we are
42:48
signposting specific reference to the site frameworks document which I I appreciate obviously Mr. Garland's point
42:54
obviously is one of the things which um is is the guiding principles from from
42:59
which the site is laid out specially before you sir but I appreciate also from the council's point of view it was
43:04
a document prepared at a midpoint through the the preparation of the plan to kind of guide things and it and it
43:10
would be a little out of um consistency with how the approach has been done on on other sites.
43:17
Thank you. I'll come back to the council before I come to Mr. Garland. own
43:23
shadow. Okay. So it seems that we're getting to a point where there is resolution on the
43:28
way we approach the site which is we can we can modify the policy to require the
43:35
submission and approval of say a master plan and a phasing and implementation
43:40
plan to which subsequent
43:47
applications including applications for the approval of reserve matters must conform.
43:53
So we can take a very similar approach to that which we're going to be taking to Felgate in that sense and there's no
44:01
reason why uh the two policy the two sites should not be treated the same in policy terms or very similarly in policy
44:08
terms. So I think that much can be agreed as part of the modifications process. uh so far as tying it down to
44:16
the framework, again, I'm not sure that's entirely uh a proper thing to do um because it's
44:22
impossible to know whether or not that's actually going to be an appropriate um um layout in the future. And uh
44:31
flexibility is a key key issue here in terms of delivery.
44:37
So I can excuse me just summarize those kind of last two submissions with more
44:42
time. might be a way forward in terms of it is not exactly this wording but
44:49
something an alternative or something that's very close to what's presented in
44:54
the statement of common ground but it needs more needs more attention I think there's commonality I think it
45:01
needs more attention and um it doesn't need to be tied down to the framework
45:10
Mr. Garland, you're you're going to come back in a moment ago. I think um I agree there doesn't appear
45:16
to be an element of commonality. We can clearly see that. I think my
45:23
accepting that the principles that things may change to a degree. I think
45:31
repeat back what I heard. It's um I don't exactly understand what the
45:37
concern is though linking it back to the framework document which was the
45:42
document behind the allocation other than things may change. Well, if things may change and there's a comprehensive
45:49
agreement that have changed then we're we're going to go along with it. I guess the um and we can we could build in a um
45:58
a clause unless otherwise agreed between all parties if if that were the concern.
46:03
Um I mean I think it's probably one of the detail of what the proposal would be
46:10
and as I said we have no sort of text in front of us to consider. Um again come
46:15
back to there is commonality but the uh an overall master plan
46:21
phasing and implementation plan across the site which which works to genuinely
46:27
allow all of the site to come forward to be developed um is the principle of that
46:34
is is is effectively what we're trying to achieve. So the principle um I don't
46:40
have a particular problem with the It's how that is then worded and what degree
46:47
of standing that has when we come to see a planning application or applications submitted because to satisfy this
46:54
position for us it has to be absolutely um the defining principle of if a
47:00
planning application comes in you have to look at that criteria and say does it match that because without it 11 acres
47:07
of the site won't come forward.
47:14
Going on to the second part, the proposed modification at um 72 of the
47:20
statement of common ground ensuring interconnectivity between the site and the established settlement of town and
47:26
farm etc etc. Is that another part of the proposed
47:32
modification that the council has issue with or was it just that first part? We we don't have an issue with inter
47:39
interconnectivity and the principle of that. We haven't discussed the issue of
47:44
vehicular um um interconnectivity
47:50
um with um
47:55
the adjoining authority um and it's something which um we would need I think
48:01
to discuss with them in order to ensure that they would be happy with that approach.
48:08
But I think that that's the extent of our um disagreement with it at the moment.
48:18
Okay. I mean obviously HO2 which is the indicative
48:25
framework document which is one of the um seems to be one of the sticking
48:30
points around the precise wording. Um, I mean that's evidence that the council produced in support of its plan. Unless
48:37
I'm reading it wrong and looking at it wrong, one of the key vehicle routes appears to be coming in from
48:42
Sunderland's administrative area. So presumably they do know about vehicular
48:48
connectivity.
48:55
That's all that's all I'm saying.
49:02
Sorry, it's a minor issue. I you look perplexed, Mr. Garland. I think I tell you Mr. Shadowavian's
49:08
point. I mean, this statement of common ground has been prepared in the last literally few days or week. Um
49:15
Sunderland City Council on the other side of the administrative boundary have not been party to this process. So
49:22
whilst there may be some agreement between the three parties here on that
49:28
particular part of um the proposed modification
49:33
um it's whether you want to um from the council's perspective if we go forward
49:39
with this something to kind of um check or run with Sunderland or whether it's
49:45
explored as part of the proposed main modifications process.
49:52
Okay, it might only be a minor point, but it's
49:59
a matter of pro due process that we should discuss
50:04
[Music] right before we get sorry before we get
50:11
into some of the other other issues just so I'm absolutely clear in my mind on everything here despite
50:18
I might not be as frustrated. frustrated as other people but I thought this was a site from everything I'd read up until
50:24
the 17th of June was being jointly promoted been through the shal process all um
50:31
checks etc uh that the council had had undertaken
50:36
can I just be clear from GF White if we can't or the plan making pro sorry the plan examination process can't find an
50:43
appropriate main modification you will formally withdraw for the
50:50
Jacobson trust land and it will be none of it will be not available.
50:56
That's my instruction. So if we can't um see a clear robust mechanism for our land to be
51:03
developable independently or as part of a comprehensive scheme that my clients
51:09
have quite clearly said it's not available.
51:18
I I I thought it was being I thought the the modification was being promoted on
51:23
the basis that you wanted a comprehensive scheme, not a peacemeal one.
51:29
[Music] I think I'm back, Mr. Shadow, to my my
51:35
um obsession with worst case scenarios. If there wasn't a a modification agreed
51:41
um between the parties that um I felt I could put into the plan, I'm just
51:46
checking with Mr. Garland what the kind of backs stop position is between now and main modifications. He's telling me
51:53
I think in quite clear terms the Jacobson land would not be included
51:58
or should not be included. Suppose that then leads me to is there a sensible allocation that doesn't include the
52:04
Jacobson land. Okay. As a back stop. Sorry, forgive me. which
52:11
we need to give thought to as a backs stop um because um to jettison the whole
52:17
allocation would be extremely prejuditial to this process at this stage. Um so we would have to look uh to
52:25
see whether or not alternative scenarios uh in for the benefit of that land and
52:30
for the benefit of the plan. And we also need to to consider the use of other
52:35
potential powers as well in terms of land assembly if that should be necessary due course.
52:43
Mr. Smith please. Thank you sir. I think I thought it was just worth adding our understanding of
52:48
the of the situation as well. So as as we understand it, I think we we've made decent progress since around about the
52:54
17th of June deadline and I think we have got to a position where um subject to the being flexibility within whether
53:03
it's a completely reddrafted policy or something akin or something around some amendments to give that flexibility. So
53:09
it's a specific reference to comprehensive master planning and delivery and flexibility for potentially the sites to come forward independently.
