11:59
Okay. Well, it's come up to half past 9, so it's time for me to open the hearing sessions on day four of the South
12:05
Tinside uh local plan examination. For those of you who haven't attended previous sessions, just to introduce
12:11
myself, my name is David Spencer and I'm the independent uh examining inspector
12:17
appointed by the secretary of state to carry out the examination into the submitted um South Tinside local plan.
12:24
Can I just check uh got not as busy as other days, but can everybody hear me? Okay, am I necessarily see me? Yep.
12:31
Thank you. Uh can I at this early stage just ask people to please ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their um
12:38
silent settings please? Uh and I think there are people who haven't attended previous sessions. So
12:45
please can ask the council for the usual housekeeping please. Yes no problem. Um good morning
12:50
everybody. Um we're not expecting any fire alarms this morning. So, there is an alarm. Please can you make your way
12:56
out the nearest fire exit which is on the far side of the room and then make your way to the far side of the hotel
13:01
car park. Um toilets are just outside of this room across the corridor. Um please
13:06
be careful when you're moving around the room because there are cables taped to the floor. So, just make sure you don't trip on those. Um and also the the hotel
13:13
operates a parking eye system in the car park. So, if you have parked your car there, make sure you've entered your
13:18
registration details at the hotel reception. Thank you.
13:23
Thank you for that. Now these are obviously sessions that are held in public but it's only people who are seated around the table who will have
13:30
the right to be heard and contribute to the discussion that we'll be having this morning. Um these are the first of kind
13:36
of two discussions uh on site specific proposals within the plan. Um this is the first of uh many
13:44
sessions I'll I'll be having uh over this week and next on specific sites and these are sites that would require an
13:51
alteration uh to the existing green belt uh boundaries in order for them to come
13:56
forward. Um in terms of how these um hearing
14:02
sessions work, they are intended to be relative reasonably informal but structured discussions which I shall
14:07
lead based on agendas that I've published previously which ratchet back to my matters issues and questions which
14:15
were a reflection of the representations that people had made on the submitted plan or the proposed submitted plan back
14:22
in early 2024. appreciate evidence doesn't always
14:27
remain uh static. So there have been further things that have developed uh that have progressed uh since early 2024
14:35
and undoubtedly we'll come on to discuss some of those not least the playing pitch um strategy.
14:41
I'll seek to bring people in at various points of the discussion, but if there's a particular point you want to bring to
14:47
my attention and come in on the discussion at a particular point that's relevant to your representation, the
14:53
convention is to upend your name plate and that will signal to me um to bring you in at that particular um point.
15:01
In terms of this morning's session, we're going to first look at site proposed site GA1, which is the land at
15:08
the South Tinside uh college Heben campus. Site GA1 in the plan. Uh and as
15:14
you'll seen from my agenda, I'll probably take then a brief break and then we'll resume to discuss the Wardley
15:21
Collery proposal policy SP14. Uh and um
15:28
the uh the program for this morning is to sit solely for this morning. I am
15:33
going to be imposing a relatively strict 12:30 curfew. So we haven't concluded
15:39
discussion by 12:30. It will have to move into a a potential reserve um
15:45
session, but hopefully we'll we'll cover the necessary ground um this morning.
15:50
That's all I wanted to say by way of sort of brief introductory remarks to today's session. Hopefully people are
15:57
reasonably clear on how these hearing sessions uh work. Um perhaps if I can
16:03
turn at this stage to the council to introduce who will be um assisting me
16:08
this morning from the council's team.
16:18
Okay. My name's Deborah L. I'm the operations manager of the spatial plan team at Southside Council.
16:25
Morning sir. Andrew in senior manager for the planning service at the council. Um Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy
16:32
officer at Southside Council. Thank you. We go around the table
16:37
please. Uh good morning sir. James Finch representing National Highways.
16:43
Morning sir. David Magcguire representing Sport England. Morning.
16:50
Uh, Robin Wood, RMK planning for Thomas Armstrong Holdings.
16:57
Chris Martin from Pegasus Group representing Bellway Homes Limited Northeast.
17:02
Now, I did admit and mention in my introductory marks these sessions are being recorded uh and live streamed. So,
17:10
um, they are uh be available for to view for those who are interested in these
17:16
sessions. Can I just double check? Does anybody wish to make their own recording of this session for any reason?
17:24
Nope. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I can ask people now to first um
17:30
turn to my uh agenda. We'll discuss matter five. It's issue two. So it is
17:35
the site which was the land at South Tinside College the Heaven campus site site GA1 which comes under policy um SP7
17:44
uh of the plan. I am going to go through my agenda but before I do my agenda and
17:50
sort of thinking about my matters issues and questions preceded two signed statements of common ground that the
17:56
council has entered into or has prepared. First one is with Belway Homes
18:01
um Northeast uh and the second was with Sport
18:06
England. I could just invite the C I've read the statements of common ground but just invite the council to perhaps just
18:13
briefly summarize where those statements are statements of common ground get us
18:20
to and what they potentially mean in relation to this specific site. I appreciate it's covering areas of
18:25
agreement and residual areas of disagreement.
18:32
Yes. So I think with the statement of common ground with Belway Homes, the main sort of things to cover were
19:04
broader issues other than just the site we're discussing this morning. But um there is a a section specifically in
19:09
there in relation to uh the GA1 proposed allocation um and and where that sets
19:42
That's there's anything either from Mr. Martin
19:49
or Mr. Maguire that you'd like to bring to my attention having obviously entered into these
19:54
statements of common ground which are helpful um to me whe there's anything specific at this early stage you'd like
20:01
to bring to my attention. So Mr. Martin.
20:08
Thank you sir. It's really just to bring you to your attention. There's a a plan that was appended to the statement of
20:14
common ground. Um it's that plan has now been submitted formally to the council
20:19
as a pre-application inquiry. Um just to bring you up to speed.
20:27
Uh yes, I think that's the one, sir.
20:41
clear on plans. I've got one plan that kind of shows where you suggest the boundary for the site allocation, but in
20:47
terms of pre-application, is it? Yes. The layouts. Yeah.
20:52
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Magcguire, is there anything you say
20:59
at this preliminary stage around the statement of common ground? Uh nothing further at the moment. So that isn't
21:05
covered by the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So moving on then to the agenda. As I indicated, this is a
21:11
site that requires or would result in a proposed alteration to the green belts. We've looked at um yesterday and
21:18
preceding days. I'm going to describe them as some of the sort of the higher level kind of um basis for demonstrating
21:26
uh exceptional um circumstances. Obviously drilling down then at sight
21:31
specific level again uh considering whether local uh whether exceptional
21:37
circumstances apply you would these alterations result in sustainable development there is a degree of harm to
21:44
the green belt uh the extent to which any kind of consequential impacts
21:50
on the purposes of the green belt have kind of been reduced um to their kind of
21:55
lowest reasonable reasonably reasonably practicable um extent. So I think I'd like to invite
22:01
the council first item two on my agenda. Uh the justification when we look at the
22:07
green belt review and I think this comes under a relatively small parcel uh H1
22:14
uh of the green belt review uh and the recommendations within the green belt review about how sort of that impacts
22:21
can be offset through compensatory um improvements and how that's fed into the plan. Please.
22:27
No problem. Um so yes, the the site um itself was considered as part of the
22:34
green belt study. Um and obviously we discussed the methodology um in terms of how those ratings were determined
22:40
yesterday. Um this site um itself um scores low or no um impact um against
22:49
purposes one, three and four of the the green belt study and scores a moderate
22:55
against purpose two which is um
23:00
separation between neighboring um towns. Um I say the highest harm for that
23:06
rating was moderate. thought the council considered that the site um did not pose a significant um degree of harm to to
23:14
the overall green belt within South Tinesside. Um the green belt study also
23:20
includes um appendix C which sets out compensating measures to be considered
23:26
um for the site. Um it sets out a menu of different options which uh
23:31
enhancements in the green belt and surrounding area. Um, from those a number have been incorporated into the
23:38
key considerations in policy SP7. Um, and those are highlighted in the
23:43
council's MIQ response um, in paragraph 5.102.
23:51
Let's also note the supporting text um to to the policy also um refers to the
23:56
green belt study and the south tide green blue infrastructure strategy um also with regards to um compensatory
24:03
improvements for this site and they've sort of been um fed into the site
24:08
frameworks document um which provides a little bit more detail in terms of opportunities for the site in terms of
24:14
mitigation measures.
24:29
Thank you for that. I mean in terms of just looking at the um the site frameworks document I think it's
24:35
document HO2 um in the examination um library is one
24:41
of the supporting documents obviously that looks at kind of site constraints site opportunities um kind of informs
24:49
uh the potential and the capacity of uh the various sites not just J1 but others
24:55
other sites um how does the council kind of consider the status of that document going
25:02
forward. Obviously, it's supporting evidence um to this plan. Um I think
25:08
probably where I'm driving at is did the council give kind of thought to did you want to kind of
25:14
um reflect or embed any of the kind of the evidence from the site frameworks where
25:20
it kind of gives us a kind of concept framework within the plan. Would that be necessary
25:27
um for soundness? Is it something that's going to kind of sit there if the plan is adopted kind of be used
25:34
as kind of evidence to kind of help shape uh development proposals as they
25:40
come forward? Yeah, I think at the moment there's no intention to sort of embed that within the plan itself would be sort of more of
25:45
a supporting document to sort of be referred to as and when plan applications came forward. I think some
25:51
of the key principles um within the the sites framework document have been considered in terms of the the key
25:58
considerations of the sites and I think also um within the wider policies within
26:04
the local plan I think they also would reflect the the asks of the the site
26:10
framework document as well. Thank you. And just I mean I have just
26:16
for the benefit of everybody visited the site um seen its its context and its um
26:22
current um uh condition etc. Um
26:28
just so I'm I'm clear in my mind and I've got the extract from the green belt
26:33
uh review study in front of me. So the this is this is really a sort of the
26:39
boundary of the burough. So from beyond kind of Wardley Lane you're then into
26:44
neighboring Gates Head. Um so the boundary of the
26:50
burough goes pretty much up to is it the metro the bridge over the metro?
26:58
Yes that's correct.
27:05
Thank you Mr. Martin. I don't know in terms of um
27:12
obviously the the exceptional um circumstances case um obviously heard
27:18
there from the council in terms of how this site has been assessed uh through the green belt review um I'm assuming
27:27
from having read your statement and regulation 19 reps there's little
27:32
dispute in terms of the overall um assessment of how this parcel has been
27:38
considered, but it's probably the boundary or how that's kind of reflected in the plan that's the the principal um
27:45
issue. As the council's identified, separation of neighboring um settlements is probably the the
27:53
highest harm, albeit a moderate is assessed at a moderate um degree of
27:58
impact. Um can I seek uh it's probably
28:04
22 on my my agenda in terms of the extent of the proposed allocation uh and
28:09
the boundaries that have been identified whether it's necessary for soundness for those to be altered further.
28:17
Thank you sir. Um yes just to confirm you're correct. We we think that the um
28:24
green belt study is suitably robust. It's based on a sound methodology. We
28:29
agree with the conclusions that it's drawn. Um, obviously we we discussed
28:34
yesterday about exceptional circumstances. If you're convinced, sir, that exceptional circumstances do exist for a
28:41
green belt alteration, I would suggest this site is one of the ones which would have the least impact on the green belt.
28:48
Um, it's a very logical extension to Heburn as in my clients develop land to
28:54
the north. They can easily punch through into this site. ransom strips or anything like that. Uh but you're also
29:01
correct to highlight um there is a bit of a dispute on the extent of the boundary. Uh previous drafts have had
29:08
the boundary um drawn um further south. Um and you'll
29:14
pick up in our statement of common ground that that's an area of disagreement. The rationale behind it is
29:20
there isn't any intention for my client to develop houses right up to that boundary. The reason why we were seeking
29:28
a larger boundary is more to do with experiences we've had elsewhere where
29:34
you have a site and then you are relying on other things going next to it that are going to remain in the green belt.
29:41
For instance, I was involved in a site for another house builder in Newcastle and it was an allocation and we had a
29:48
similar issue there with um Suds and aotments and it was determined at that
29:55
EIP that um that that could that part could remain in the green belt which was
30:00
fine and we got to the planning application stage and I think what people weren't envisaging is all the paraphernalia that then goes with things
30:07
like a lotments and we ended up being in a whole mire of green belt assessments just to put some a lotments on because
30:13
you have storage containers, you have sheds, you have all that sort of stuff. In our preapp, we have uh provided uh a
30:22
plane pitch to the south as part of the mitigation for the plane pitches. We're
30:27
aware that again might need some sort of ancillary
30:32
stuff to go with it in terms of maybe parking or other facilities. I just w weary about being caught in that trap
30:39
again and having to go through the red moral of doing a well in my mind an unnecessary green belt assessment to uh
30:46
to prove that um you know there's no harm to the openness of the green belt on for that. So it's more of a practical
30:53
thing than anything else. Thank you. Thank you. If I can just turn to the
31:00
council on this part of the agenda 22 and the extent of the proposed allocation in the boundaries. Obviously,
31:07
I have in mind um paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework um
31:12
when defining green belt um boundaries. Uh
31:18
part F of paragraph 143 um define boundaries clearly using physical
31:23
features that are readily recognizable and likely to be permanent. Obviously,
31:28
I've been to been to the site. I've seen where the proposed boundaries um
31:34
intended to be kind of redrawn. Um it clearly doesn't follow physical features
31:40
on the ground. It's cuts cutting across this area of open land. Um can I draw a
31:47
conclusion that that would remain consistent with national planning policy?
