14:48
Well, good morning everybody. It's now half past 9, so it is time for me to open these hearing sessions into the
14:53
examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. Uh for those of you who haven't attended previous sessions, just
14:59
to introduce myself, my name is David Spencer and I'm the independent uh examining inspector appointed by the
15:05
secretary of state to carry out this examination. Uh
15:14
this early stage turn to the council for the uh usual housekeeping matters, please.
15:20
Okay, good morning everybody. Uh we're not expecting any fire alarms this morning, so there is an alarm. Please
15:25
can you make your way to the nearest fire exit which is just on the far side of this room and then make your way to
15:31
the far side of the hotel car park and wait instruction from hotel staff. The toilets are located just across the
15:37
corridor outside of this room. Uh please note that there's cables taped to the floor. So please be careful when you're
15:42
walking around the room not to trip on those. Um also the hotel operates a parking eye system in the car park. So
15:49
if you do have a car parked um please uh make sure you enter your registration details at the devices at reception.
15:55
Thank you. Thank you for that. Now can I check before we start this morning's session?
16:00
Is there anybody here from the local press please? You've been here before from the Shields Gazette. Yep. Thank
16:08
you. Uh now these sessions are being uh recorded uh and live streamed by the
16:14
council. Um so they will be made available on the council's website uh for those of who for those who haven't
16:21
been able to uh come to this room today. Uh does anybody else wish to make their
16:26
own separate recording of this morning's session?
16:35
No. uh in which case um these are meetings that are uh held in public. Um
16:44
but it's only people who are seated around the table who'll be able to speak and make contributions to this morning's
16:50
discussion. Hopefully everybody's here for matter five issue five land at West
16:56
Hall Farm in Cleon site G4 uh in the uh proposed uh plan that's
17:02
before me. Uh in terms of how these sessions work, uh we'll be working to an agenda that
17:09
I've previously um published. That's based on my previously released matters,
17:16
issues, and questions which were um published in early May. My matter's
17:21
issues and questions reflect uh the various representations that was made on
17:27
the plan uh that was published by the council for uh representations back in
17:33
January to March 2024. So all representations made on that plan
17:38
are before me. All statements that were made in response to my matters issues and questions are also before me. Um for
17:45
the purpose of these discussions they should be taken as read. So it's not necessary for people to read out to me
17:51
statements or what they've previously uh provided. What is important for me in
17:56
these sessions is to understand from those who consider that the plan is not sound or not legally compliant why I
18:03
should draw that conclusion and where I to draw that conclusion to understand what you would like to see uh by way of
18:10
a change or modification to the plan uh in order to make it uh what's known as
18:16
sound or legally compliant. Uh I think from reading most representations from those who are
18:23
seated to my left uh I can probably sum summarize that the change that is being
18:29
sought is for this site to be removed uh from the proposed plan but we'll we'll
18:34
come into a bit more detail around that and why that should be um the case. Obviously the council will be afforded
18:40
their opportunity to explain to me why they consider that the plan should be uh considered sound. I'll try and bring
18:48
people in on the discussion as we go along. Please try and keep points brief uh and to the to the point. If there's a
18:55
particular matter that you want to come into and bring to my attention that you wish to come in, upend your name plate
19:02
and that will signal to me. Then I can bring you in at that relevant point of the uh the discussion.
19:09
Are there any questions just broadly generally on how these hearing sessions work?
19:18
No. In which case uh because these sessions are being recorded and it's helpful to me and to people other people
19:24
in the room. Can I ask people to uh introduce themselves please using the microphones and can I start with the
19:29
council's team for this session please? So good morning. My name is Paul Sherevian Casey acting for the council.
19:38
Hello I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm an operations manager for the spatial planning team at South Tide Council.
19:43
Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy officer at the council.
19:49
Matt Clifford, also a senior planning policy officer at the council.
19:54
Morning everyone. My name is Trevor Mill. I'm strategic transport lead at Southtown State Council.