53:16
That would be sufficient to address Mr. Garland and his clients um concerns, I should just make you aware as well that
53:23
whilst we're not looking to undermine anything that has been said there, it' be um I suppose for one a better word,
53:31
daft, if we weren't looking at worst case scenarios about what would happen should that land not be available. So I think in that case that that is
53:38
something we would have to pursue with the council, but I think we would need obviously a steer at some stage from
53:43
user um if we had to start looking down that route. But as as it currently stands, Helen's remain committed to
53:51
working with all parties to bring forward the site as it has been done over the previous years.
53:58
Before I come back to the council, Mr. Garland. Yeah, thank you, sir. I I just I want to
54:04
to reiterate that and then just pick up on something Mr. Shredder over said
54:10
before. We also want the site to come forward comprehensively. It's exactly what we're trying to achieve. Um and the
54:18
reason um taking the position that we have is is it looked to us emerging on
54:25
the 17th of June that that might not be the case and and it's the council's role to pull forward a plan. It's your role
54:32
to kind of deem that to be sound or otherwise and and again I have a number of these after this stage when it goes
54:39
into planning stage which then saw and then don't look anything like what they're envisaged at the plan making
54:45
process stage and that's in in its simplest possible form that's all we're
54:50
trying to achieve is it to come forward together sir if I may on that basis I think
54:56
there's every opportunity we can come to a solution I think my my um
55:04
instruction to the council although it does apply to um to Helen and Helen Land
55:10
and to um GF White is statement of
55:15
common ground that was provided on Friday I don't think gets us completely there at the moment. It sounds like
55:21
there is sufficient if we did a a diagram of a vend diagram. I think there's sufficient common ground
55:28
somewhere in the middle there to come forward with an al an amended or alternative word of wording
55:35
uh for that particular part of the proposed modification. Maybe just further reflect on the second
55:41
one in terms of interconnectivity. I appreciate the council wants to um check in with Sunderland on that which seems
55:48
eminently sensible. Uh if there's a chance of avoiding difficulties at a
55:55
later stage, um I think we do need to kind of have this as a as a high priority because I
56:03
do want to kind of come to a view on all the sites I've been considering as part of the stage one hearings.
56:11
the kind of then the basis on which to kind of look at stage two and what issues are in play because if there is a
56:17
fundamental issue with this site I appreciate people are now talking about alternatives
56:23
that may be something we worst case scenario again for the stage two um
56:28
examination I'm not going to set a time frame right here right now but we are
56:33
probably looking at you know a matter of a few weeks to try and get to the bottom of this um I appreciate we are after
56:40
this week heading into holiday period. I've already heard lots of evidence of people who have been on holiday or on
56:46
holiday are not here. Um but I will leaz with the council through the program
56:52
officer together with Helen's and Mr. Whites we can just get this uh this
56:59
particular matter uh over the line.
57:05
Thank you for that. Right, that was just one item on the agenda, but it was an important one, I think, in terms of just
57:11
understanding uh overall um site delivery. Um I don't see the matter yet
57:17
as kind of concluded. It obviously still needs further work, but that's uh helpful to understand that. So I am
57:23
going to move on to item three of the agenda. Um and it's around green belt impacts and compensatory improvements.
57:31
Uh this site uh forms part of I think holy is it parcel su1 that was looked at as part of
57:39
the green belt um review. Uh and I think as I've done on previous sites, I think
57:45
I'd like to give the council the first uh opportunity to kind of talk to that
57:50
evidence. Um how this site has performed in terms of the overall uh green belt
57:56
study work that the council has has had undertaken in support of its plan and then where that's led in terms of
58:03
compensatory improvements being identified. Thank you.
58:08
Okay. So the site as just mentioned was um assessed under parcel SU1 in the uh
58:15
southside green belt study. Um the site um is assessed to perform um moderately
58:22
against purpose one, two and three and have low harm against purpose four. So
58:28
overall the site does have a a moderate harm rating to the green belt. Um it's
58:33
noted that in the the summary in appendix C of the um green belt study that it's mentioned that there are
58:40
strong boundary features to this site um which is
58:45
part of uh helps with part of the the green belt um assessment. Um obviously
58:51
um the the appendix C does also set out menus for enhancements and compensatory
58:56
improvements to the site and obviously notwithstanding discussions we had um this morning around um for further
59:02
review of that um in terms of what's been um incorporated to within the key
59:07
considerations are um the point about um access um to other parts of the of sorry
59:16
um the land around the site um in especially sort of referring to the landscape as being integ in integral
59:23
part of the design um particularly referencing landscape buffers to the north and creating defensible
59:29
boundaries. Um it's also worth noting that within appendix C um it does make
59:34
reference as a um a compensatory measure to enhance access to downhole or quarry.
59:40
But you'll probably note that in the key considerations that's something that we definitely are not taking forward um as
59:46
we feel that would be have negative impacts on the existing local wildlife site um adjacent to um the the proposed
59:53
allocation. Thank you for that. I'm not anticipating
59:59
hearing any kind of country views on the green belt assessment from the the bottom end of the the side of the table
1:00:06
opposite me. Oh, Mr. Smith. No, sir. Just just to clarify that I don't think there's anything really that I wish to add that isn't already in our
1:00:13
hearing statements. So, we concur with the council on on that position. But I'm mindful, Mr. send from reading
1:00:20
your representations, I think you would invite a uh a conclusion that there'd be greater
1:00:26
harm to the green belt and I think you've recommended to me in your it's your original representations where you
1:00:33
where I would need to kind of look at the um the green belt impact from
1:00:40
if I just may add further
1:00:45
the harm is seen as moderate. I think the lady said three and one which
1:00:51
was inconsequential. But if you have a somewhere where one
1:00:58
item is just moderate but then you start adding
1:01:03
furthers in it to me it doesn't then mean that that site as a whole is
1:01:10
moderate. It means it's gone up the scale somewhat because it's hit more than one point. That's the first thing
1:01:16
I'd like to say. Secondly, with that, it's going to go
1:01:22
right up to the A19. Um, if you look at Southine side as a whole,
1:01:31
it the Jarro end of it. Yes, it it it
1:01:36
uh abuts other buildup areas, but at that point between basically between
1:01:44
Jarro and the sea, there's no other point where it abuts any
1:01:52
uh buildup area. But of course, if you put this site there, then it certainly
1:01:57
will because it'll abut town farm. So an important area like the border
1:02:04
between the two. I feel it it it
1:02:09
very strongly in all sorts of ways
1:02:15
points to the fact that it should not be there and I think in my statement I've
1:02:21
made a lot of those uh points. Thank you. So I think I think what you're saying to
1:02:27
me Mr. Sandler is if I'm looking at So a number of harms that are moderate. Your
1:02:32
suggestion would be you kind of add those moderates together and it will result in a a higher
1:02:38
a higher harm. Certainly I certainly do. I mean in other things in life that I've come
1:02:45
across where this this has happened not not in planning. I happen to see
1:02:51
it it's I've always been told that it does lead to a higher degree of harm.