32:16
Uh yes. So obviously the the site allocation itself does cut cut across the field. The where the the line has
32:23
been drawn is sort of reflective of the built development on the the other side of the road where the sort of residential area. Um the land to the
32:30
south really is there to sort of act as a bit of a buffer between the built development and the the the green belt
32:38
and local authority boundary because of the um the green belt study in terms of the the highest um harm was in terms of
32:46
the the closing of settlements between South Tide and Gates Head. um the
32:52
retaining that as green belt would allow for obviously green belt compatible uses to be provided in there in terms of
32:58
mitigation part BNG obviously the playing field um that's been sort of mentioned as well um so we would
33:07
we would sort of propose that the boundary would be sort of made in terms
33:13
of that that site allocation in terms of the landscaping and the mitigation that would go into that area of
33:22
Thank you. I mean, I put it um to the council. I'm not suggesting this is a
33:28
modification I would be recommending at this stage, but just to kind of gauge
33:33
the council's view on this. um where I to feel from having visited
33:40
the site and from reading um Belway Homes submission that an alternative you
33:46
know it there would be a reason for soundness to amend the boundary so it
33:51
followed the wardly lane as a physical feature
33:57
um possibly in combination with additional policy content within policy
34:03
SP7 that kind of made clear what's intended here in terms of open space
34:10
biodiversity net gain and there was further specificity I don't like that word but I'm keeps
34:17
happening in planning um within uh policy SP7 that kind of drew that
34:23
distinction I appreciate appreciate the council's
34:29
conferring um
34:35
Clearly, if no development is intended on that part of the site
34:41
and um having regard to its relative sens sensitivity
34:49
um and it's meant to endure as undeveloped land in green belt terms
34:57
um well into the future um and is capable of um being landscaped
35:05
in a way which provides that identifiable boundary between the built and the unbuilt area. There's no reason
35:11
why uh it shouldn't proceed on a current basis in my submission. However, if you
35:17
are if you do take the view that the boundary ought to change uh to bring it in line with paragraph 143 um then it's
35:25
very important that the policy um should be modified in order to strengthen
35:34
the importance of the role of the unbuilt area uh in terms of its
35:42
um function. as mitigation and open land as part of
35:50
the overall allocation.
35:56
Thank you. Then Mr. Martin, whether you want to come in on what I've um
36:04
sort of aired or articulated there. Uh yes, thank you, sir. Um obviously
36:10
it's for you to to ruminate and uh and and decide as to what what is uh
36:17
appropriate but from uh my client's point of view um your suggestion about
36:24
um having a boundary in the southern extent that's already lane and having a
36:29
clear policy steer about what goes in that southern bit to me sounds like a sensible way forward and it would as I
36:35
said it would avoid us if there is anything that's classed technically as development in the green belt then it
36:41
would allow us then to not have to go through the rig roll of a sight specific green belt assessment. It sounds to me
36:48
like a pragmatic way forward. Thank you. I mean just picking up I mean put that
36:53
that put that to the council. I understand the council's position is you consider you submitted a sound plan and
36:59
you know that that should be um the basis that goes forward. Um just being
37:04
sort of devil's advocate for a moment with you Mr. Martin in terms of you say the rigma roll um in terms of national
37:12
planning policy uh policies of the plan uh in terms of
37:17
the types of uses that are envisaged uh are they not in appropriate development
37:22
within the green belt things like uh compensate bodiversity net gain open
37:29
space you know open space provision pitch provision
37:34
um I would say on the face of it so That's correct. It's any of the ancillary things that go with it. So it
37:43
the plans for the pictures haven't been completely the p replacement pitch to the south hasn't been completely
37:48
crystallized, but it may be that they need to be some storage facilities for
37:54
people who use the pitch. There may need to be a bit of car parking um that sort
38:00
of thing. And it may end up being in my the example that I used last uh that I
38:05
explained before in Newcastle, it was um not so much that the uses were incompatible with the green belt, but
38:12
they were allowed in the green belt providing they don't affect the openness
38:17
and the green belt assessment I had to undertake at that point in time was all about um does that material affect the
38:23
openness of the green belt and I just as I said I just wanted to avoid it because um it just becomes an unnecessary very
38:31
policy burden for my client to then go through and I'm aware obviously that the government in its current guys is saying
38:38
to us that we need to be um reducing the burdens on developers to in order to
38:44
bring sites forward for the homes that are needed.
39:03
uh we can usefully add anything more to our um
39:08
justification for the approach we wish to take. And um one has to be very
39:13
careful. It's all very well sitting around this table um saying well we we we want to sort of uh loosen the
39:22
criteria a little bit so we can provide particular types of built development
39:27
there to support the recreational use that's great around this table but on
39:32
once you let go of that restriction it opens up a whole prospect in future
39:38
years um for applications to be determined uh otherwise than in accordance with the
39:45
development plan because it will be possible to to demonstrate material circumstances
39:51
that that protection will be lost and um we have to bear in mind um the fact that
39:57
um um we are dealing here with a limited resource in terms of the green belt and
40:04
its release is something of great sensitivity and we acknowledge that. We acknowledge how difficult it is. So we
40:11
have to treat this resource very carefully. That's all I would say.
40:18
Thank you. If I can just be clear from the council's perspective and thinking back through to the statements of common
40:24
ground. appreciate as I said earlier consider the plan as it's presented is
40:30
sound but in terms of the kind of the wider uh approach to this location
40:36
correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not reading a kind of a view from the council about this uh remaining sort of
40:44
um area of green belt at this stage being considered
40:50
suitable for providing open space or you know uh biodiversity
40:58
net gain in association with what's inside, you know, what would be inside
41:03
the the uh the amended green belt proposal?
41:16
Yes. Uh we do envision that that that area of land would be providing the mitigation for the site. Like I say, we've touched on the playing field um
41:23
issue um already there. So we we would be anticipating that mitigation would be
41:28
provided on that site for the proposed allocation. Oh, I
41:36
that's fine. I think I find myself torn between examining a plan under the 2023
41:43
national planning policy framework and then what could be happening at the cold
41:48
face in terms of once the plan's adopted. And I'm just just putting it
41:55
out here as just kind of um something to kind of think about or consider in terms of ultimately what
42:03
wants to be achieved or secured at this location. Thinking back to the idea or proposal I
42:12
was kind of airing in terms of amending the green belt now with further kind of specificity about open space provision
42:20
to provide a degree of certainty about how this uh wider parcel could come
42:25
forward versus if the green belt boundary remains as presented
42:32
um is there a risk under the current national planning
42:38
policy framework that this could potentially be seen as a gray belt
42:43
area between two towns. There is that potential
42:50
and whether that's points at this stage to whether
42:57
modifying the green belt boundary and having that kind of clear policy content
43:05
for use that would provide openness in this location is something that
43:13
as Mr. tonight says for me to ruminate on but I'm airing it now for the council's consideration.
43:18
It's a valid observation. Um and if on balance you feel that the
43:24
protection is best afforded by changing the proposed green belt boundary there
43:29
and reinforcing the policy then that's a matter for your discretion.
43:40
Thank you. If I do go down that route, obviously that would be part of a post hearings
43:46
kind of correspondence and the council would then have a, you know, decide what you would like to do, how you'd like to
43:51
take that forward. But I'm I'm just I'm not saying at this stage that's where I'm
43:57
where I'm going, Mr. Martin. No, I sorry to say I don't I don't
44:03
really have anything to to add to what Mr. Chadavian says. Um it's just yeah to point out that it doesn't necessarily
44:10
have to be in green belt. There are other development management tools that can be used to um manage whatever
44:17
development comes forward in that area.
44:22
Thank you. Are there any further
44:30
sorry section 106 would also provide a mechanism u where a condition might be
44:36
seen to be inadequate um um to secure the long-term
44:41
um uh stewardship of that land.
44:49
And that's something which we could consider to be introduced into the policy as a as a requirement.
45:02
Thank you for that. Um I'd like to move on to item three on my agenda please in
45:07
terms of the suitability and achievability of the site um for housing. Um
45:14
I think this then brings in I think for um we'll hear from Mr. Maguire from um
45:20
Sport England. Um in terms of the last use the existing
45:27
use of this site uh as playing field um I think I'm sort of understanding from
45:34
the evidence that this was a site that was previously associated with uh the campus. Is that the St. Joseph's
45:42
school site? Is it some something completely different? Right.
45:49
Yes. So the there was a um a South Tai College Heaven campus which um is now
45:56
the housing which is to the north of the site that was um closed back in in 2011
46:01
and then there was application in 2014 for the housing that exists next to the proposed allocation at the moment.
46:08
I see. So there was there was built development where I see the new the newer housing at re regent drive I think
46:15
it's called just to the north to to the north of this site. Yep.
46:20
Thank you. Um I think from reading the various statements of common ground um and the
46:28
evidence before me um there's notwithstanding the current condition of
46:33
the site I have seen grazing horses on there at various points um
46:41
that it was yeah its last use was playing field uh pitch um uh provision
46:48
obviously I've got in mind uh national planning uh policy framework and we've looked to the September 2023
46:56
um edition the one I'm working to it's paragraphs 98 uh and 99 in particular 99 in terms
47:06
of existing open space sport recreational uh buildings and land should not be built on until uh and
47:13
subject to a variety of um criteria. Um I think there has been an issue for
47:19
some people that the playing pitch um strategy which I think is document NAT
47:24
17 is something that's kind of come forward and sort of been finalized
47:30
uh post regulation um 19 um but just in high level terms
47:37
just so that I'm unclear terms of that first um part of paragraph 99 the
47:45
assessment um that has been undertaken clearly shows um that there is kind of
47:51
no uh sort of surplus in existing open space and pitch provision.
47:59
Mr. Magcguire, bring you in first and I'll hear from the council, please. Thank you, sir. That that that's
48:06
correct. We I sort of tried to summarize the position in Sport England statement.
48:12
um there rather than there being a surplus of uh playing field in the Heburn and Jarro sub area, we find that
48:20
there are particular shortfalls in pitch provision uh around junior football and
48:26
in respect of rugby union. So quite the opposite uh situation to surplus.
48:39
Thank you. And does um the plane pitch strategy kind of quantify the degree of
48:45
shortfall versus this kind of existing demand and what might be
48:52
likely to arise as a consequence of the the local plan. Was it just a kind of headline there is there is a shortfall I
48:58
mean a quantitive shortfall. The prolitic strategy looks at various
49:05
points in time. Um our methodology encourages that. So it it looks to the
49:11
existing point in time and um assesses um temporal demand against temporal
49:16
supply for for particular pitch types and then it tries to project forward in respect of what we know about uh housing
49:23
growth in in in terms of the local plan but it also seeks to combine um growth
49:29
aspirations from some of the clubs in there. Uh and so what we know is that um
49:35
there's it breaks down that um there is a small
49:41
surplus of of adult uh football pitches. Um but when you look at the uh smaller
49:48
sided games so um junior football and then it breaks down to smaller sided football there are shortfalls in those
49:54
categories and they are projected to to to grow uh in in extent over the planned
50:01
period. Um in respect of rugby union uh the Gerovians club um currently at
50:07
balance in terms of of their provision but they have quite substantial growth aspirations which um from our
50:14
understanding with the rugby union they are struggling to accommodate participants that want to to to play and
50:21
form teams. So I think one of the things that the playing pitch strategy suggests there is that land at their at their um
50:29
home site that's currently set aside for football it can be re uh recategorized
50:34
as rugby union pitches but obviously that has a knock on effect in its own right
50:40
and just so I'm clear from um Sport England's position uh obviously this the
50:46
playing pitch strategy uh and accompanying assessment as I say has come in since the plan was um consulted
50:53
on back in 2024. As an organization, are you broadly
50:59
content with the approach that's been taken, the methodology that's been used in that assessment and the the outputs
51:06
that have been identified? Yes, the the the strategy and the and
51:11
the assessment was undertaken in accordance with our methodology. Um, one of the things about the methodology is it it encourages uh steering group which
51:19
is made up of the council and various functions within the council, external organizations such as sport England and
51:25
the national governing bodies to support and all those respective parties signed off the assessment and strategy and
51:32
action plan. I can hear you perfectly well, Mr. McGuire because you're kind of talking
51:37
to me but I'm mindful your microphone is slightly off to the your
51:43
left hand side so for wider but I I I heard all that so thank you for that.
51:55
Thank you. And in terms of indicated um coming back to the council under I think
52:00
per part one uh of my item three on the agenda
52:06
uh again looking at statements of common ground um I don't see there's a kind of a dispute from the the council that
52:13
there is an existing shortfall there's no surplus uh and therefore in considering this site has
52:21
to be some form of mitigation or replacement provision.
52:26
Uh yes, that's correct. And that's touched on in the the plane page strategy um document as well in terms of
52:34
seeking to identify um mitigation for that site.