20:00
Lucy Routidge, historic environment officer at South Town Council.
20:06
Um, unlike my name tag, I'm not Miss Longstaff. I'm Mr. Dickinson of Deote representing the church commissioners.
20:24
Hello, it's uh Timothy Duffy. I'm uh I have an interest in um the site known as
20:30
uh J4. So I'm sort of an interested party rather than a resident.
20:38
Good morning everyone. My name is Ian Bey. I'm a resident of Cedon.
20:44
Oh, sorry. Uh, yes. Good morning. I'm Min Butler, Secretary of Creedly Spawn Labor Party.
20:51
Okay. Thank you for that. So, as I say, I'm going to work to the um the agenda. Um
20:57
I'm sort of anticipating working through to around about 11:00. We'll then have a midm morning um adjournment and then
21:04
we'll see um where we are in terms of the uh uh the agenda. Before we get into
21:10
the agenda items, Mr. Duffy, is it? Yeah.
21:15
Yes. Um, so when I attended last um Tuesday, I I I uh made a point about the
21:21
um uh the the document management and things. Um I've since been on to the
21:27
website and uh this was mainly to do with the indexing of the documents and I
21:32
can I can let you know that there is an index there albeit it isn't quite complete. Uh the current index has uh
21:41
169 entries covering uh 275 separate documents and totaling uh
21:47
19,811 pages. Um
21:52
and in but post so that covers the uh
21:58
yeah that those are the documents that are indexed. Uh actually on the website
22:03
uh in total there are 491 documents totaling uh 23,999
22:11
sorry 23,996 pages
22:17
and um obviously my question on Tuesday was you
22:23
know how do we access the documents and the council had said that all the documents all the documents were on the
22:30
website But I do feel that uh a comprehensive index would help all
22:35
parties and uh certainly incomplete document management uh may may have
22:41
given rise to prejudicing the outcome of the of this examination.
22:47
I'd also point out that at regulation 19 there were 14 uh uh I couldn't be I
22:53
couldn't be certain but I found 148 documents totaling 9,638
22:59
pages. Anyway, so this point was really just about docu
23:04
document management and indexing. Thank you. Well, I'm going to focus on
23:10
the matter that's before me. I understand your representation and you made the point previously. Um
23:17
I will reflect on what you what you're saying. Um the examination is obviously
23:23
still ongoing. Um I appreciate there is a lot of material
23:28
that is not uncommon for plan examinations. Uh but I take the point in terms of uh accessibility.
23:35
Um Mr. Bey please. Yes. Just very briefly in in support of
23:41
Mr. Don't for I I I personally I mean I I I was used to dealing with a lot of
23:47
documentation in the work that I did but since I've retired I have found it very very difficult to keep up with what's
23:52
going on. I mean and and keep track of difficulties keeping track of what I've
23:59
been doing over 9 10 years in opposition to this but but more so in in the in the
24:07
updates on the on the um on the website. It's it's virtually impossible for a
24:13
resident to be able to actually keep keep pace with that. Um and but
24:20
particularly I mean the younger residents are working don't have the time. The older residents are out of out
24:26
of practice it becomes it's a it's a serious issue.
24:32
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. I mean it is um as I say I'll I'll reflect on
24:40
those those points if I need to speak to the program officer about anything. I mean I have to say these um there's
24:47
nothing to date that struck me as unusual or particularly difficult about this plan examination in terms of how
24:54
documents are being managed or filed. Um I appreciate as part of these processes
25:00
there just are inherently a lot of documents and there are will be documents updated. There is
25:07
an update uh examination news uh item on the examination web page. I do want to
25:13
move on to the caden discussion. The points have been made. They are registered with me and I'll reflect on
25:19
that. But this is we do need to use the time this morning to discuss Cleon please. So, if I can turn to the um I'm
25:28
going to go straight to the second item uh of my agenda in terms of green belt
25:34
uh impacts and compensatory improvements. I've outlined um the point uh the purpose of this session.