1:02:58
And that's the point I wish to make. And just so I'm I'm clear from what
1:03:04
you've just just said to me in terms of kind of these areas that you say are kind of um between Jarro and the sea
1:03:11
that kind of um I guess you're saying to reflect kind of openness or countryside.
1:03:18
Yes. Basically it's it was the corridor
1:03:25
police. Yes. to prevent all the things that moderate or whatever you want to call
1:03:32
them. They were all that's the green belt was put there to prevent everything
1:03:38
that the green belt points to.
1:03:44
I think in terms of your representations, M send you've kind of referred I think it's the roundabout just down here. There's a fords there's
1:03:53
a view sort of looking south to town end farm that I think you've said suggested I take into account I took some
1:04:02
unfortunately not very good photographs on the day which show these views of um
1:04:08
of the hill um from various points and um I think the one especially from the
1:04:15
roundabout at what we call the Asda roundabout
1:04:20
really shows what what would happen to the view across that land.
1:04:27
Um, and unfortunately
1:04:32
there's also was an application for a battery storage plant at the uh
1:04:38
electricity substation there which was thrown out by the council but I believe
1:04:44
it's now being appealed. So it to me it
1:04:50
all just adds insult to injury shall I put it that way.
1:04:55
Thank you Mr. Sendel. Okay,
1:05:01
I should have said at the start of this session, obviously I've been to the area, been to various kind of uh cinder
1:05:07
sites. Um uh obviously the new is it the downhill lane interchange which is next
1:05:15
relatively new downhill inter lane interchange on the A19. It's obviously adjacent to the sites. I've been to look
1:05:22
at things from the the Town End Farm perspective and up onto the the Balden
1:05:27
Hill. There seems to be a a multitude of kind of paths whe they're official or not that allow you to walk in that area.
1:05:34
Hopefully I didn't do any harm, but um that's given me an appreciation of the area.
1:05:42
Thank you for that on on Green Belt. In terms of um heritage, this probably one
1:05:49
of the few sites had to deal with so far where there's a heritage dimension, but
1:05:54
uh there are various heritage assets uh close to this proposed site. I'm
1:06:00
probably looking to um Mrs. Routlage at that end of the table. Obviously, the plan is accompanied by a heritage impact
1:06:07
assessment um document uh which has considered the various I
1:06:12
think there's a small number of grade two listed buildings uh on the downhill lane as you go towards um West Balden.
1:06:22
Um I don't Mr. if you can just explain how that's been looked at and and
1:06:27
ultimately I think only one of the heritage assets it's kind of come into that the site
1:06:33
contributes to its um what we call in planning term its heritage significance.
1:06:38
Uh yes. Um so we we assessed um the site through the heritage impact um
1:06:46
appraisal. Um we developed the meth methodology of that um with the help of
1:06:52
Historic England. Um and we're both in agreement that um the only listed
1:07:01
building that was was impact would potentially be impacted by the allocation would be the uh downhill
1:07:09
house. Um and we both agreed that um
1:07:14
this would result in less than substantial harm to significance. Um and
1:07:20
as a result we we um put some some text in the actual policy to reflect that uh
1:07:29
in SP7. Um but the detail would be in the
1:07:34
historic environment chapter uh of the local plan which would be policies SP24
1:07:41
and policy 43.
1:07:53
Thank you. And just so I get my bearings from that kind of group of various kind of listed buildings, downhill
1:08:00
house, is that the larger pale color building? Yes, it is. Yeah. Okay.
1:08:12
Thank you. And I note the council's obviously entered into a statement of common ground with Historic England. So
1:08:18
I've got that in front of me. Mr. send I think from the wider um impact on the environment. Obviously
1:08:24
we're looking here at these kind of the group of the older buildings downhill farm downhill house as you kind of start
1:08:30
to ascend up downhill lane towards West Balden. um the impact on those is kind of
1:08:39
well obviously I considered it and just like the council themselves have just
1:08:44
said I fully agree with what they've said about what what we know as
1:08:51
colloally as Schilling's house which was the first agent miners homes in the
1:08:56
country apparently so there you go but I feel the same way as the council
1:09:08
Thank you. I'm going to move on uh in terms of my agenda. Um in terms of item
1:09:14
five, sorry to cut across. I was just going to add add one one more thing before you close that element down. Two more just
1:09:19
to assist your consideration. Um we when we looked at the historic buildings as
1:09:25
well, the list of buildings we would concur as well that the farmhouse downhill house is the one to look at. I
1:09:30
think when you'll observe if you've not already noticed on site is that the gable that faces the site is the south
1:09:36
facing gable with no windows. So in terms of the relationship with the sort of setting the surrounding land it very
1:09:43
much is the fields that you are visible from the primary
1:09:49
uh rooms that are within and the windows and they they are all on the front elevation which faces west. So the
1:09:55
relationship in terms of setting with that list of building is all primarily to the west. So, and I think the other
1:10:01
the other thing worth pointing out as well with our um lightly approach to the site, the overhead cables will
1:10:08
essentially contain the development parcels to the to the south. So, that will naturally also allow for some
1:10:14
standoff there between the development to come forward and proximity to the
1:10:21
list of buildings. Sorry, sir. I just wanted to add that that little point. No, that's fine. If I
1:10:28
move on too quickly, please. Yeah, I said I wanted to uh understand uh or
1:10:33
hear from uh people's perspectives. OB particularly focused on whether soundness concerns, but I think um it's
1:10:40
helpful uh Mr. Smith on that point. Okay, I will now move on to item five.
1:10:47
Uh as with other green belt uh proposed green belt alterations, one of the considerate considerations is whether
1:10:54
the location would be well served by public transport and whether there be scope to secure genuine choice of
1:11:00
transport modes. Can I first turn to the council in its response to my matters issues question
1:11:07
5.44 uh in terms of how it's looked at this for this particular site. Mr. Clifford.
1:11:14
Thank you sir. Yes, the council does consider that it is well served by public transport and there will be a
1:11:21
genuine choice of transport modes. The site sits close to bus stops and is
1:11:28
served regularly by bus services which go to both Sunland and Newcastle
1:11:35
and various areas within South Tinside. Table seven of the council's response to
1:11:43
MIQ 5.44 44 provides details for bus services.
1:11:48
And we' just like to add to that that bus service 50 is not referenced in that
1:11:55
table, but that's a bus service on downhill lane.