52:51
Thank you, Mr. Martin. please. Thank you, sir. Um, I wouldn't dispute
52:58
the fact that this was last in use as a playing pitch, but I think it's important to understand the background
53:05
and the context to this. So, these were playing pitches associated with the college campus and largely used by that
53:13
college before they were shut down before the college was shut down in in 2011. Um, so they have not been in use
53:20
for 14 years now. Um, I would imagine if there was ever any
53:26
vision to have them brought back into use, it I would suggest it would have been done by now. Um I think from our
53:35
point of view um there's a bit of a
53:40
sort of disconnect between what the policy requires us to do which I accept
53:46
its last use as a playing pitch and actually what the reality is on the ground and the reality is on the ground
53:51
is there's very little prospect of these being brought back purely for use as a
53:57
playing pitch given the time that's passed. In fact, given the time that's passed, if an application were to go on,
54:03
while Sport England would be consulted, there would not be a statutory consultee because it's beyond five years. Um
54:11
it's um for us it's it's important to set out that um
54:18
that that in that context in the context that um I'm hope you would agree sir is
54:24
that that there is a pressing need for housing in South Tinside you look at the housing land supply issues look at the
54:31
housing delivery test um and I know we've debated about how constrained it
54:37
the the um local authority is in terms of it. It's it's a tight urban area with
54:43
a green belt boundary around it that um what we're offering in terms of
54:48
mitigation is entirely appropriate and um is um acceptable from your point of
54:56
view. I'm hope sir um in terms of um having that balance between
55:03
housing need and being able to mitigate the the playing pitch um loss which as I
55:09
said is is to me it's more of a policy thing than a than a reality on on the ground. Thank you.
55:16
Thank you. But is there any dispute from um Bellway Homes that notwithstanding the passage of time in land use terms
55:25
existing uses playing playing pitch?
55:30
No, no, I don't don't dispute that. I just think it's worth knowing the context of where we are with it and the
55:37
fact it's it's not been used as a playing pitch for I would I would say a substantial amount of time. 14 years is
55:45
a long time and that if there was any
55:50
chance of them coming forward as playing pictures, it it I suggest it would have
55:55
that would have happened by now. Mr. Maguire, please.
56:03
I think there's probably a couple of items I'd like to pick up on in that uh previous statement. Um there are checks
56:09
and balances in the planning system uh which secure sport England's involvement uh in proposals that affect playing
56:16
field and um obviously uh we're a statutory consultee on development upon playing field development that affects
56:23
playing field and development that might prejudice its use. Now the term prejudice its use can uh cover quite a
56:30
lot of instances. So we would say that um while the redevelopment of the
56:36
college footprint didn't uh was obviously wasn't on playing field it was it was confined to the built footprint
56:42
of the college that development took away the ancillary facilities that made
56:48
the playing field function. So the car parking the changing the toilets any
56:53
storage of sports equipment that all went with the footprint of the of the housing. Unfortunately, Sport England
57:00
wasn't consulted upon that application. So any measures that we might have sought to give the playing field a
57:07
fighting chance of being able to sustain itself on its own, we didn't have the opportunity to make that argument. I'm
57:14
also really interested to know um what measures uh Mr. Martin thinks uh are
57:21
necessary to the playing field to bring it back into use. I'm not aware of there being any aronomy report which looks at
57:28
the you know how unredeemable it is. Obviously it's it's a bit of a shock to go on the site and see horses grazing. I
57:34
think we've all seen that. But in in the site is still relatively flat. I I'm not
57:42
sure that um there's anything irredeemable about a site like that. I've seen worse brought back into use.
58:06
Thank you. I've got no further questions. I wanted to relay um pick up
58:12
on the first part of paragraph 99 of the national planning policy framework.
58:18
Um but I will sort of lean into it perhaps a bit on when we look at
58:23
paragraph B. So the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better
58:29
provision as well as kind of want to understand about the if there is a kind of a quantitive
58:35
uh kind of un underprovision or deficit that's been identified. I mean this site extends uh according to policy GA1 to
58:44
5.7 hectares. Um is a review that that encompasses that
58:51
all of that was former uh playing pitch
58:57
uh provision.
59:02
Thank you sir. Um, to be fair, I I I don't know the answer
59:08
to that. If you look back at some of the historic um
59:14
photos of the of of the site on on Google, I think often there seems to be
59:19
two pitches marked out on there uh of various sizes. Um, that's the only
59:27
information I have in terms of the extent of the pitch use on there. I know obviously there's certain regulations as
59:35
to what's defined as the pitch and playing area and what what isn't, which I'm sure Mr. Magcguire knows, but that's
59:43
all the information I have unfortunately. Thank you. Uh Mr. Magguire, please.
59:52
Um I'm really wary of of um semantics, but the the definitions mattered quite a
59:57
lot to Sport England. So um the definition of of the playing field is
1:00:02
the whole of a site which includes a playing pitch of 0.2 hectares or more and it then goes on to list what a what
1:00:09
a playing pitch is and it's it's a delineated area which is used for the for the playing of of particular sports
1:00:16
most commonly football rugby rugby league um hockey and then it goes on to
1:00:22
list about 13 more which become quite obscure. So um irrespective of of how
1:00:27
many pictures it laid out um the whole of the whole of the the site that's that's allocated was playing field
1:00:37
and it met that definition.
1:00:53
Thank you. So in terms of the approach that's taken with this site allocation, turn to the council and look at the
1:00:59
wording of policy GA1 as it currently uh has been submitted to ensure that the playing field loss is mitigated uh in
1:01:06
accordance with policy 37 which obviously the uh policy of the plan in relation to open space pitch provision
1:01:13
and the most up-to-date pitch um strategy evidence and I think this where one kind
1:01:19
of understand uh the degree to which there is any kind of consent consensus on what that kind of mitigation
1:01:26
could look like whether it's feasible, practical, deliverable within the
1:01:31
context of this um allocation and whether there's a sense to which you know there is a balance somewhere to be
1:01:38
struck. Um I can turn to the council in the first
1:01:44
instance in terms of having received the the plane pitch strategy
1:01:50
what the kind of the council's view is on the kind of the mitigation that could be secured
1:01:55
uh in relation to enabling this site to come forward primarily for housing.
1:02:02
Yes, thank you sir. Um and I think as as we've set out in our hearing statement in in addition um
1:02:10
that that mitigation for the for the loss of the playing field land as identified would comprise um retention
1:02:18
of and provision of playing field um on the land immediately adjacent to the site that we've already discussed in the
1:02:25
session this morning. um together with um
1:02:32
a financial contribution to assist in bringing back into use um playing
1:02:37
playing pictures which have fallen out of use near to the site elsewhere in the
1:02:43
burough um including at the clock as identified in the plane pitch strategy
1:02:50
andor at Heben Riverside and where those mitigation measures would um seek to
1:02:56
address the reasons why those pictures have fallen out of use. Um, as well as
1:03:02
in turn providing um both mitigation in ter in quantitative terms by bringing
1:03:09
those pictures back into use and and the wider community and sporting benefit
1:03:14
that would come from that provision. And we feel that that is effective mitigation for what is being lost as
1:03:22
part of the allocation of the site for housing.
1:03:29
Thank you. And in terms of um seeking to secure
1:03:35
uh you say retention of playing pitch, but I'm I'm clear that would be on at
1:03:40
the moment land outside of the the allocation, but adjacent to it, the area
1:03:46
we were referring to earlier. Um, I may need some assistance or an action for
1:03:51
the council just to help me quantify the extent of that area of land as a
1:03:56
hector figure, please.
1:04:04
Yes, we can we can provide that. I think it's been referred to in in some of the material before me whether there's kind
1:04:10
of wider benefits if that area was retained and brought back into an active
1:04:16
uh sport use in terms of the proximity. So obviously mindful this site is
1:04:22
adjacent to St. Joseph's um academy. Just invite the council and then others
1:04:28
to come in on on that point. That's something I should have in mind as a kind of a material factor.
1:04:36
Yes, I think in uh our our answer to MIQ's at 5.117, I think we we set out
1:04:42
the adjacency of of what would be that retained plane pitch um to St. Joseph's
1:04:49
um and where currently there is, as we understand it, high demand for for use
1:04:55
of the pictures at that school site, both uh by the school itself and and extensive community use and potential
1:05:02
overplaying of those pictures. where an additional pitch adjacent to that school
1:05:08
um as set out as mitigation would would assist in um addressing those those
1:05:13
issues at the school currently. Thank you. Bring in Mr. Martin and I'll
1:05:20
I'll come to Mr. Maguire, please. Thank you, sir. Um it's just to echo
1:05:26
what Mr. Inch said. Uh and as I mentioned earlier, we've put a pre-application inquiry in with the
1:05:32
council and as part of that we're also engaging with St. Joseph's to see if
1:05:39
they there could be some wider benefit for them to use that and the plane pitch
1:05:44
strategy does say about the how popular those pictures are that are associated with St. Joseph's and that they are used
1:05:52
a lot. they have heavy use and actually this could be of a benefit by adding a further pitch that they might be able to
1:05:58
utilize. Thank you
1:06:05
for um Sport England please. Um sort of going down here I think the path
1:06:11
of mitigation just mindful um the MPPF talks specifically about
1:06:19
replacing where loss is um being um considered whether sport England
1:06:26
understand sport England's position on the principle of a kind of a package of
1:06:32
mitigation that's being outlined certain sites are being referred to the
1:06:37
do Heaven Riverside kind of the legitimacy or the the kind
1:06:43
of the the benefits potentially of that approach or whether that's um to shorthand not going to cut the
1:06:50
mustard. Um, and then I'd be interested also for Sport England's uh view that on what I'm
1:06:58
being sort of invited to in terms of the benefit of at least bringing some of this site back into sport provision use
1:07:05
given its proximity to um St. Joseph's Academy.
1:07:13
I think the first thing that I need to point out is that um in respect of the the test at uh NPPF
1:07:21
uh power 99B, we don't consider there is actually any
1:07:27
quantitive replacement of playing field. Um and that's very important in respect
1:07:33
of the previous distinction I made between the the definition of of playing field and and playing pitches. So um
1:07:42
there is no quantitative replacement. The the sites that have been specified at the clock Heban Riverside and King
1:07:50
George V at Heb are all playing field in their own right. Albeit uh they're not
1:07:56
currently used. So there is no quantitative element to
1:08:01
to what uh the council are proposing in terms of their mitigation package. Now
1:08:07
um recent case law um the Maple Durham case um advises uh Sport England and
1:08:14
local authorities how they should approach the test at uh par 99B and
1:08:19
that's not as separate elements. So you don't consider if if there's no quantitative replacement and there's
1:08:26
qualitative replacement it doesn't instantly fail the test. What it what that case tells us is that we should
1:08:33
consider the two in the round and Sport England are happy to follow that approach. Um but obviously we need to be
1:08:40
sure that what's what the council are proposing in respect of uh any retention at the allocated site.
1:08:47
um the clock and the other two sites at at the Riverside, the King George V and
1:08:52
and Heaven Riverside offer those qualitative improvements significant
1:08:58
enough to outweigh the being no quantitative replacement.
1:09:04
Um and that's where the nub of of our disagreement lies, I think. Um
1:09:10
I I was listening to the debate around um compliance with green belt policy of
1:09:17
the retained open space at the allocation with interest this morning because um from from our point of view
1:09:24
from Sport England's point of view we need to be sure that what's retained there is is sustainable and functions
1:09:32
and it's an attractive proposition for teams to use. Now, um I'm not clear in
1:09:37
my own mind, um how that would be done. Um we had we've talked with the council
1:09:43
about the the issues with with St. Joseph's Academy and it's clear from aerial photographs and and the
1:09:49
statistics that we have from the plane pit strategy that that site is overplayed. So when um we were looking
1:09:56
at at um the the the allocated site, there was some interest from um from
1:10:02
football as to whether um what was retained could supplement the pitches at
1:10:07
at um at St. Joseph's, but I I I'm not clear in my own mind how that would be
1:10:14
achieved. The the landscaping belt that it that exists between um St. Joseph's
1:10:19
site and what would be retained is is quite substantial. I didn't attempt to to to try and navigate it when I when I
1:10:27
visited the site. It's uh particularly because the area of retained uh playing
1:10:33
field at the at um at the the campus
1:10:38
would be uh would encounter the the most significant uh extent of that landscape
1:10:46
strip. So quite how you link the two without forcing participants to then take a securitous route through the
1:10:53
newly built state I'm not quite sure of. So we have concerns about about what's
1:10:59
retained and if it if it if it can't be linked to the to the St. Joseph campus
1:11:04
then what degree of of um of supporting infrastructure can be provided on site
1:11:10
but still comply with green belt policy in terms of openness. So those doubts exist for me. Um
1:11:18
the the the clock playing field uh is a good size uh good size playing field.
1:11:26
It's in what appears to be excellent condition, albeit aided by the weather we're having at the moment. Aerial
1:11:31
photographs suggest that um it still has um a pattern that I associate with with
1:11:37
supplementary drainage to improve its playability. Um but it's been out of use for for for
1:11:43
such a long time and we need to get to the bottom of why that is and um there
1:11:48
is no changing provision on site at the moment. Uh there is no parking provision on site there at the moment for for um
1:11:56
for teams to use. And what we haven't done is is develop any sort of idea as
1:12:02
to as to how we could uh improve its its offer for it to be attractive to team
1:12:09
users. Um and I'm mindful of the fact that if we introduce um that development any
1:12:18
parking on there or any change in accommodation um well we haven't tackled parking so
1:12:24
there's no obvious point of access to the site at the moment but if we introduce changing accommodation there
1:12:29
then it may be the case that um that the highways engineers have got they will
1:12:34
want to introduce parking um to to accommodate teen users. So there there
1:12:40
are significant hurdles there that need to be overcome. So we're not sure of the value of that offer yet. And when I look
1:12:46
at the two sites down at um the Riverside area, so the Riverside Playingfield and and um and uh the King
1:12:54
George the Fifth Field, um they are pretty isolated sites. Um
1:12:59
there there is there is some parking provision down there um which is is
1:13:06
barriered off at the moment to allow uh to stop um you know in appropriate use.