25:42
We're looking uh today at uh parcel CL1
25:47
within the green belt review study uh that the council has prepared. I appreciate there are those seated to my
25:53
left who disagree with the outcome of that process and think the site should be uh assessed differently but can I
26:00
first turn to the council um to explain by reference to my matters and issues questions 552
26:07
and 553 how you've looked at the green belt parcel and perhaps in relation to
26:13
this site there's clearly the site we're looking at G4 has been considered on its
26:18
own as that particular parcel of the green belt and then land immediately to the south
26:26
um of Moore Lane is given a higher or comes into actually the highest level of
26:33
harm uh for Green Belt um impacts as we go south of Mo Lane and over towards the
26:41
um the Sunderland football um academy. But this site has been looked at on its
26:47
own terms as part of parcel CL1. So invite the council first please.
26:53
Uh yes that's correct. So the parcel has been um assessed by itself. Um the the
26:59
Southside Greenbad study has identified um that the the release of the site
27:04
would have a moderate harm rating against purposes one two and three and a
27:09
low rating against purpose 4. Um appendix C of the the green belt study
27:15
um sets out that assessment in a little more detail and provides a bit more context. Um it is worth noting that um
27:21
that that section does state that mu lane to the south and southern road to the west represent relatively strong
27:27
regular alternative green belt boundaries in that area. In terms of offsetting impacts um that's also been
27:34
formed by appendix C of the the green belt review and also the site frameworks document. uh where those points have
27:41
been taken forward into policy SP7 are in terms of um creating a defensible
27:47
boundary and ensuring that the landscaping is an integral part of the design and ensure that build development
27:52
sent back to retain openness along the A1018 um roadside there. Um also um as
28:00
mentioned yesterday and um discussed um in relation to matter GA2 um policy SP7
28:07
and supporting text does require allocations to provide compensatory improvements to the green belt. Um but
28:13
as discussed yesterday it's something that we'll we'll look into further at this site.
28:20
Thank you. So if I turn to my left, this is a an area of the green belt that's been assessed as kind of having from the
28:25
council's evidence moderate harm. Um the council's uh outlined there that part of
28:30
the rationale for that is the the way in which more more lane and Sunderland Road
28:36
uh bound um the site in terms of providing um separation from the wider
28:41
green belt at this point. Just to let everybody know I should have said by way of introduction I've been to the area
28:46
I've viewed the site you can obviously clearly view it from either Moore Lane or from Sunderland Road. I've been able to appreciate the green belt that
28:54
between uh Cleon and Sunderland. But if I invite others to perhaps um explain to
29:00
me why this site should be considered as having a higher or degree of harm or
29:05
impact on the green belt. If I can start with Mr. Butler first, please work our way down. Uh thank you sir. Um Mrs. Lamb has
29:13
corrected the statement uh which the council put out. Um it is correct to say
29:18
that the assessment the green belt study uh says it's moderate for all three purposes one two and three that's not
29:25
what in uh their statement at 5215 um and I think you know you've accepted
29:32
sir that um the councils used a system whereby it's it's taken the the highest
29:38
of any of the harm ratings. Uh but in contrast to to site GA2 yesterday uh
29:44
where the council accepted uh the moderate rating uh because it was only one purpose. Here we have moderate
29:51
rating for three purposes. And um the
29:56
detail in the study accepts that the site does contribute to checking urban sprawl between the large builtup areas
30:02
of South Tan and Sunderland. It also states that the development of the site would be considered to reduce the gap
30:08
between the neighboring towns and finally accepts that the site is part of the countryside and so contributes to
30:16
preventing encroachment on it. uh development of the site would be considered encroachment on the
30:21
countryside and in view of this um we consider that the harm findings are not justified and should uh find a level of
30:29
of higher harm. Notwithstanding um the boundaries that you referred to sir um
30:35
the views uh along both Sunderland Road and More Lane both north and south um
30:42
are extensive and uh they uh enable um anyone in those areas to look towards
30:49
Clayton Hills and to look towards uh Penelaw Monument and the wider area uh
30:55
uh in in County Durham and Tinware and County Durham. Um so there are important
31:01
issues there uh in terms of of of views and the impact of moderate I think is
31:08
something I would ask you to look at further. Uh the second point I want to make about
31:14
uh the assessment and I made this point last week is the study doesn't take into
31:19
account the proposal for the solar farm on the field immediately to the south of of G4. This is currently subject to a
31:27
planning application which would require the applicants to provide very special circumstances for this development uh to
31:33
be approved in the green belt. However, in our view, it has a direct impact on the assessment of the harm of the green
31:39
belt when considered alongside the proposed housing site. You'll see from
31:45
the uh framework document uh put forward by the site promoters that they show uh
31:51
that their houses um at the southern part of the site would have views over
31:56
the open space. They would also have views over a huge solar farm
32:02
and therefore I think the urbanization of that area and you you said yourself
32:07
so this morning that that field has a much higher value in terms of green belt. We we're yet to to find out what
32:14
will happen with the solar farm proposal but in our view it is very relevant to this assessment.