1:12:00
um which with stops to the south and with a
1:12:06
halfhourly 6 day service to South Shields, Washington and Durham and an
1:12:12
hourly Sunday service. Thank you.
1:12:34
Thank you. That covers um public trans. Mr. Mail, I was just going to reiterate
1:12:40
about the genuine choice of transport modes in that there's been significant investment made as part of the town nail
1:12:47
and testo schemes. There is direct linkages quite amanable to the site that
1:12:52
provide sort of off-road bridal way connections into the the wider boulden areas but there's been a significant um
1:12:59
infrastructure improvement as part of downhill there's a segregated bridge now that provides accessibility across the
1:13:05
19 in addition to an existing uh bridge and that provides wider connectivity to
1:13:10
the likes of Washington gates head and further a field thanks
1:13:15
and and into the amp certainly Yeah.
1:13:22
Thank you. Turn to So I've gotten your name for Dr.
1:13:28
Okay. Oh, right. It's on there now. I I just wanted to pick up a correction in in our
1:13:33
statement that we'd put in for this in par 2.15 about service 50. We'd said it
1:13:38
was an hourly service. That's a typographical error on our part. It should have said halfhourly service. I
1:13:44
just wanted you to be clear on that, sir. Uh and otherwise we support the council's contention here that the uh
1:13:50
the site is is is a good site in terms of his accessibility both the bus services and clearly at the north side
1:13:57
where the service 50 runs whilst there is few bus stops up on downhill road at the moment sorry downhill lane certainly
1:14:04
additional bus stop stops could be provided to serve the site uh from downhill lane and I think the position
1:14:11
of the site in relation to Nissan and the connectivity that we have to those
1:14:16
developments areas but also into Townill Lane. Uh the Town Hall Farm area I think is it makes
1:14:23
it a good site in terms of accessibility.
1:14:28
Is it that Mr. Garland please?
1:14:33
Thank you sir. I just want to make a quick point just to reiterate that the connectivity
1:14:39
back into town and farm and the bus services and pedestrian links back in
1:14:45
are all um logically as as described as the opportunities and the frameworks
1:14:52
talking all logic if you come back in from the corner onto Boston Street which is one of the representations that we've
1:14:58
made previously and the the tetrate tech
1:15:04
um document which is mitted didn't consider that side of things and we think that is a a key principle. We
1:15:10
accept and I now understand as I didn't previously that that may require some consultation further consultation with
1:15:16
Sunderland but certainly in terms of discussions that we've had throughout the site promotion is where people will
1:15:22
look belong to go to school to catch the bus from has to link back to that connectivity to town and farm.
1:15:43
and presumably from the excuse me from the council's perspective uh in terms of the plan making the rationale for
1:15:50
choosing this location not only the in uh in terms of green belt impact but
1:15:57
it's sustainable ability credentials of this location are interwoven
1:16:05
uh by its being adjacent to the builtup area of of Sunderland.
1:16:10
Yes sir, that's correct. That's a major advantage to the to the site location.
1:16:16
Uh obviously uh it means there's crossboundary
1:16:21
impacts which we are addressing. We've got very strong liaison with Sunderland.
1:16:28
Um but it does provide that really key advantage.
1:16:41
Thank you. Are there any further points in relation to transport public transport?
1:16:48
No. In which case um
1:16:54
I'll move on to uh whether a safe and suitable access to the site can be
1:17:00
achieved whether there be any significant offsite highway impacts. This is my my question five uh point45
1:17:10
issues here might be slightly different from other parts of the burough given we
1:17:15
referred to earlier the improvements at downhill lane junction on the A19. But um
1:17:22
nonetheless, presumably there are more localized considerations um that have been looked at and
1:17:28
obviously the National Highways aren't here. I don't think they've raised any issue in relation to this site and the
1:17:34
A19. Yes, sir. That's correct. Um
1:17:40
in terms of safe and suitable access, it was assessed through the strategic housing land availability assessment
1:17:46
process and and no concerns were raised. Um, you know, we consulted the council's transport team.
1:17:54
Um, the site has been assessed in the local road network assessment
1:18:01
and that assessment shows there are three junctions which would require mitigation
1:18:06
and provides a high level summary of the mitigation required. The study did not assess the impact on
1:18:13
any of the junctions as being severe.
1:18:31
Thank you for that. Is there anything anything anybody else wishes to add in relation to the highway network? Mr.
1:18:36
Garland, again, apologies for sounding like a broken record and being quite predictable, but the same point clearly
1:18:43
applies to that as well. bus connectivity and pedestrian access.
1:18:51
Thank you, Mr. Sendal, please.
1:18:57
You've obviously, as you said, you've been on the the road system. So, you'll have been down downhill to where it
1:19:05
meets the A184 in Balden.
1:19:10
A bypass has been muttered through Balden since 1932 and has never happened. So it was considered necessary
1:19:17
then and at every local plan we've been told that
1:19:24
it's going to be okay. We can sort the problem out. Um the the big thing they
1:19:31
did after the last public inquiry was to put in various traffic calming measures
1:19:38
between basically the start of Balden and the end of Balden roundabout uh where the
1:19:46
Greyhound stadium is now. Yes, you they have helped in that they've slowed the
1:19:53
traffic down, but as you'll appreciate, twice a day, it becomes almost
1:19:59
impossible at especially that junction, which has presumably why most people try
1:20:06
to try to avoid it. And okay, you can put a roundabout in.
1:20:11
You can put lights in, but you're then going to have a roundabout or lights,
1:20:17
then another roundabout within 100 meters. And then at the top of the hill, there's another set of lights.
1:20:24
It's it's going to just add more and more problems to the Baldens and the people who live there.
1:20:32
And I just think that for once some notice should be taken of this and that.
1:20:39
the people of Balden should be considered in this and not just saying okay you're going to be all right which
1:20:46
you know is it seems to be the general approach.
1:20:53
Thank you. I don't whether for Helen's land or from the council in terms of what's been identified
1:21:00
uh Helen's land please. Thank you sir. Uh I'll just uh direct
1:21:06
you to uh appendix I think it's C in our statement uh which shows some uh traffic
1:21:13
diagrams. See if I just get that sorry appendix D. Fiddling around with tiny screens I'm
1:21:20
afraid. Uh that shows some traffic diagrams where we are which is
1:21:25
showing where we think the traffic that that the site is likely to generate will be distributed on the local road
1:21:31
network. Uh if you have a look at those diagrams there so you'll see that we're anticipating the most of the traffic
1:21:36
coming out of the site will will pass to the west to go towards downhill lane interchange and distribute up and down
1:21:43
the the A19. Some traffic will I'm sure go through to Balden and we've indicated
1:21:49
uh a level of traffic going in that direction but I'd say that's very much the minority direction for for traffic
1:21:55
flow. Now we we hear from the council that there's there's some junctions which may need some improvement to deal
1:22:01
with cumulative impacts and obviously obviously we're quite happy to take on board a proportionate you know share of
1:22:07
of of such work should they be necessary on on further uh evaluation during the
1:22:13
plan application process.