1:13:12
But aerial photographs do suggest that it's been subject to some antisocial behavior. Those sites are frequented as
1:13:20
as open space. So you have all the attendant problems with that in terms of litter and um
1:13:27
dog dirt and things like that that you really don't want to encounter when you you're looking to uh to set up a pitch
1:13:34
and and and participate in sport. And um that that sort of problem does affect
1:13:40
the the clock as well. an open area which local residents do see as as their
1:13:45
open space. So in summary, what's proposed is a bit
1:13:51
half is halfbaked at the moment and we can't be sure from Sport England that those problems can be overcome to the
1:13:58
extent that they form uh an offer that's of significant benefit so as to outweigh
1:14:04
the quantitative loss. I think there's one further point that I touched upon in
1:14:09
my my statement that I I want to try and clarify for you. We talked about um the
1:14:15
figures that we found in the playing pitch strategy in respect of adequacy of provision for football and there's
1:14:22
there's a fairly common feature that South Tinesid's playing pitch strategy uh assessment displays uh that that's
1:14:29
pretty common up and down the country and that the the number of adult football teams has declined over the
1:14:35
years whereas there's been significant growth in junior football. Now, what the
1:14:40
impact of that is that um the the the adult teams were quite happy with single
1:14:45
pitch sites. You know, if you're representing the dog and duck and you you only need a pitch every every
1:14:50
fortnight. Uh whereas the growth that's come about in in junior football tends
1:14:57
to be uh club related and and some of the clubs in in South Tide are of a considerable size. I think Heban uh
1:15:04
Hebtown Juniors is probably one of the the largest I've come across. Well, those clubs demand and really want to
1:15:11
have um multi- pitch sites to be able to base age groups on. So that means that
1:15:16
as as uh those single pitch sites have become
1:15:21
less popular and multi- pitch sites more popular, what's being offered here in
1:15:27
respect of the Heb Riverside and King George 50s is a sort of fragmentation of provision which runs contrary to the
1:15:34
trends in in sort of site demand. Thank you for that. I mean just from a
1:15:40
practical point of view, Mr. Maguire in terms of thinking about this site I mean is it Sport England's position that the
1:15:46
starting point would be to retain this site for open space provision and not
1:15:52
see any development on this site or if development is to happen on this site in
1:15:58
the way that's proposed in the plan there should be a straightforward
1:16:03
like for like or very similar degree of quantitative replacement
1:16:09
and for that to be provided um somewhere else and I'd be interested to hear Sport England's view on just the practicality
1:16:16
within South Tine side and the demands on land use how realistic kind of direct
1:16:23
replacement um would be uh again addressing these kind of issues of fragmentation and wanting to keep
1:16:29
provision relatively close to clubs etc within the Heburn um area. Well, once if we we
1:16:38
don't demand we we we don't operate playing field policy in in the way that requires sites are preserved in ASPIC.
1:16:45
We're quite happy to look at replacement provision provided it it meets the policy test in in the MPPPF.
1:16:52
Um but having said that I am mindful of the fact that um we've talked about the
1:16:58
the potential benefits that would occurr uh to the offer at St. Joseph Joseph's
1:17:05
Academy with the retention of some provision at at the the allocated site.
1:17:10
Now the point was first raised to me by the football association that actually that
1:17:17
would be significantly better if the whole site was retained. And I have to agree with them because even in
1:17:23
practical terms the ability to create a link between the two is is much easier
1:17:28
from the northern end of the of the allocated side than it is from the southern end which is retained. So I
1:17:35
I've got to measure that potential against what is put before me uh from
1:17:41
the council in terms of in terms of mitigation at the moment. Obviously we don't have any replacement quantity of
1:17:47
playing field and I think it's been alluded to in in in statements elsewhere
1:17:53
that um because of the the tightly defined nature of the urban area and the green belt boundary that actually there
1:17:59
aren't a lot of sites that present themselves for that. Thank you for that. If I can come back
1:18:05
to the council on some of the points that have been raised there. I think an area I'm particularly interested in in
1:18:10
terms of picking up sport England's position on kind of the effectiveness of the kind of the mitigation that the
1:18:16
council's kind of putting forward Mr. inch or colleagues can just advise me in
1:18:22
terms of this the clock sites and Heben River Heban Riverside. Are they count are they
1:18:29
South Tinside Council assets? Are they under your
1:18:35
uh control? Yes, they are. So, yeah.
1:18:43
And in terms of securing uh any kind of um package, you mentioned earlier around
1:18:48
you the ability for potential financial contributions from this site. I'm not clear in my mind yet whether that's
1:18:55
sufficient in in and of itself, but is there any kind of wider efforts or
1:19:00
program from the council uh either through its own resource or
1:19:06
collectively not just through this site but potentially other sites to kind of bring effect to
1:19:13
the ambition, the goal of you know, bad pun, the the um the the intention of
1:19:21
uh bringing the heaven Riverside and clock site into kind of more intensive
1:19:27
or regular use. Yeah. Um in terms of Heban Riverside,
1:19:33
the council has been working on on a master plan for the whole of the Heb Riverside area. Um and um that's been
1:19:41
consulted upon with the public and and part of um the overall master plan is is
1:19:47
considering how those pictures could be, you know, brought back into use. Um
1:19:53
they're not currently in use as as Mr. McGuire has identified. Um there are
1:19:58
issues associated with antisocial behavior and some of the issues Mr. McGuire mentioned in terms of how people
1:20:06
use them currently and and and part of that relates to the fact they're not currently in use for for sporting
1:20:11
benefit. Um, and as I think we've set out in the statement of common ground with Sport England at at paragraph 3.9,
1:20:18
a lot of the the measures we've mentioned there around tackling unauthorized vehicle use, looking at the
1:20:24
tackling drainage um of the pitches, all these sorts of measures can really start to to look at how those pictures are
1:20:32
brought back into use um and and for wider wider sporting benefit. Um and and
1:20:38
similarly at the clock um there are ongoing discussions about that site
1:20:44
being taken on by a by a club to look at um you know bringing some of the
1:20:50
pictures back into use. But you know a financial contribution would would add significantly to that in terms of
1:20:56
tackling some of those measures perhaps around um you know issues with the pitch and drainage that that Mr. McGuire
1:21:03
mentioned um potentially changing facilities, those sorts of things. So, we feel there's a number of measures
1:21:08
that could realistically be implemented and that are already being looked at at both of those sites that that would
1:21:14
assist in bringing them back into use. So, if I was just also going to add if I may
1:21:21
just in relation to the retained pitch and its relationship with with St. Joseph's um immediately next to the site
1:21:30
as Mr. identifies there there is a landscape buffer but um there wouldn't be to our
1:21:37
mind any significant reason why um a link couldn't be provided um partially
1:21:44
through the the edge of what would be the housing element um and where that would provide a much shorter access
1:21:50
through some existing vegetation and where it would connect directly into the
1:22:00
Thank you, Mr. Martin, please.
1:22:06
Thank you. Just come back on a few points. I was going to raise something similar there to Mr. Winch that looking
1:22:12
at an aerial view, it it's not going to be very difficult to put a path link through to
1:22:18
the site. You could there's a thinner strip um in the northern area of the allocation. You could easily punch
1:22:25
through a footpath there and have a foot path running down towards the pitch. Um I don't see that as being a significant
1:22:33
uh barrier in terms of linking St. Joseph's and and the site. um more widely.
1:22:41
I think you know we're in a situation where we have a um an authority that
1:22:47
where land is is at a premium for availability for various uses. And yes,
1:22:53
in an absolute perfect world, you would find some land somewhere and you could put new pictures on it and that would be
1:23:01
fine. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and I think the most
1:23:07
appropriate thing to do in this instance is look at um pictures that have been in
1:23:12
use previously and bring them back into use and accept what Mr. Maguire says in terms of there will need to be an
1:23:18
exploration as to why they fell out of use and ensure that what we can provide
1:23:23
is something that will make sure that they're they're longerlasting. Um, and I
1:23:28
guess in some way it's not letting perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess, in terms of that cliche saying
1:23:35
because uh it's it's it's um yeah, in a perfect world you could just get fine
1:23:40
land for replacing pictures, but as I said it's a challenge here. Um, I think the other thing to raise is
1:23:48
you could argue that reusing the pictures is is a bringing pictures back
1:23:53
into use is actually a very good beneficial thing to the to the wider public. Uh, rather than if this
1:24:02
allocation were to fall away and you would then not get those replacement
1:24:07
pictures or it's highly unlikely you would get those sorry the pictures the dish is pictures back into use. So there
1:24:13
are a number of of of benefits there. The plane pitch strategy itself does not include the disused pictures
1:24:20
from my understanding in in its sort of quantitative and assessment. Therefore
1:24:25
whilst they are p existing pictures being brought back into use there is clearly some benefit there because it
1:24:31
will add to the overall supply of pictures in active use in the burough.
1:24:47
Thank you. Just so I'm clear on that last point, Mr. Martin. So, the playing pitch strategy does not take into
1:24:53
account kind of uh Heaven Riven Heaven Riven Heaven Riverside as part of the
1:25:00
quantitative assessment. Is that what you're saying? I'd have to check that. Definitely the
1:25:05
clock is not taken into account. The site in question is not taken into
1:25:10
account. I'd have to double check on on Riverside, but it's certainly not, as far as I'm aware, included as a pitch.
1:25:26
I don't know, Mr. Magguire, if you have a view on on that, whether some of the sites we've been talking about are not
1:25:31
in the baseline quantitative provision as part of the playing pitch strategy.
1:25:36
They're not included in the calculations because obviously what it looks at is is is current current supply against
1:25:42
current demand. Um so those those um disuse sites don't don't currently feature. And what um what often happens
1:25:50
is that um in terms of trying to understand how
1:25:56
capacity shortages can be tackled. One of those things we call we call them scenarios. Local authorities are
1:26:03
encouraged to look at various scenarios as to how that can be addressed and a
1:26:08
lot of instances it might look at bringing uh sites back into use and to see what effect that would have.
1:26:18
Thank you. Don't know Mr. Inch if you're just able to advise me in terms of uh
1:26:23
you referred to various things including kind of the heaven Riverside master plan etc. Is there a time broad sort of time
1:26:30
frame as to when that kind of work is likely to output and is it kind of um in
1:26:37
broad alignment in terms of when the council thinks this site could come forward? Is it something that's going to
1:26:43
be resolved or come to a conclusion in the next year or so?
1:26:48
I don't have a definitive time scale for you on that, sir. I'm afraid. Um, it's clearly something that the council is is
1:26:54
pursuing. Um but as I'm you know in terms of funding for bringing these things forward um obviously that needs
1:27:02
to be sought also but where you know potential for a financial contribution
1:27:07
um as part of mitigation for this site can clearly assist in in bringing that
1:27:14
forward.
1:27:32
Mr. Magguire. Yeah, I've seen the the term financial
1:27:38
contribution mentioned, but I have no idea what what that figure might be, what quantum we're talking about, and
1:27:44
equally, I have no idea of the costs that might be associated with being
1:27:49
bringing the respective sites. Uh, at the clock and and Heaven
1:27:55
Riverside into a form that would be attractive to pitch users. I have no
1:28:00
idea whether those two are going to match up. Mr. Nelson, please.
1:28:08
I think it's for you, sir, to come to a reason judgment as well on what you're
1:28:14
needing to ensure that this allocation is sound and what can be reasonably
1:28:20
addressed through the development management process. uh and what potentially could be put in
1:28:25
this policy to ensure that those uh the plain pitch mitigation is is brought
1:28:33
forward in a manner that is is appropriate. Um there is as I said
1:28:39
I think it's a bit of a balance as to what goes into policy and what is left
1:28:44
for the time when the planning application comes in where things might be a bit more crystallized um and a bit
1:28:52
clearer. Thank you.
1:28:58
Just sort of drawing this um element of the discussion to its conclusion. And I think as part of the statement of common
1:29:04
ground with Sport England, council's put forward um a modification
1:29:11
uh to replace the word mitigate with replace. I think I've read um quite clear from
1:29:18
Mr. Martin you don't consider that's necessary for soundness
1:29:26
that the policy should remain as is in terms of mitigating. We're satisfied
1:29:32
with that. Um the reason being that it we felt mitigating was mitigate was a a
1:29:39
more appropriate phrase to use in terms of um what comes forward um as the
1:29:47
mitigation for the the replacement of the pictures.
1:29:52
Thank you. Now, I mentioned earlier, I'm just going to apply myself uh after sitting here today and hearing the evidence around whether there's a
1:29:59
potential modification that brings in a wider site and provides more um clarity
1:30:06
on the area that's currently green belt that's outside of the proposed um site
1:30:12
allocation. Um I think there two things I'd like to leave with the council as
1:30:18
part of this is indicated earlier just understanding the size of that remaining parcel of land
1:30:25
uh and being assured that in some way shape or form it can meaningfully
1:30:31
provide some sort of pitch provision whether that's for junior football
1:30:39
um Mr. Magguire's also referred to rugby is it
1:30:44
union? I did sir, but rugby union uh pitches
1:30:51
tend to be very club- based. Um and so I I think if if there is a pitch retained on here, it would be best
1:30:57
served as being a football pitch. Okay. And obviously in terms of that pitch
1:31:03
provision, there could be potential ancillary kind of facilities or uses. I mean
1:31:09
observed from site visits double yellow lines on all both sides of Wardley Lane. Um so you can't park
1:31:17
um near that that end of the site. So just thinking about the wider potential land use um considerations.
1:31:25
Uh so I'd be grateful if the council um could provide that information. I'll I'll again through the program officer
1:31:32
kind of establish a a timeline that we can uh provide that have that information provided. there may need to
1:31:38
be some further liaison with with Pegasus Belway in terms of what that could look look like.
1:31:45
Second thing I'm going to sort of have an eye on not now necessarily for today but we're going to come on to as part of
1:31:50
stage two around just general infrastructure planning and if there is as a result of the plane pitch strategy
1:31:58
um a quantitative shortfall potential measures um to address that will after
1:32:06
this session be tracking through further whether there's anything in the infrastructure delivery plan at this current stage and then there might well
1:32:13
be an MIQ in due course about whether that's something to think about in terms of uh delivering
1:32:21
uh quantitative or qualitative improvements to open space plane pitch provision. So I just flag that up now.
1:32:34
And I'll also apply I'm also apply myself in terms of whether thinking about uh potential modifications to this
1:32:41
policy whether uh in terms of providing further detail if there was a wider site around
1:32:49
the type and location of um open space plane pitch provision. the necessity of
1:32:55
having something in the policy about a link or providing some form of link from
1:33:01
uh St. Joseph's Academy through the sites in terms of how that's configured and laid out. Okay,
1:33:09
thank you for those contributions. That's certainly assisted me on on this matter. But I'm going to go on to uh my
1:33:19
could have generally picked up representations from Sport England on my agenda. I think Mr. Magguire, hopefully we've kind of through the various kind
1:33:25
of discussions to date picked up your organization's kind of soundness
1:33:31
concerns with what's being proposed here. I think is there anything further you you wish to add?
1:33:39
I think I think the point that I'd want to make is it's very well arguing that we can address some of the issues around
1:33:46
the uh the replacement sites al along the line. And I think my concern is that
1:33:53
issues get picked up in respect of those sites or difficulties occur which mean that they can't come forward in the way
1:33:59
that they're envisaged or they're severely compromised in the likely benefit that they will have for sport.
1:34:05
Uh so at the moment I I don't I don't have the comfort to to be able to make the judgment that um playing field
1:34:12
policy would be met. And if the if if that's the case, I' i've got to question
1:34:18
whether the actual allocation is is is one that should be pursued in its current form or it should be tied so
1:34:25
heavily or tightly to replacement provision of a of a particular specification that we we have that
1:34:32
comfort that we need. Thank you. I'll now move on to the
1:34:38
fourth and sort of final item of the agenda for this particular site before we take a a midm morninging adjourment.
1:34:44
Um and obviously this is a site that's allocated to achieve around about 115 um
1:34:52
uh dwellings. It's identified as an indicative capacity. So it could be slightly more, slightly less
1:34:58
um and whether the evidence in terms of
1:35:03
everything else that the site needs to provide there is the kind of the assurance that that site can deliver uh
1:35:11
115 um units and I've referred to the site's uh framework evidence that's before me. Um if I give the council the
1:35:19
first opportunity on this and then undoubtedly bring in Mr. Martin for his perspective.
1:35:24
Yeah. So, um, the standard net developable area and density assumptions that we touched on yesterday for that
1:35:30
site would give a slightly lower yield of 90 dwellings, but given the location of the site, the accessibility, and
1:35:37
there's a bus stop just over the road. It's obviously just next to the school and the character of the surrounding area, um, I think we we think that that
1:35:45
slightly higher yield of 115 is reasonable. um the site frameworks document as well as the indicative
1:35:52
layout that Belwave provided show that that can be reasonably accommodated on the site while also incorporating the
1:35:59
key considerations from policy SP7.
1:36:16
Thank you Mr. Martin in terms of the capacity that's identified for this site
1:36:22
and its potential kind of assists me in terms of my future deliberations around
1:36:28
delivery of sites as well when this site could potentially come forward where this uh plan to be found sound in its
1:36:35
current current form. Thank you sir. Um, terms of the quantum
1:36:42
agree with the council and you'll see we pro we've provided two two layouts actually both of which show 115 units
1:36:50
can be accommodated on site. The site benefits somewhat by the fact that that southern bit would remain
1:36:57
um playing pitch landscape etc. So there are um and we've we've assumed as well a
1:37:03
little bit in the north for um a s feature as well which has been sized appropriately. Um so we're quite
1:37:10
comfortable that that a figure of around 115 should be could could be
1:37:15
accommodated on there. We would always urge the number to be around or circa
1:37:22
just because it may be that for whatever reason it might not be exactly 115 in
1:37:28
its final form. It might be a little bit more, might be a little bit less, but it's, you know, so that seems to me it'
1:37:34
be a sensible way forward rather than having an absolute figure or a minimum figure or anything anything like that.
1:37:40
Uh, I think the statement of common ground uh that we signed in terms of time scales, I think we've mentioned
1:37:46
about three years um to develop it out should it be allocated. Uh we put the
1:37:52
preapp in already. um trying to steal a little bit of a march if you were minded
1:37:58
to allocate it. So my client is chomping at the bit to use a phrase to to get on
1:38:04
and and and put a planning application in and and get development going. They they've built the development to the
1:38:10
north that's been in for a while. Uh this would almost be like a second phase to that development. It joins up nicely
1:38:16
with it. It punches through. As I said, there's no ransom strips or anything like that. uh maybe to give you a little
1:38:22
bit more of insure assurance that um three-year bill period is doable. It was
1:38:28
about three-year build period for the development to the north and it's of a similar quantum.
1:38:45
Thank you. Now I can't help but uh remember yesterday uh I don't know which hat you were wearing but others were
1:38:50
making a similar point around you is a potential issue uh going forward around biodiversity net gain impacting on uh
1:38:59
site capacity and yields. Is that a something we need to bear in mind about
1:39:04
the realism of 115 units on this site?
1:39:10
In this instance, I would say no because you are dealing with a site that has a a
1:39:16
generous bit of land to the south that I I feel you could probably do um do some
1:39:23
work on there in terms of biodiversity net gain. Of course, it it depends on what the baseline surveys come back with, but my view is it's it's sort of
1:39:31
um that sort of grassland I think would be the what you would mainly be losing on the site. And I don't see that as
1:39:37
being difficult habitat in terms of the trading rules to uh replicate on the on
1:39:44
on the site on the area below and improve upon. So I I don't see it necessarily in this instance as being a
1:39:50
particularly difficult constraint to overcome. Thank you. I wonder if Mr. Magcguire's
1:39:57
gone where my mind has gone. Possibly, sir. I think um the the sort
1:40:04
of biodiversity net game measures that uh have to be implemented on site sometimes causes problems in terms of
1:40:11
the the management uh and maintenance that you need to establish a suitable
1:40:16
playing surface for for sports. They're not the same thing. Uh and again, it's
1:40:22
another of those issues where I feel a squeeze in the in the area that might be
1:40:27
utilized for the setting out of pitches. Thank you. That that was what I was I was thinking I think as part of my um
1:40:35
request to the council and understanding that area to the south. I've indicated
1:40:41
around, you know, its ability to provide plain pitch strategy, but I'm also hearing it's
1:40:46
uh could have a multifunctional purpose and potentially provide for a multitude
1:40:52
of Yeah. uh purposes to enable this site to come forward. Mr. Martin.
1:41:00
Yes sir. I mean you'll be aware that and it was mentioned and picked up yesterday that the current form of the statutory
1:41:07
metric requires us to look sequentially to provide onsite in the first instance.
1:41:12
So I would suggest um whilst there are other uses there we can do what we're
1:41:19
able to do and maximize biodiversity net gain sensibly in that area. If there's more that's needed in terms of uh
1:41:27
getting to that 10% uh there would be the other routes to go down in terms of Habitat Bank and statutory credit. So
1:41:34
again it's not a you know I I I think that the um the way that the the the
1:41:41
current legislation set out it it it's built in so it doesn't become an an
1:41:46
issue that makes uh you know development impossible. If you've got the sufficient funds to do it, then you can go always
1:41:53
go offsite. And I would say, you know, I'm I'm representing a national house. Bill do has plenty of resources to be
1:41:59
able to do that. Thank you. But nonetheless, you've
1:42:05
submitted a letter as part of the statement of common ground around general viability considerations. We'll
1:42:10
come on to that in more detail at stage two. Mhm.
1:42:15
Yeah. Yes. But on this site, I'm assured that it is viable. It's been costed. As I
1:42:22
said, it Belway a national house builder. In fact, they have their own biodiversity net gain um people in house
1:42:30
to deal with this. They have the expertise. Um and yes, as I said, I'm
1:42:36
I'm confident in my mind that they can address biodiversity net in a viable way.
1:42:43
Thank you. It's coming up till I think it is 11:00 now. So, we're on time. I'm going to take a midm morning
1:42:48
adjournment. Before I move away, is as I've indicated, there some things I want the council to assist and look into. Is
1:42:56
there anything else from the council's perspective you want me to take into account in relation to site GA
1:43:02
one and the agenda this morning? No. Okay. Then, right, we'll take uh midm
1:43:08
morning adjournments. Thank you everybody for your contributions um this morning on site G1. Um we'll reconvene
1:43:15
back in this room at quart 11 and we're going to be talking about site SP14 Wley Collery. Thank you.
1:58:21
Okay, it's just gone quarter past 11, so I'll resume these examination hearings. We're now picking up uh matter five
1:58:28
issue seven which is the Wley Collery uh proposal uh in the plan to be found at
1:58:35
policy uh SP14 as a strategic uh allocation
1:58:43
uh for employment um uses. I think similarly to how I uh dealt with um the
1:58:49
Heburn site, I think I might start as you see from my agenda first looking at um perhaps the more localized
1:58:57
um considerations in terms of demonstrating exceptional circumstances with this particular uh green belt um
1:59:05
alteration and the extent of the alteration before moving on to look at um transport considerations, sustainable
1:59:13
uh transport choices and then finally just how the proposed allocation uh sits
1:59:19
in relation to the adjacent wardly collery um local wildlife site. So I'd
1:59:25
like to invite the council in the first instance. Uh I think it's really in response to my MIQ's um se 5.70 and 5.71
1:59:36
just specifically as we drill down to this particular site how the green belt review uh process has considered and
1:59:43
assessed it and what kind of compensatory improvements or mitigations
1:59:49
were identified. Mr. Clifford. Thank you sir.
1:59:54
So the green belt study um
2:00:01
considered the site and purposes one, two and three were
2:00:08
assessed as being moderate purpose for low in terms of um the harm. So the
2:00:16
highest harm rating was was moderate as I think we'll come into we'll come to
2:00:23
the broader area which includes the wildlife site um the harm rating was higher but
2:00:32
specifically the site that we've allocated um the overall harm rating was moderate.
2:00:39
In fact the highest harm rating was moderate.
2:00:45
So the council considers that um
2:00:54
policy SP14 reflects appendix C of the green belt
2:00:59
study in terms of potential mitigation and enhancement measures
2:01:06
and those that have been incorporated into policy SP14
2:01:11
are referenced um within the policy ensure that adverse ecological impacts
2:01:18
are dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy and are delivered within the worldly color wildlife site and include
2:01:26
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality of remaining green belt land to
2:01:32
offset the impact the removal of the land from the green belt.
2:01:41
However, the council would be prepared to consider um further modifications
2:01:47
or modifications to policy SP14 to reflect the specific mitigation
2:01:53
measures should you in the green belt study should you feel that um that were
2:01:58
necessary.
2:02:04
And in terms of um ecology, I think that might be something that we come to
2:02:09
subsequently, but obviously the council has been mindful of of the proximity of
2:02:14
the local wildlife site in terms of determining the boundary as well.
2:02:24
Thank you for that, Mr. Clifford. And in terms of paragraph, it's 52
2:02:30
93 of the council's matter five. um statement the council's
2:02:36
not at this stage suggesting that there are that there is a potential mitigate uh sorry potential modification
2:02:44
is it just effectively opening the door that were I to arrive at a that's correct yes okay
2:02:50
thank you for that uh I should have started at or
2:02:56
I should have at the start of this session I've just looked up and realized there are new faces on the council's
2:03:01
team Um perhaps if I can just very briefly invite them to introduce themselves just for my benefit and
2:03:08
others watching around the table. Sorry. Thank you sir. My name is Trevor Mill. I
2:03:14
am the strategic transport lead at Southside Council.
2:03:20
I'm Claire Rocliffe. I'm the natural environment manager at Southside Council.