1:22:18
Thank you. I mean, I could probably track back through the IDP, sorry, infrastructure delivery plan and the
1:22:25
local highway network assessment, but is the junction that Mr. Sendle's referring to at downhill lane and the A184, is
1:22:33
that one of the identified junctions, Mr. Mail? Yes, that's correct, sir.
1:22:43
And is it similar to what I heard this morning in relation to the other the the site in East Balden that this stage it's
1:22:50
kind of recognized as a a high level intervention but the precise and the form and nature of that intervention
1:22:57
still needs to be Yes sir that's correct. It's it's high level um strategy
1:23:05
uh high level setting out the mitigation that's required but it's not drilled down into
1:23:12
the sort of level of detail you would get at a planning application stage.
1:23:18
I think just to come in sir the the slight difference between that of the east Ben sites is this isn't currently
1:23:24
traffic signalized. So again that detail will come forward in the application but this is a junction that acts as a
1:23:30
standalone T junction without any form of traffic signal intervention yet. So that might be a consideration which may
1:23:36
be teased out during the trans transport assessment by the applicant. I think you mentioned again this morning
1:23:43
um Mr. male in terms of looking I think more widely at the A184 as it's going
1:23:48
I'm going to probably slip into the wrong terminology the Baldens but whether it's east and west in this instance in terms of things like
1:23:56
cycleway uh enhancements and just generally looking at the overall
1:24:03
condition and circumstances in that corridor. Yes sir. Obviously it was alluded to this morning and I've got no doubt will
1:24:09
be referenced. It is a res residential bound carriageway. That said, what we have got is good linkages between the
1:24:16
bold East Balden village to that of the connection with Sun and City Council then onwards. But there's an
1:24:22
appreciation that where possible, if the intervention allows, we will pursue um active travel corridors and
1:24:28
improvements. Um namely probably off the 184 as I cited earlier this morning, uh
1:24:33
Gordon Drive, South Lane and as well as there's there's appropriate probably considerations to give along Bridal Path
1:24:40
and indeed Dip Lane to then connect Hilton Lane. But again, I would suggest that that detail is further refined as
1:24:47
part of the planning process.
1:24:52
Thank you. If there's nothing further on highways before I move off that point,
1:24:58
are people okay to continue going or is now time to take a break? You okay, Mr.
1:25:03
Sendel? To keep Yes, keep going. Yep. Okay. Uh I can move on to then item uh seven
1:25:12
uh landscape and biodiversity considerations. As the council referred to earlier when we're looking at green
1:25:18
belt compens compensatory improvements for the green belt, you haven't adopted all of the
1:25:26
kind of the ad uh potential options given the uh proximity of local wildlife
1:25:31
uh site etc. But does the landscape setting when we're looking at Balden Hill and the
1:25:38
local wildlife site uh provide a reason for not allocating
1:25:45
um this site or are they factors to be taken into account in terms of the
1:25:50
layout design and how the site comes forward? I'll turn to the council first and then
1:25:56
I'll bring in Mr. Sendel on this point as well.
1:26:03
Okay. Yes. So the the proposed allocation is within close proximity to um Balden Hill um which is identified as
1:26:11
an area of high landscape value in policy 39 of the the local plan. Um and
1:26:16
also as previously referenced it is within close proximity to the downhill quarry local wildlife site and local ge
1:26:23
geodiversity site. Um the the site also falls within a wildlife corridor due to
1:26:29
um its proximity to existing water courses and core sites as identified in
1:26:34
the wildlife corridor review document. Um I think we the the key sort of
1:26:41
mitigation that the the council is sort of proposing to um to act as a to reduce
1:26:49
impact on these um factors is the area of open space to the northwest of the
1:26:54
site which is included within the site frameworks document um which would ask act as a buffer and area of open space
1:27:01
um to the the Balden Hill um area and the local wildlife site. And you'll note
1:27:07
that in the council's response to the MIQs, we have sort of um proposed that
1:27:12
should be minded we could look at including some text within the key considerations to to strengthen that
1:27:19
policy in terms of ensuring that open space is identified within the policy
1:27:24
word and um to ensure that the buffer is delivered.
1:27:44
Thank you, Mrs. L. Is that it's paragraph 5193. So, there's not a precise form of wording before me now,
1:27:51
but where to go down that route, the council could pick that up as a as an action point or something to consider.
1:27:57
Yep. Yes, that's correct. Okay.
1:28:03
If I can bring in I'm going to bring in Mr. Sendle I think in terms of your representation is your concern I think
1:28:08
about impact on the general notwithstanding the the um the green belt this is currently green belt it's
1:28:15
then the separate issue of the landscape quality the ability to kind of um see
1:28:22
and appreciate Balden Hill at this location
1:28:32
this is at the uh western end of the escarment where it tails down to what I
1:28:37
would say general level roundabout. Um so it it is at the end of the
1:28:44
escarment and it's good to be able to view that and to be able to to see the
1:28:51
hill as a hill. I think if you if you've been on the Sunderland side of it, you
1:28:56
see I mean they practically built to the top of a hill now. Um,
1:29:02
is that is that as you're coming up? Is that as you're coming do you pronounce it Hilton? Is it Hilton?
1:29:07
Coming up Hilton Ladies. Yeah. Um, and as the lady has just said, it's
1:29:14
considered to be an area of high landscape value. And I think it's valued
1:29:19
because it leads a sort of tranquility to the
1:29:26
area, if I can put it that way, where
1:29:32
you feel that you're in that area, you're out in the countryside.
1:29:37
Um, it feels rural. Of course, it could be much better, but
1:29:44
it is what it is at the moment. Um,
1:29:56
I know I'm the only person sitting here, but the people that I know in in the
1:30:03
village all appreciate that area and the views, you know, especially, as I say,
1:30:10
from that junction at the roundabout at uh what we call the
1:30:17
the Asda roundabout. Now, over the years,
1:30:22
I've obviously walked that area a lot. Initially, when I was young, you could walk
1:30:28
anywhere under the country code and as long as you behaved yourself, you were
1:30:35
okay. Then, Town End Farm came and it was a bit like the Wild West.
1:30:43
Um, in some ways it still is. It's It doesn't seem to be quite so bad, but un unfortunately for the last couple of
1:30:49
years with my leg, I haven't been able to walk the path that you know. Okay. I think um Mr. Send
1:30:57
people might just, you know, people will not agree with that description of town and farm.