2:03:30
Thank you. That's that's helpful. In terms of the overall approach to the green belt, I've obviously got various
2:03:36
representations before me. I don't think anybody's here um specifically making them and we kind of discussed them when
2:03:42
we were looking at the employment needs back on day one in terms of the um
2:03:50
uh exceptional circumstances to be considering green belt release in principle for employment uses uh and
2:03:57
specifically at the um the wardly um collery site. Mr. would on behalf of
2:04:02
your client. I don't think I read anywhere that you dispute necessarily the findings of the green belt reviews
2:04:08
study and the kind of compensatory improvements that have been identified.
2:04:14
Uh yes, so that that's right. Um really our only issue was around the actual
2:04:19
boundary as we've raised regarding the the finer detail. I think you referred to it of the the parcels um specifically
2:04:26
with reference to FO2 and the land at the north. So but in terms of the assessment of the allocated side, yes we
2:04:34
endorse what the council
2:05:00
Thank you. And in terms of the green belt review um study coming to its various conclusions and thinking about
2:05:06
exceptional circumstances and uh alterations to the green belt the
2:05:11
national planning policy framework says where uh you are going to alter the green belt um particularly sort of give
2:05:19
consideration to previously developed land andor sites that are um well served by public transport.
2:05:26
I take it there's no dispute that the area that the council has identified
2:05:31
under policy SP14 can reasonably be be considered as previously developed land.
2:05:40
Yes, that's correct. I mean, we certainly feel that's the case. It was extensively previously used and
2:05:45
developed as part of the coal handling disposal facilities which are only relatively recently
2:05:52
demolished. Um, and all of the hard standings and concrete areas remain
2:05:58
from that. So I I don't think there's any tension with the definition of PDL.
2:06:03
Um and interesting just as you touched on earlier potentially we slightly evolved
2:06:09
into the gray belt situation now as well which obviously wasn't there originally at the time of the drafting of the plan.
2:06:16
That's a current NPPF matter.
2:06:44
Thank you. Just come back to this point I referred to a moment ago Mr. Clifford in terms of the council saying around a
2:06:50
potential modifi prepared to consider a potential modification. I appreciate the policy
2:06:56
SP14 obviously includes the criteria around in including compensatory
2:07:01
improvements. Obviously other policies of the plan have a bit more kind of detail or set out in more detail what
2:07:07
those could be. Is is that something I think I should be
2:07:13
just considering or thinking whether that final uh point three of the the policy
2:07:21
is sufficient or whether there needs to be further detail drawing on the green belt review evidence.
2:07:29
Yeah.
2:07:51
Thank you. And then just again I'm mindful Mr. Woody probably you weren't here for the employment needs um session
2:07:59
um when we look sort of more widely at uh what the plan is is seeking to address. It's obviously going for the um
2:08:05
I'm going to describe it as kind of the more the most positive scenario in terms of employment land needs in terms of
2:08:12
capitalizing on uh benefits from the uh international advanced manufacturing park. Um
2:08:20
the policy itself identifies the site as meeting uh general uh economic
2:08:26
development um needs. I think the council they can correct me if I'm wrong on this at previous sessions
2:08:33
in a specific or sinner uh potential of the site to meet B2
2:08:38
uses. Is that correct Mr. Clifford? B2 and B8. Yeah.
2:08:47
And I just wonder whether uh either from the council or from Mr. would in terms of just understanding the ability and
2:08:54
the attractiveness of this particular location to meet some of those
2:09:00
particular um particular needs. Mr. Clifford first. Thank you. Well,
2:09:06
firstly I'll point out that through the employment land review um it's
2:09:12
identified that um future performance
2:09:19
um of general industrial sectors B2 is expected to outstrip
2:09:25
uh past trends by considerable margin. So we think there's the demand there.
2:09:30
Um in terms of the advantages offered by the site,
2:09:36
there's quite a number of advantages. I mean first and foremost I would say its
2:09:41
proximity to the strategic road network. Um I think that's a key advantage.
2:09:49
Um there's a number of other advantages um
2:09:54
in terms of for example I think it's something we'll come on to but uh in
2:09:59
terms of its linking to broader agendas with the reopening of the the lean side
2:10:05
line and the uh fallingsby station.
2:10:11
So in terms of sustainable travel, it links um it's also got proximity to the IMP
2:10:21
and whilst um proximity to the AMP isn't a sort of absolute precondition for a
2:10:30
company in the supply chain to uh in terms of locationational requirements, it can be an advantage and
2:10:36
clearly it is quite close to the IM. Um so there's an opportunity there.
2:10:44
Um
2:10:49
so we feel taken in the round. Um when you look at all of the the factors
2:10:57
in relation to the site um the fact it's a well screened
2:11:02
brownfield site the fact it's very close to
2:11:09
um an area of the strategic road network where there's quite
2:11:14
a sort of ju position various junctions
2:11:20
its proximity to the And also it's linking into that broader
2:11:26
agenda um as has been you know announced with
2:11:32
um the northeast funding situation and the
2:11:38
mayoral announcement that there will be support for the reopening of the Liam
2:11:44
sideline and there's a commitment to following speed station being delivered
2:11:50
as part of that. So we feel we've taken a a cumulative
2:11:57
view if you like uh and that exceptional circumstances have cumulatively speaking
2:12:03
been demonstrated. [Music]
2:12:08
Thank you Mr. Wood please. Um yes. Um as regards the evidence base,
2:12:14
I think what came out clearly from the employment land review was the the location issue of provision of land
2:12:21
within the burough and the focus on the southwest of the area which obviously
2:12:26
there isn't a large amount of land available which is where Wley contributes. Um, in terms of the uses,
2:12:35
certainly B2 and B8 tend to feel potentially light industrial as well. There's nothing precludes that and
2:12:42
there's no constraints on it as regards any residential receptors or anything. So, it's something of a blank sheet in
2:12:50
terms of what can go on there, but um probably not office development given
2:12:56
its context. Um, in terms of
2:13:02
just the the dayto-day, shall we say, and the reality of it, our just I think we referred to it in u our MIQ as an
2:13:09
update. Our clients originally bought this for their own purposes to develop a block production plant on um for various
2:13:16
reasons, delays, delays with the plan and also changes in the market that's not now taking place.
2:13:23
The site hasn't been formally brought to the market as yet
2:13:30
largely because of the catch22 position we're in as regards the green belt
2:13:36
status. Um what I can say to the examination is
2:13:41
that the the people that will be tasked with marketing have had informal discussions and um approaches about the
2:13:50
site, but at the moment it's very speculative because of the uncertain planning situation. Um there is
2:13:57
certainly interest and everybody looking at it has said it's a fantastic location because of many of the features that Mr.
2:14:03
Clifford's referred to. Um and the prospect of the metro station is also
2:14:09
being mentioned when people look at it. The difficulty at the moment is it's only a speculative investor that can
2:14:16
take it forward because of the uncertainty. Um what's also been mentioned is that the the estate uh
2:14:24
people that are looking to market have had approaches from existing South Tinside occupiers who would like to
2:14:30
expand their premises but can't find anywhere and therefore are potentially having to look to Gates Head or
2:14:36
Sunderland or further a field. So there seems to be real certainly real world evidence as well notwithstanding it's
2:14:43
not formally marketed that there is interest in the site under demand.
2:14:51
I think I mentioned for the heaven site I mean that's a site I've clearly been able to see from various kind of public
2:14:57
vantage points. Unfortunately this isn't a site I've yet been able to get to. Um, that's something I may need to kind of
2:15:03
discuss how that can practicably be arranged or accommodated
2:15:08
or whether I should just ignore the signs at the entrance to the site. It's private um land. I wasn't comfortable
2:15:14
doing that. But I understand, Mr. Wood, I mean, this is a this is a location where there are already existing some
2:15:21
existing activities. We're not dealing wholly exclusively with a uh an
2:15:26
undeveloped site. There are things there already. Yes, I mean uh at the I mean there's two
2:15:34
aspects to it. There's there's the permanent development of the AD plant at the south of the site um which does
2:15:40
obviously occupy some of the land. Um there is part of the allocation as was
2:15:49
but it's actually now out with it of the retained land for the potential metro station.
2:15:54
At the north of the site, there's the container sales uh area who are tenants and whose lease
2:16:03
will finish within the the uh plan period.
2:16:09
And I think you'd have seen on our statement of common ground there was an asterisk next to the available land that
2:16:15
was reflecting the fact that as it stands now there is I think it was referred to as just over six hectares
2:16:22
available but there is another two or three at the end of that lease from the
2:16:27
container site. Um so it then becomes a wider parcel.
2:16:36
So um there's the there's the permanent fixed elements and the safe call it
2:16:41
safeguarded land for the metro station at the bottom. But north of that there's
2:16:46
an immediate availability and then a a slightly longer term availability within the plan period.
2:16:57
Thank you for that. So in terms of what's being proposed at the broadly
2:17:03
college collery site and the extent of the proposed allocation if I can just clarify with the council first and then
2:17:10
I'll come to uh Mr. Wood and your um
2:17:15
your position in terms of potential modifications to the plan. So SP14
2:17:22
as I understand it would effectively identify the whole and kind of wider
2:17:27
site at 12 seven hectares. Is that correct?
2:17:34
Yes sir. That's correct. It it identifies the whole of what you might term as the footprint of the existing
2:17:41
broad area that's um in use.
2:17:51
Thank you. And then in terms of the balance that's kind of being um
2:17:57
considered uh available for kind of future employment needs, it's the council's
2:18:02
position that that figure is the 6.71 hectares.
2:18:09
In terms of how that position was determined, um table
2:18:18
16 in the employment land technical paper.
2:18:25
Um you have two parcels which are P4A and
2:18:31
P4B. Uh P4A is the western parcel of the
2:18:37
former Wley Collery coal disposal point and P4B is the eastern parcel.
2:18:45
Um on the advice of the of the agent, Mr. Wood, we also added an additional
2:18:50
plot to the north of P4A um which was identifying additional land
2:18:57
that is also available for development. And according to our map info, at any rate,
2:19:04
when you add that together, you get 6.71 hectares.
2:19:11
And in terms of that figure being asterisked in um the statement of common
2:19:17
ground, is that a reflection that the council would take the existing kind of container use business as being in an an
2:19:25
existing employment use? So therefore if it comes available and kind of gets
2:19:30
recycled for again for employment it's not a net additionality. So
2:19:39
what's kind of in effect new or would be net new employment land through this plan would be would be the 6.71
2:19:46
hectares. I think in order to give you a definitive answer, we would need to look
2:19:51
at the site again because as I say, I do have this note that the agent
2:19:56
representing uh Walker um the company that owns the site
2:20:02
identified additional land. So, I'd have to make sure that that wasn't the same
2:20:10
area which um Mr. Wood has referenced. Um so, I don't it might be
2:20:19
need a sort of um teams meeting between myself and Mr. Wood to just make absolutely sure we're talking about
2:20:25
exactly the same piece of land because uh obviously somehow um we're coming to different different
2:20:32
views about the available area. It's probably a simple explanation but I don't know what it is at the moment.
2:20:41
So the point the point I think you're making is whether or not the 6.71 if that is the
2:20:48
correct figure makes allowance for i.e. doesn't include existing employment uses
2:20:55
such as the anorobic digesttor and container storage. Yeah I I was wondering whether once you
2:21:01
as you say Mr. over once you net off the ad and the container the residual you're
2:21:06
left with the net new 6.71 hectar first point
2:21:11
just yeah second point is whether that is correct yeah so I can confirm it's net of the
2:21:18
anorobic digtor yeah um you know it's what we considered
2:21:23
to be land that is available for development as such
2:21:36
Thank you. Is there anything further Mr. Wood you want to say on this particular point in terms of what net availability?
2:21:43
I think I think um it's actually paragraph 5.70 in the the policy text.
2:21:48
Um so that refers to the total area of 12.7 and it says the available area i.e. the
2:21:54
net of existing de development closed brackets is 6.71 hectares an open brackets this makes allowance for the
2:22:01
area used for container storage and the anorobic digesttor that has been built
2:22:07
so it discounting both of those as far as I can see but I think just I'm unclear on your
2:22:14
position for your client you think that figure is should be higher because the container units are potentially there on
2:22:23
a temporary lease basis. Yeah, we're flagging it because within the plan period that becomes available.
2:22:30
Okay, that's that's yeah understood. Yeah,
2:22:41
thank you. And then I can understand from Mr. Wood um obviously the council's
2:22:47
um seeking to make a uh positive allocation here in terms of altering the
2:22:52
green belt. I think as you've indicated at the moment it's green belt status is creating some uncertainty for um
2:22:59
investment at the site but I think you're seeking a modification that the site should be more widely drawn to
2:23:05
include um a wider area at this this former uh colory disposal site. Is that
2:23:12
correct? Yeah, that that's right, Sarah. I mean, the there's obviously two aspects to
2:23:18
this. The green belt and the lo and the ecology stroke local wildlife site. Our
2:23:24
starting point in representations was the green belt study. Um, and it comes
2:23:30
back to an issue I think you touched on yesterday about where do you stop on the size of units and things which I fully
2:23:36
appreciate. The difficulty we had in terms of the green belt assessment was the characterization of land parcel FO2
2:23:45
within the green belt study. um which very much lumped everything together and
2:23:53
ignored what we thought was quite a distinct parcel of land at the north which
2:23:59
in characteristic terms not least topography was more akin to the site to be
2:24:06
allocated and the land being considered for that. Um, and really it was more a
2:24:12
case of we felt it was missed opportunity given that the evidence was pointing to the need and demand for some
2:24:19
of the things we've discussed this morning. Um, it's tricky without you having been on site because it's one of
2:24:26
those that is more apparent when you when you see it. Um but if you go to the
2:24:32
assessment in of FO2 within the the green belt um assessment
2:24:40
and the consideration of harm which ultimately led to the the categorization
2:24:45
of harm for each purpose don't propose to go through all that but
2:24:50
the consistent thing that comes out within the description
2:24:56
uh the assessment under purpose one, two, and three. Um, you'll see halfway
2:25:03
down in most of them there's a specific reference to the re the release of the
2:25:09
high ground within the parcel would exert for example a significant urbanizing influence and then it refers
2:25:15
to uh the visibility of the parcel as well.
2:25:20
The issue that we've always had is that this has ignored the the detail of the site and the
2:25:28
not least the topography um aerial images that you can see um
2:25:34
within the um green belt study clearly show the area that we refer to and it's
2:25:41
so distinct we've felt there is a flaw in the green belt assessment that it it's been overlooked from the
2:25:49
outset and held to be damaging to the green belt in a way that lumps it in unreasonably
2:25:58
with the high ground, we have no issue with the characterization of the high
2:26:03
spoil heap and the contribution it makes. Um but when we're looking at the
2:26:08
green belt and the assessment and things like boundaries that we referred to
2:26:14
earlier and yesterday, this in terms of topography alone is so
2:26:20
distinct from the high ground that I think it demanded a a more refined finer
2:26:27
grain assessment. So that was our issue with the with the green belt. I our submission as you've
2:26:34
seen in the MIQs we suggest it's got a much lower contribution and harm to the green belt
2:26:41
because of the topography. It's enclosed to the south and to the
2:26:46
east by higher ground. So it has these defensible boundaries
2:26:52
as well as a very defined boundary along its north edge including a water course.
2:26:58
um there isn't actually a material boundary between it and the land to the east and the current area occupied by
2:27:05
the the container sales site. So that was our our issue the missed opportunity
2:27:10
effectively. Thank you. So in terms of I mean
2:27:16
obviously Mr. Cliff has taken us through um what the green belt review study said in relation to parcel FO1 which relates
2:27:23
to the proposed allocation. Is your submission Mr. would that this part of FO2 is comparable
2:27:30
to FO1 or I think performs better. I think it's more comparable to FO1 than
2:27:37
actually FO2 that that it's been lumped in with.
2:27:44
Thank you. And also in terms of exceptional circumstances, I'm mindful we're kind of maybe raking over matters
2:27:50
we've discussed at previous sessions under the council's employment lands scenario that it's chosen as indicated
2:27:56
the most positive of the five scenarios that were looked at identified um amount
2:28:02
of employment land to meet that existing employment land sites pretty much get
2:28:08
the council to that position but it's taken the view that there are the exceptional circumstances is to put in
2:28:15
the wardly what's currently proposed as the wardly um collery site provides one
2:28:22
one could argue degree of headroom buffer flexibility and supply for unanticipated circumstances. It's
2:28:29
whether the exceptional circumstances exist to then sort of go further because
2:28:35
what's the sort of site size of the sort of land we're talking about in terms of the additional area that you'd suggest
2:28:42
would need to be included through a further alteration to
2:28:47
the green belt. the area 3
2:28:53
3.7 hectares in total. Um I think it comes back to
2:28:59
the location and the sustainability of the site opportunities of a site with a metro
2:29:06
station adjacent to it. It's fairly unique. So that's that's where it feeds into the exceptional test.
2:29:19
Thank you. We'll come on to other issues in relation to the site and uh boundaries I think in in due course.
2:29:27
Just
2:29:46
Thank you. I'll probably pick up the council's suggested modification around site boundary probably under item eight
2:29:53
of the agenda. It's appendix two
2:29:59
um to the statement of common ground. But I'll come back to that once we've discussed um the local wildlife site
2:30:06
issue. Thank you for those. clear in my mind the respective
2:30:12
submissions in relation to uh the approach to um green belt green belt boundaries. Just like to move on to item
2:30:20
six on my agenda in terms of impact on the wider highway network. Uh as Mr.
2:30:26
Clifford's already referred to, one of the potential uh advantages of this
2:30:31
location for employment uses is its relationship to the strategic road
2:30:36
network. Uh, and I'm mindful is it was it Mr. Finch? Um, National Highways
2:30:44
assets are not too far from here. I think in terms of you have responsibility for the A194M
2:30:52
and also is it parts of the A18 A184?
2:30:59
The trunk road heads up the motorway and then it goes right towards Testos
2:31:04
roundabout. So it's a strange location where um the strategic road network
2:31:10
actually gives way to the local road network.
2:31:16
And in terms of how this site would be accessed from the kind of the highway network um presumably the access is in
2:31:25
the first instance from falling fallings lane.
2:31:33
Yes sir, I think that's correct. And then in terms of its relationship to
2:31:39
the strategic road network would be the the the clearer uh way of connection be
2:31:46
to the A194 M. I don't know if there's a specific name for that junction. Is it known as
2:31:53
the Fallingsbury? Because this is this isn't a site that would directly connect to White Mar
2:31:59
junction. No, we would expect it to come through the Fallingsbury junction. There is a problem with the northeast
2:32:05
that they have several names for junction. So it will could be known by different names by different parties but
2:32:10
yes I would refer to it as the fallsby junction
2:32:18
and from all my reading of the kind of the evidence Mr. Finch um that in
2:32:24
general terms and I appreciate National Highways submitted um a statement has been accepted into the examination. And
2:32:30
you've also provided an evidence pack that sits alongside that. I hadn't read anywhere within that material that
2:32:37
National Highways having considered all the various evidence that the council's produced has
2:32:44
a concern in terms of the impact on the performance and safety of the strategic road network arising from this
2:32:51
particular plan proposal. Uh yes, that's correct, sir. I mean, we
2:32:56
didn't review the site individually. We we referred to the council's we we we
2:33:02
looked at it as an overall assessment and we uh recovered it under council's policies for uh 26 and 59 at the
2:33:10
cumitive impact. Much work has been done to undertake cumitive impact assessment.
2:33:16
We've identified two major points of improvement on strategic road network
2:33:21
that have been agreed with the council and we're happy to support their local
2:33:26
plan. uh we think the suitable evidence uh been provided for this stage of the
2:33:31
plan making process. Thank you. And I noted as part of the evidence pack um Mr. Finch that
2:33:38
obviously that covers a number of junctions say various names which I'm probably going to get very familiar with
2:33:44
over the course of this examination. Um but following the spree wasn't one of them. Is that a junction that is of
2:33:51
concern? There were two there two areas of improvement required.
2:33:56
um White Maple probably being the main one where we've identified um either a
2:34:02
larger or currently discussing interim improvements. It's a delivery of that larger scheme through a phase process uh
2:34:09
but also a lane gain lane drop um on the A19 southbound. They're the two main um
2:34:17
big ticket items that perhaps you would um associate them with. It doesn't mean
2:34:23
we might need some uh excuse me uh minor improvements but which will be picked up
2:34:31
at when a detailed transport assessment comes forward as part of a planning application.
2:34:36
This might be tweaking. However, at the st at this stage of the plan making process, we felt there was suitable
2:34:42
evidence provided to support the council's plan. Thank you.
2:34:48
a note from um the statement of common ground that National Highways entered into with the um with South Tinside
2:34:56
Council and picked up again in the statement of common ground with um Mr. Wood and his company uh a proposed main
2:35:03
modification to put in some additional policy content within policy SP14
2:35:10
about ensuring that there would be no unacceptable impacts uh on highway safety uh including mitigating the
2:35:17
impact on the white mar pool junction. Um is that considered necessary for
2:35:23
soundness? I I'd just like to stress that it's a cumulative impact of all these
2:35:28
developments that causes concern without you know subject to scale and
2:35:34
location it's difficult to say when these improvements are required that work is currently ongoing in
2:35:40
negotiations with the council we originally assessed it with very robust
2:35:45
uh figures um and then uh but policy changed I'm sure you read it sooner than
2:35:53
I did sir but it came out on the 23rd of December. So I didn't pick it up until the the following year 2023
2:36:00
which um helps us try and provide a more visionled approach to reduce the trip
2:36:06
generation on the network. We are working with the council now looking at revised numbers but they were
2:36:12
only submitted last Monday but by the time you come back after the summer recess we hopefully will have updated
2:36:18
the statement of common ground. DFT circular one of 22. It's ingrained
2:36:28
uh from various plan examinations. It's becoming increasingly um referenced and obviously it's made
2:36:33
its way through to the latest um MPPF, but obviously I'm still very much in uh
2:36:41
I know. Yeah. Um so it sounds to me I mean we'll come on to this I think it's part of other other uh discussions. I
2:36:48
mean it seems to me just to make this as a general observation the transport work to date can it be described as looking
2:36:54
at kind of like the worst case scenario and if visionled work can only kind of
2:36:59
hopefully I would describe it as robust sir the robust set of figures to um and then we
2:37:07
will now we've also moved on since the original work joint work the council of
2:37:12
national highways have done have worked together very closely to identify what mitigation is required including joint
2:37:18
studies between the the authority and the and national highways. We will be looking to to amend that
2:37:25
which will hopefully reduce the number of trips and the impact in the on the network in light of the circular.
2:37:33
Thank you for that. I appreciate it's referenced in the statement of common ground. Mr. would in terms of a proposed
2:37:39
modification is that something from your perspective or your client's perspective you have any
2:37:44
objection or concern about you accepting that as a
2:37:49
yeah I mean I think slightly difficult without knowing any potential occupier and the scale of
2:37:55
things but it's not I don't think it's unreasonable given the issues present
2:38:01
and obviously any proposal that comes forward would be subject to its own transport uh assessment in due in due
2:38:06
course. Yeah.
2:38:14
Okay. Thank you. Well, the proposed main modification is noted and obviously through further reflection, I'll give a
2:38:19
council a steer on whether I consider that's necessary um for soundness.
2:38:25
If I can move on then in terms of the agenda and again looking at kind of exceptional circumstances around um
2:38:32
green belt releases. Um the national planning policy framework
2:38:39
says obviously once you've kind of got to the point of there is there is a need and you need you need to kind of be
2:38:45
considering alterations to the green belt to kind of give a particular focus to sites that have previously developed
2:38:50
land which I think everybody's saying in this case yes tick andor that are well
2:38:56
served by public transport. I think this is obviously in the south
2:39:01
and west of the dis the administrative area. Uh, and I think the council's been
2:39:08
sort of quite honest and straightforward in terms of its masses, issues, and questions to kind of think reflect that
2:39:14
this is a potential issue, but it's one that's going to be looked at uh, and
2:39:19
that there are potential opportunities um, to kind of enhance the accessibility
2:39:27
of the site. I think Mr. Clifford's referred to some of them already, but I don't it would be Mr. Male or Mr.
2:39:34
Clifford in terms of I'm already starting to hear through this examination
2:39:39
around the lemside or the Washington loop where things are with that in terms
2:39:47
of its its um its its likely time frame progress and
2:39:53
any other measures at this location where alternatives to the car could be
2:39:59
encouraged or supported. please. Thanks sir. Yes. Um in terms of the
2:40:06
Washington Loop project, it's been recently identified as part of the Northeast Merill um deal. Um basically
2:40:13
we've secured regionally uh investment through city regional funding of 1.85
2:40:19
billion from the period of 2027 to 2032. and the mayor has identified the
2:40:26
Washington loop project which is using in part part of the lame sideline corridor. Um it will have metro stations
2:40:33
at Follinsby at Washington South and North and then the connection back to
2:40:39
the South Hilton existing metro line. Um the mayor has actually awarded 900
2:40:45
million pound direct from that 1.85 85 billion allocation and there is numerous
2:40:51
work streams being advanced by the Northeast Combine Authority around assessing and appraising that coming
2:40:57
forward for hopeful construction from 2027. Thank you.
2:41:06
Thank you. Uh Mr. Now, can it just be clear when you say there's um 900 million kind of directly being sort of
2:41:11
drawn down now, is that exclusively for this project or is it for a variety of transport projects and this would be one
2:41:18
of those? It's it's 900 million out of the 1.85 billion. So, the mayor has actually gone
2:41:24
on record to site that the Washington loop will be a firm project that she wants to deliver as part of that
2:41:30
respective deal. And I believe it's in the representations from the actual client, the private client representing
2:41:37
the site itself.
2:41:47
Thank you. And just clarify my note, Mr. Mayor, with anticipated construction
2:41:54
uh possibly by 2027. Yep. I I think that's the the funding
2:41:59
window from 2027 to 2032. But obviously in terms of the Washington project there
2:42:04
there are a number of potential constraints to mitigate the Washington vioaduct being uh the Victoria vioaduct
2:42:10
sorry being a key aspect. Um, nonetheless, it's a project that's being managed by the Northeast Command
2:42:16
Authority.
2:42:25
And then just more widely, I don't know, it's Mr. Clifford or Mr. Male. I don't miss M.