1:31:04
I think well of course I I quite agree, you know, but I'm I'm I'm telling you what people think,
1:31:10
okay? You know, they may not like it, but that's what people think. It it is getting start it's starting to get
1:31:16
better I must admit itself and people take care of their
1:31:22
flats and houses now they are going for 160,000 now at one time I take exception
1:31:30
to what you see well okay I'm sorry if you take exception to it
1:31:35
maybe we can just focus on the agenda item here is on um the landscape and
1:31:42
okay well let's So I think there is still I'll put it in a different way. There is still damage to
1:31:49
the environment not just from that area from from a lot of areas where you the
1:31:56
shall we say go onto the hills. Um
1:32:04
it has affected the wildlife or it it certainly had up till the time I say here when I couldn't walk anymore. But
1:32:11
like yourself, you're not quite sure now where you should walk and where you shouldn't walk. I knew everyone in the
1:32:18
area at the time that is not the case now where I used to wander through the old quarry because I knew the farmer to
1:32:26
the quarry that became a sand quarry and then was became an infill quarry. Um,
1:32:33
and there was a a definite decline of in uh in wildlife that I could see at that
1:32:40
time. Um, to put more houses there and to bring
1:32:47
more people into the area, I can only say it will make matters worse.
1:32:57
Thank you. Okay, I'm going to turn to other people now. Um
1:33:03
Mr. Smith, do you want to introduce bring in a colleague on this point?
1:33:08
Yes. Um it'll be Mr. Streets um speaking in a second. I think the one point I just wanted to add add to that and it's
1:33:14
probably in response to or supplements what Mrs. Lam has said and also just hopefully provides a bit of comfort to
1:33:19
miss Mr. Sendel is that in terms of development approaching the hills on all sides, I think working with the site
1:33:25
constraints, we have got those overhead cables that that run towards the northeastern part of the site. So that
1:33:31
will largely um contain the development parcels and retain at least some um
1:33:38
green space before you get to the Balden Hills. But that said, it still will function in terms of a very important part of the development doing other
1:33:43
things that is probably a neat segue to to bring in Mr. Streets. Thank you, sir. Um yes, um James Streets
1:33:49
from Ocology. We're working as ecologists on behalf of Pelen's Land. Um we we consider that the site is
1:33:56
generally of low habitat value comprising agricultural fields. um the the opportunities granted by the site in
1:34:02
terms of that northeastern green space corridor um provides both a buffer so functional barrier but also linkage
1:34:07
between the local wildlife site to the east which is in Sunderland um downhill meadows as well as downhill quarry um
1:34:15
obviously as part of the scheme we'd have to provide biodiversity net gain which again provides an opportunity to to really enhance those habitats in the
1:34:22
in that location um and to um diversify habitats and actually increase the potential value of the local wildlife
1:34:28
site that's to the norththeast used as well. Okay. Got linkages to local wildlife
1:34:34
sites. Downhill quaries. What was the other one? Downhill meadows meadows. And that's in Sunderlands. It is. Yeah.
1:34:57
And in terms of the points that have been raised about the current condition of the local wildlife site uh and
1:35:03
potential management issues, does this allocation potentially present some
1:35:08
benefits or is the key not to kind of uh I think to manage access or
1:35:17
so yes the the the green space corridor provides an opportunity to provide managed dog walking as probably a key
1:35:22
impact of um of local residents accessing that site. Um so as part of
1:35:27
the scheme you can provide um all weather terrain to provide a circular walk around the site using that green
1:35:33
space to both manage access from the proposed allocation site but also other allocate other sites within the local
1:35:39
area um that may also access that site currently.
1:36:17
Okay. Is there anything further people wish to say in relation to um
1:36:23
landscape and biodiversity considerations? I've got no further questions on this.
1:36:30
No. In which case come to item eight of my
1:36:36
agenda which is around proximity to Sunderland's administrative boundaries and just infrastructure requirements
1:36:43
more um generally um appreciate the council has entered
1:36:48
into a statement of common ground with Sunderland and has identified um
1:36:54
a
1:37:00
I think it is a proposed modification. Yes. Sorry, I'm just trying to track through all the various things that are going on, but I think yes, there is a
1:37:06
proposed I was getting confused with Gates Head and Yep. No, Sunderland. There was a proposed modification as
1:37:11
well in terms of I think the council's agreed to uh in terms of recognizing
1:37:18
u its proximity to Sunderland um and that the draw on um some of the services
1:37:24
and infrastructure may happen within Sunderland's uh administrative area. Not a common not
1:37:32
an uncommon occurrence with plan allocations um these days.
1:37:38
Wonder if the council could just uh briefly um
1:37:45
take us through um you know potential infrastructure um requirements that are likely to arise
1:37:52
from this site. I mean in terms of the policy itself, it doesn't identify any kind of specific
1:37:57
infrastructure requirements. Notwithstanding it's been told it's the second largest allocation uh housing
1:38:03
allocation in the plan. Nonetheless, it's not required to provide specific infrastructure on site. So the
1:38:10
assumption must be if it's required and necessary proportionate contributions if
1:38:16
there are capacity issues. Mr. Clifford, thank you sir. So as you say there will
1:38:23
be cross boundary impacts um and that's reflected in the statement of common
1:38:28
ground between the two councils. So firstly regarding school places
1:38:36
um as was referenced this morning um
1:38:41
school places planning team looked at um primary school places across six
1:38:48
planning areas. So planning area six which is the villages looks at that area as a whole.
1:38:54
So it looks across Whitburn, Clayton and the Baldens
1:39:00
and there is capacity and we've tested capacity and demand in both
1:39:09
areas. So Sunland and South Tinside I say we Sunderland obviously tested their
1:39:14
own capacity and we liazed with them and
1:39:20
clearly given the location of the of the proposed site um
1:39:28
there's potential for um demand to be met in either or both
1:39:34
locations and once parental preferences is become
1:39:40
clear. Uh the two authorities will work together to asssure a coordinated
1:39:45
approach to delivering that capacity.
1:39:51
And there's also um capacity regarding school places on the South T secondary
1:39:59
school places on the South Tide side as was referenced this morning in this
1:40:05
planning area. planning area nine for secondary school places. It would be Balden
1:40:11
Secondary School. In terms of um proximity,
1:40:21
um as was referenced this morning, there there are bus services along um downhill.
1:40:30
as was referenced this afternoon, I should say, the bus services along downhill lane connecting to Balden, but
1:40:37
also I think it's really important to point out
1:40:43
the proximity of the site to Sunland uh confers a number of advantages. For
1:40:49
example, it's less than 100 meters from Town End um academy in Sunderland.
1:40:57
And regarding health care, the site is less than one kilometer away from the
1:41:02
Bunny Hill Surgery and 1.3 miles away
1:41:08
from Castle Town Medical Center. Um, moving forward, the council is
1:41:14
committed to engaging with Sunland City Council when determining the necessary
1:41:20
infrastructure of any planning applications when they come forward.