2:42:32
Something sir, can I just add that we do have a policy for safeguarding and for
2:42:37
metro stations and that has identified the site within that policy. So there is
2:42:43
policy support as well specifically for that.
2:42:53
Thank you for that. And then just more widely obviously metro is one opportunity. Are there any other I don't
2:43:00
know where the nearest bus stops are likely to be. So I can answer that sir. So the nearest
2:43:06
bus stop is uh from the northern element of the site there is a bus stop um within 400 meters. But then obviously
2:43:12
from the eastern boundary there is a a bus stop close to the Amazon um sort of
2:43:18
storage uh well Amazon warehouse sorry on Finsby Lane. Um I think it acts as
2:43:24
the terminus for the actual bus service. it it then reordered itself to to to Hwith um as as a form of interchange but
2:43:32
it is accessible via public transport
2:43:39
and I think just just in addition to that obviously from a council perspective we also would like to see a
2:43:44
desire of active travel being promoted there's been a lot of investment by national highways to the to the
2:43:50
immediate east of the development in terms of the downhill and testo junctions which for all were major
2:43:56
junction improvements. There was a a significant amount of act of travel um improvements built into that. So we
2:44:02
firmly see there's there's a real connectivity between this respective site and the east to west movements
2:44:07
along Fornsby which can be promoted as a out of travel corridor
2:44:14
and I believe it's suitably identified in the infrastructure delivery plan as well.
2:44:25
Thank you. Uh if I could bring in Mr. Wood in terms of the accessibility um the ability to kind of secure modal
2:44:33
shift at this location. Yeah, thank you. It it was really just a a point of clarification to confirm that
2:44:40
our clients do have uh land ownership which includes the a secondary highway
2:44:46
access to the north. Um you can see the railway line runs up towards White Mailpool roundabout. There is actually a
2:44:54
highway access that accesses the site from there which has always been discounted because of the issues up
2:44:59
there. But in terms of accessibilities of things like the bus stops and things, there is a route within the openership
2:45:05
of and control of the the land owners that does get you there.
2:45:11
And does that kind of ultimately connect out onto the A184 from that northern?
2:45:18
Yeah. Um, somebody with better knowledge might correct me here, but I think it accesses out by the It does. I've driven
2:45:25
it. Uh, by the terrace of houses, which sits immediately by the roundabout.
2:45:53
Thank you from earlier was additional point Mr. Clifford.
2:45:58
Sorry. Okay.
2:46:04
Thank you for that. I've got nothing further I wanted to raise uh today in relation to sustainable transport um
2:46:12
choices. So that's helpful in terms of just a bit more detail on the metro um
2:46:17
potential metro extension situation. And then finally for today's session is just
2:46:23
understanding around ecology and the relationship of the wardly relationship of this site to the wardly colory local
2:46:30
wildlife site. Um I think I'll invite the council in the first instance
2:46:36
um in terms of what's potentially changed here in terms of more uh more recent
2:46:43
kind of survey uh or assessment work and I think the council's through the
2:46:48
statement of common ground with um the site owner promoter is looking to make a
2:46:54
a revision to the mapping to kind of reflect um the extent of the local wildlife
2:47:01
sites.
2:47:08
Thank you. So my understanding is the local wildlife site was originally designated back in around 2009 2010.
2:47:17
Um and we've we've been aware through various planning applications since that
2:47:26
um the boundary probably didn't beautifully match where the development
2:47:31
or previous development on site was and where the ecological interest was. So with the agreement of the land owner, we
2:47:37
had a survey undertaken in 2020 by Hok and J associates which is post sub13 I
2:47:43
believe. Um and the primary purpose of that was to um
2:47:50
get a detailed map of the eolog e ecological interest of the site primarily the botanical interest. We
2:47:55
didn't go into species um to understand the location of the
2:48:02
habitats that would meet the criteria for local wildlife site designation and
2:48:07
in a state of flux in our local wildlife site partnership. So we had them test it against the standing criteria and some
2:48:14
sort of well-developed draft future criteria and it was tested against both of those. Um and on the back of that
2:48:22
that report recommended um a a slightly amended boundary to take account of
2:48:28
where the ecological features are. Um and my understanding is the allocation is proposed to to meet that new
2:48:36
boundary. Are you over to advise um Miss Roy Cliff? Is there a kind of a separate
2:48:42
process that kind of endorses revisions to local wildlife sites? Is that something that has been
2:48:49
undertaken in this case in like you say that updated survey work?
2:48:54
So local wildlife sites are designated by local sites partnerships. Um it's not
2:49:00
although local wildlife sites have a a guide a guidance document about how to do it from DERA there isn't actually a
2:49:05
formal sign off procedure within that. So each local wildlife site partnership
2:49:11
kind of works its way through that and it's it's an unusual process because you do need the the land owners have to be
2:49:17
informed and it goes through a process between the sites partnership and then effectively the sites partnership tell
2:49:23
the respective local authority of their decision and then maps get updated to that effect. It's criteria based so
2:49:31
technically if if land meets the criteria it ought to be designated. It's not supposed to be um a decision based
2:49:38
on how um convenient or otherwise a designation would be.
2:49:50
So maybe it's just the end of a long a long week. I just need to be clear in my my
2:49:55
mind has that has that happened here then in terms of the partnership has looked at this and there's a kind of an
2:50:02
agreement that the local wildlife sites um is not as extensive as originally um
2:50:11
designated in 2009. Sorry. No, the local wildlife site partnership haven't yet met to discuss
2:50:16
this particular site but the it will be on the future agenda.
2:50:39
Okay. Uh but in terms of what's being put to me
2:50:44
uh as part of this local plan uh proposal, um
2:50:50
it's always an interesting one. I don't have uh formally the ability to kind of modify or recommend modifications to the
2:50:57
policies map but it does get kind of uh enveloped within my my reporting
2:51:03
process. Obviously the council through the statement of common ground is I think
2:51:09
suggesting a proposed modification to the policies map.
2:51:14
If that goes forward, is it does it have any bearing or any impact on the extent
2:51:21
of the proposed allocation or is it merely just a reflection of what I'm hearing in terms of the ecological
2:51:28
evidence? It it's not extending the area or boundary of the proposed allocation.
2:51:36
just means I think it means less of the proposed allocation would be within a local wildlife site
2:51:43
which would be ascertainable from the proposal as well.
2:51:49
So I don't need to worry that 12.7 has become 13.5.
2:51:55
You would have to worry if it were the other way around but it's not.
2:52:08
And more widely in terms of the relationship of this site to the local wildlife sites. Obviously is of concern
2:52:13
to some people through the rep representation representations on the regulation 19 plan. how that site is
2:52:20
managed and um what could potentially go on uh the Wley Collery site and where
2:52:26
that could be harmful to the value and features of um the
2:52:32
wildlife site. As I understand it from the evidence, this is a habitat that's kind of emerged and evolved really as a
2:52:40
a response to the former um industrial uh use and activities. Um I think Mr.
2:52:48
would you say in your representations and submissions there could be a potential benefit here uh in terms of
2:52:54
what could be appreciate it's not being encouraged or u but un unauthorized
2:53:01
kind of access and activity activity at this location
2:53:06
yes thank you I um I'm not an ecologist so bear with me but um I think the the
2:53:13
the kind of unique nature of this type site and other ones we deal with with doing
2:53:19
minerals and things is that the emerging brownfield status of it as grassland or whatever is
2:53:28
transitory one of a better word it comes about because of the recent cessation of use but it's only a to my understanding
2:53:36
a period of time before it moves on to something else and obviously LWS is
2:53:43
largely based on this emerging brownfield thing so there is a longer term question about what the status and
2:53:50
value of the site is which demands management in effect. Um in looking at
2:53:56
this I was obviously looking at um the um one of the wildlife groups advice
2:54:02
on it and and the description was emerging brownfield land is successional habitat
2:54:08
um which is the first stage in habitat's journey towards forest and things and
2:54:14
another site refers to the need to manage it to prevent site succession to woodland or scrub and the loss of the
2:54:19
habitats. So this is the the slight issue we we've got in terms of that you
2:54:27
need to do something with it to almost maintain the quality. And actually it
2:54:33
was striking when I went there more recently for the photos for the MIQs how much it's evolved in terms of things
2:54:38
like pioneer species of silver birch colonizing it and things. So um it it it
2:54:46
needs some sort of intervention and I think that's recognized in the um
2:54:52
mitigation for green belt extension as one of the steps in it. There's a recogn
2:54:57
recognition that it needs management. Um on top of that you have this
2:55:02
unauthorized use of scramble bikes off-roading. I think we showed a photograph of a
2:55:08
an informal camp that somebody had built recently. Um so there is this problem of
2:55:16
how you resolve um stopping activity maintaining the
2:55:22
habitat and it's quite a a difficult thing this
2:55:28
this emerging brown field probably advised better but that's where
2:55:33
we were coming from that ownership almost gives that benefit some sort of investment opportunity as
2:55:42
I when I look at the statement of common ground, Mr. Wood, and the kind of the mapping, so the area that you suggesting
2:55:48
um could be a sort of a further alteration necessary for soundness to
2:55:53
the north of the site would be within the local wildlife site entirely.
2:56:00
Yes, it is. I mean, there's no denying that the LWS is as it is at the moment. Um I think though just having been there
2:56:07
recently there is the question over this evolving nature of it. Um just looking
2:56:13
at the photographs from the 2010 survey the Hayok and Jay Associates and the parcel of land we were referring to that
2:56:21
at the time was photographs showing extensive areas of ephemeral and short perennial grass which from recent visits
2:56:28
you'll see it ultimately doesn't appear to be there anymore. So it's it's not
2:56:33
like a lot of ecology sites where it's a fixed point in time and you have this habitat and these species. Um so that's
2:56:41
why I don't think there's ultimately necessary a tension between us saying there is more land available and the LWS
2:56:48
boundary. Clearly any application were it to be allocated would have to address that. Anyway,
2:56:55
thank you. I can just come back to the council on this this final point. So, as I understand it, Morcliffe, there's
2:57:01
still a decision to be made by the partnership on the proposed revision to
2:57:07
the local wildlife site um boundary. Is there any any sort of time frame on that at this
2:57:15
moment in time? Um we don't have a definitive date in the diary as it stands, but there is a
2:57:20
there is an intention to meet um within the next 12 months. The difficulty is the partnership are primarily the local
2:57:27
authority ecologists who through the environment act 2021 have effectively be an awful lot of new duties. So things
2:57:34
have somewhat fallen a little bit by the wayside but um not notwithstanding that
2:57:39
particularly by diversity net game which I know has been picked up. Um, so to
2:57:44
answer your point, there isn't a date in the diary, but I would hope to get be getting one in in order to to resolve
2:57:50
the matter and the evidence is there to support the boundary that we're all talking about today.
2:57:56
Okay. On the wider point in terms of managing the site, I would absolutely agree with
2:58:02
Mr. would that that management would be preferential here and actually
2:58:07
reflecting earlier points made about biodiversity net gain and the difficulties around open mosaic habitat
2:58:13
which this is priority habitat that is could be in better condition through positive management. There is an
2:58:19
absolute opportunity on this site to consider a bodiversity net delivery site for open mosaic habitat which would
2:58:25
service a large number of developments in in the region. Thank you. And I note the policy itself
2:58:32
obviously has a direct reference to the local wildlife site. Um Mr. Wood, was
2:58:37
that from previously or another point? Just a very quick question really just on the time scales. Really the question
2:58:43
is is the is the ecology baseline survey work going to be looked at again because obviously we're 2010 now on the last
2:58:51
survey. So do wonder if there's a need to update it for I thought I thought the last one was was
2:58:57
it 2020? Sorry. 2010 2020. Sorry. Y I don't know if Miss Walker if this is
2:59:03
just a general time frame as to when sites are revisited, reserveyed. I mean
2:59:08
that's the document that's in front of me for this examination.
2:59:13
I believe that the document we've got will be acceptable to the local wildlife sites partnership.
2:59:20
Thank you. I've got no further questions on site SP14. Is there anything further
2:59:26
people wish to say to me? Can I just clarify? I mean this is say I think a site I do need to visit uh given its
2:59:33
location within the green belt. Um not necessarily here now but just in general
2:59:39
terms because it isn't publicly accessible it's private land the extent
2:59:44
to which could I go on to it unaccompanied on an
2:59:50
unorth on an unauthorized basis or would I need to be accompanied by yourself Mr.
2:59:56
would somebody from the council to safely go on that side.
3:00:01
There's no from my mind any intrinsic safety issues. Um you will see a sign
3:00:08
though that says part of it is being used occasionally by North Umbrea Police Firearms Unit which might make you stop
3:00:16
and pause. Um those are set dates though when they use it on occasion. So
3:00:22
provided you know what date you wish to visit
3:00:28
um I don't think there's a problem with it being unaccompanied. I did send an email to the program officer to that
3:00:34
effect. So um no we can we can provide routes where
3:00:42
you can get around and things but just need to confirm a date beforehand. Okay. We'll we'll do that through the
3:00:48
program officer and I'll rely on your honesty that I'm not going to move there on the day when uh there's a heightened
3:00:54
heightened risk. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's nothing further um for today's
3:01:00
sessions. Thank you everybody for your um contributions. We'll be reconvening back in this room on Tuesday next week
3:01:07
uh to discuss site SP8 at Felgate up 9. Thank you.