1:41:25
uh ensuring that they're sec that necessary mitigation
1:41:31
for infrastructure requirements is secured as part of any planning consent and that's reflected in the modification
1:41:39
which you referred to proposed modification is ensuring that the impacts
1:41:44
on the neighboring authority of Sunland are mitigated. Thank you.
1:41:52
Thank you. In terms of that proposed modification, a note in the statement of common ground, Ellen Land presume also
1:42:00
GF White one additional kind of caveat to that proposed modification in terms
1:42:06
of the wording where uh was it where justified and necessary or something to that effect.
1:42:13
Yes. So that's right that it's a tweak upon the uh the arrangement that's been
1:42:19
agreed between the two councils. I think just to give you a live example for explaining that I mean firstly it's
1:42:26
it's just to bring it in line with national policy so it's consistent in terms of the three tests but if we take education as a for instance there's
1:42:34
there's a reasonable chance yes that the um development will generate pupil place
1:42:40
requirements um I think as it stands we've read obviously the council's hearing statements it sounds like
1:42:46
there's capacity to absorb some of those places but possibly um contributions will be required for for the remaining
1:42:52
um in that situation is is quite volatile and can change year on year. If there's a situation where suddenly does
1:42:59
become capacity in the local schools um it would be still be an effect of the
1:43:04
development but would not need to be mitigated if that makes sense. So it's just just some clarifying wording.
1:43:12
Excuse me, Mr. Garland. Yeah, I think we'd agree with that, sir. I think we obviously don't want to have double counted, but it needs to be
1:43:19
assessed at the time of the application. I think we'd agree with that. Council I don't think has agreed to that
1:43:24
or is not accepting that. No. No. Because um it's a matter of law.
1:43:30
Um planning requirements have to be both reasonable and necessary.
1:43:37
There's no reason you don't need to embellish uh the requirement with with those caveats.
1:43:47
Various tests. Mr. Smith when we're looking at planning obligations. I mean, I think I've not really got
1:43:53
anything further to add. I'll probably leave it with you. It's obviously a key consideration given what we discussed at the start of the uh the session, the
1:44:00
list of key considerations and indeed the policy might change somewhat. Um, but I think it would be it would be
1:44:06
consistent with national policy and the three tests if we had the wording added.
1:44:13
Thank you. Leave that with me uh to to to look at I appreciate the uh the
1:44:19
respective um positions. Um
1:44:26
as I say, I've I've looked at the the site, the relationship to um existing development on Town End Farm, seen the
1:44:33
various facilities there are uh in that part of Sunderlands, the bus routes,
1:44:38
etc. So I understand the the relationship um uh to this to this site.
1:44:47
I had nothing further I wanted to cover in relation to infrastructure and um
1:44:53
proximity to Sunderland. Statement of common ground with Sunderland was helpful. So thank you for that. So we've
1:45:00
kind of come on to the last kind of two items for this afternoon which kind of one will sort of uh logically feed into
1:45:07
the other. Uh obviously this is a one of the the sort of a sizable allocation in terms of
1:45:14
the number of homes um anticipated. Um obviously the scope to deliver a mix of
1:45:20
housing on here including affordable housing. Um but as I understand it
1:45:26
there's some dispute as to whether this site can viably deliver 20% affordable
1:45:31
housing. Is that is that the position from uh Mr. Smith for Helens Land.
1:45:40
So I think the viability work was undertaken in 2023 um and I think it followed some fairly crude assumptions.
1:45:47
I think at that stage the um policy requirement assumptions assumed overall
1:45:52
circa 95,000 per per dwelling. Um
1:45:58
that that would have been based on assumptions at the time in in 2023 which it'll be interesting to see how that
1:46:03
closely aligns with the asks obviously at the the application stage. I think when the council tested it, it found
1:46:08
that the development could stomach the affordable housing provision plus the
1:46:13
majority of that, I think 8,600. But I think obviously a lot a lot has happened since. There's obviously volatilities in
1:46:19
the market and and a lot other things that can affect the variables. But I think what and I can invite Mrs. Miss
1:46:26
Rumble to back to the table if she feels necessary. But I think there has been background viability work done and we're
1:46:32
confident that even plugging in the the 9,000 odd figure um that we're
1:46:38
comfortable that the scheme can accommodate the 20% affordable and the policy asks.
1:46:44
So just so I'm clear on the position. So you're not seeking a modification to the plan to amend the 20% affordable
1:46:51
housing. M Rumble. No sir. Okay. That's direct. Sure. Thank you.
1:47:00
Just to pro, sorry, just to probably add to what um Chris has just noted there. We are a registered provider of
1:47:06
affordable housing as well, albeit it's a separate company within Haland's um
1:47:12
and we do strive to deliver the affordable requirements where possible.
1:47:19
Thank you. I appreciate those kind of representations were made at a kind of a more um unified time. I don't Mr.
1:47:26
Garland, there is anything further you wish to add on the viability point.
1:47:31
You're correct. So there were a joint uh submission and there's nothing that's changed in that regard. We certainly
1:47:36
found nothing more adverse on the site from our point of view. So I think we'll conquer
1:47:41
you and from the council's perspective obviously I think you're going to direct me to the viability the local perm
1:47:47
viability work that Mr. New has has prepared.
1:47:55
Thank you sir. Yes the in addition to the whole plan viability
1:48:00
work that Mr. new undertook. Um also undertaken was sight specific
1:48:07
viability work. Um so that's helped inform the council's view of the site
1:48:14
and also in terms of the affordable housing uh the affordable housing requirement was determined through the
1:48:22
whole plan viability work.
1:48:30
Thank you. Well, I don't think this is perhaps the significant issue that perhaps anticipated it it might be. So
1:48:36
that's that's helpful. Thank you. Um so finally come to the last item on the
1:48:42
this afternoon's agenda around delivery time frames. Um
1:48:47
notwithstanding where we started um this afternoon's discussion um the statement of common ground I think the council's
1:48:54
evidence through the strate how the land availability assessment has this site delivering in 2028
1:49:01
2029 invite council first and then I'll come to others thank you
1:49:07
yeah that's correct um like you say notwithstanding discussions we've had earlier today and earlier this afternoon
1:49:14
um we've assumed assumed a buildout rate of approximately 40 dwellings per hectare on that site which is slightly
1:49:20
above the schlaw methodology but I think all throughout the um plan process the
1:49:26
excuse me pro promoters have indicated that that is a realistic and achievable buildout rate in that area.
1:49:33
Okay. Thank you. And in terms of just the
1:49:39
general buildout rates, I mean a relatively large site, 40 dwellings a year broadly for most of the kind of the
1:49:46
plan period. Is that effectively based on one out call it one outlet, but you
1:49:52
basically one developer uh scheme happening consistently or is
1:49:58
that a reflection of kind of market con market locations? Is it is it
1:50:06
conservative? I think the I think the short answer so is it's it's probably all still to be revealed. I think
1:50:12
there's the opportunity for more than one um developer or or at least outlet on site. I think as Mr. Rumble's
1:50:18
mentioned before there there's there is the um register provider arm as well. Um
1:50:23
so I think I don't think there's any dispute between the parties about the delivery assumption start times and that
1:50:29
that is also replicated within the the statement of common ground.
1:50:35
And in terms of uh delivery, I mean first units 2028 29, this is a site that
1:50:42
requires alteration from the green belt. So um presumably people are waiting for
1:50:48
the adoption of a local plan rather than pursuing uh very special circumstances
1:50:54
uh outside of the local plan. So that's a process that needs to run its course. Um and we'll we'll see where that that
1:51:01
that takes us. I think probably the the most positive scenario would be 2026
1:51:09
early to mid 2026. Um it's then got to be a planning application.
1:51:17
Um construction starting on site even before dwellings are completed. Um this
1:51:24
afraid this is discussion we had on another site this morning. It feels very optimistic.
1:51:34
Um, I I don't know. So, I'd be minded to potentially disagree on that. I think
1:51:39
we, you know, we at Lichfields, you you probably had the the start to finish a head before you on many occasion around
1:51:45
the uh examining local plans and I think we've we've we've considered it in terms of the leading times and in light of
1:51:52
that information as well and I think we think it's realistic. If I had a pound for every time somebody
1:51:59
brought start to finish in front of me at an appeal, I'd have some pounds. Um,
1:52:04
it's enough. It must be the most regularly cited um document. But then
1:52:11
yeah, if you're dealing with housing, land supply case work. Yeah. Um I take I
1:52:16
take the point but I just wonder from a just a pra if we take a practical
1:52:21
pragmatic look at this and thinking back to where we started uh in relation to potential modification
1:52:28
to this policy council's mentioned the word master plan trying to kind of
1:52:34
coordinate and get kind of comprehensive approach I think everybody is saying they want to see on this site that seems
1:52:40
to my mind to infer potentially a little bit more time
1:52:46
um and whether you know first delivery is probably more realistically 2029 2030
1:52:57
I think a large a large part of that so would depend on whether or not it's an outline application that comes forward eventually or or a detailed application
1:53:04
and again it's not not to be determined but there there have been interested parties behind that that that would like
1:53:10
to take the site on so there there's every chance it could end up being a detailed application that would at least make up some of that time.
1:53:29
Mr. Garland, thank you. I um I'm ever an optimist and
1:53:34
it's the hope that kills you with planning unfortunately. But I I'd see that as achievable if if you're talking
1:53:39
about an early 26 adoption of the plan a year with an allocated site with all the
1:53:45
surveys done gives you another year to mobilize and start selling. So I I can see I can see it could be done that time
1:53:52
scale and subject to it journey through planning and particularly if you're talking about the
1:53:58
um extension of town farm it's pretty quick on site you know we don't know of any major abnormals any particular on
1:54:07
costs which are problematic so I I think it's probably I think it's probably achievable
1:54:12
but subject to how long it takes for the actual application to be heard and in terms of sort of representation
1:54:19
on the sales per year. It's three in a bit per month, which isn't isn't an
1:54:25
unusual assumption for one unit. Two units, two flags up selling there would
1:54:30
would probably comfortably do that. There's there's probably demand in that area to to match that if you can build them to that rate, which one builder
1:54:36
could if they're selling well, two almost certainly could. So, I don't think the assumptions are out the way.
1:54:43
[Music] Thank you. I I'll reflect on that. But I think coming back to the council from again discussion similar to this
1:54:50
morning. I mean if I felt that this was a site uh in terms of a trajectory
1:54:55
needed to go back slightly by one year. I mean we're looking at 20 dwellings
1:55:01
um in the overall picture at this moment in time. Um I mean were were to arrive
1:55:07
at that conclusion would there be a consensus that that sort of figure excuse me that figure of 20 dwellings
1:55:14
could be easily recovered or recouped within the remainder of the plan period. It's another
1:55:20
three or four a year on top of what's that that must be the case. Um, plus the
1:55:28
fact we're not talking about insuperable or very very difficult structural issues
1:55:33
like you know having to fund up front huge amounts of infrastructure or infrastructure provision. Um um and that
1:55:42
applies probably to all the allocations um unlike some other major allocations
1:55:48
I'm sure we've all worked on in the past. So, um I I wouldn't be unduly
1:55:54
pessimistic about achieving these rates.
1:56:00
Thank you. I'll see if I can find some optimism. Uh but I I want to air this now because as
1:56:07
I indicated to the council this morning, very keen to ensure a plan approach and
1:56:12
that the trajectory is central to that. So, thank you. Are there any further
1:56:17
final points people wish to raise in relation to site delivery?
1:56:23
Mr. Smith, I think the only only one final observation just to make as well is that any sort of illustrative planning um
1:56:30
that has gone over on over the years and there is you will actually find a version of that that plan that's appended to the ecology note that was
1:56:38
submitted along with our hearing statements there. We did actually know some reflection there is actually a housing mix appended to that which when
1:56:45
considered against the schmar um is slightly heavier on four bed houses as
1:56:50
opposed to what the schmar is recommending in terms of fewer for bed housing a greater proportion of two and three. So we're very mindful of
1:56:56
obviously density and some of the green belt recommendations there but I think the the other point of optimism just to
1:57:01
leave you with sir that the the allocation itself actually is an indicative yield of 400. So, we're not
1:57:08
proposing to necessarily formalize changing the trajectory or delivery rates, but there's every chance that if
1:57:13
if a scheme was to come forward that's more reflective of the schmar that it's likely that it would be in excess of 400
1:57:18
on the site.
1:57:28
Thank you. Thank you for those contributions um this afternoon. I think it's obviously a significant
1:57:34
um and uh high priority piece of work from the first well yes the first item
1:57:40
on this agenda again I'll leers with the council through the program officer on kind of broad timets and scope of what
1:57:48
um I'll be expecting uh and as I've indicated at previous sessions I'll then take a view if there's an outcome from
1:57:54
that process whether people are kind of consulted and engaged to provide further
1:57:59
comment on that before stage two or whether we wrap it into stage two and ultimately potentially through uh
1:58:06
proposed main modifications which would go out for consultation. So that will be dealt with in in due course. Okay,
1:58:13
there's nothing further then for this afternoon. Uh a nice uh earlier finish compared to other days. So uh that's
1:58:21
that's always welcome. Um we'll be back in this room. I'm afraid it's a 9:30
1:58:26
start and we've got Cleon and then Wickburn. Thank you.