32:20
Um do you want me to deal with compensatory improvements now? Thank you. Um uh we consider that S policy SP7
32:28
key considerations um should uh reflect what's in the green
32:34
belt study. The study identifies seven potential enhancement measures uh involving nearby sites
32:42
including the Balden Flats local wildlife site. And the study itself um
32:49
you know is obviously looking if you were minded to uh allocate this site as
32:54
to whether compensatory improvements in the wider green belt uh would occur. And
33:00
I want to focus on the Balden Flats local wildlife site. This is a site that
33:06
is cherished by the the two villages, the residents in the two villages, the local communities uh for its importance.
33:14
And uh the study suggests that enhancements should support um
33:21
thoughtful access that does not put excessive pressure on the most sensitive wetland habitats. And that could include
33:28
boardwalks, upgraded paths, quiet seating areas, bird hides, nature interpretation resources.
33:36
As we know and and and discussed um previously, uh the Balden Flats is in
33:41
the ownership of the Church Commissioners. Um uh I would commend uh
33:46
the work that's been done between uh the Church Commissioners, East Balden Neighborhood Forum, and the Durham
33:52
Wildlife Trust. We've now got a temporary management agreement on the Balden flats and therefore I think if we
33:59
are looking uh to move forward uh for this site those compensatory measures um
34:06
which are also detailed on the green and blue infrastructure strategy will be vitally important and finally we'll come
34:12
on to this later part of the site is designated as part of the wildlife corridor and we consider that it's uh
34:20
important uh that site mitigation on-site mitigation uh is is uh enhancing
34:28
uh the part of the site that's part of the wildlife corridor and in fact the site framework does show uh there
34:35
wouldn't be proposals for development because of the proposed SS area where the wildlife corridor intersects. Thank
34:41
you. Thank you Mr. Butler. Before I bring in others, can I turn to the council and
34:47
Mr. Dickinson? I appreciate the council's going to go away not only in relation to this site but other sites
34:53
kind of just look again at the issue around compensatory provision.
34:58
I think I recall from yesterday I appreciate from the council's perspective what the green belt study says is these are potential kind of
35:05
options for mitigation uh compensatory improvement but given what I've heard
35:10
from Mr. Butler specifically around this site and the assertion or the claim that
35:16
um the Balden excuse me the Balden Flats local wildlife site is also under the
35:21
control of the church commissioners. Is this something that could be looked at
35:26
further? I don't know Mr. Dickinson you're able to come in first and then of course um absolutely uh the view that
35:35
the church commissioners take is that they will look at a strategic approach to improving the green belt. utilizing
35:41
the church's land to mitigate any impact that it would have and it would work hand hand inhand with the council to
35:48
identify and implement them. I would say that obviously the compensation would
35:53
need be to be proportionate to the impact of the development and will be an
35:58
assessment if a planning application if and when a planning application comes forward.
36:07
Thank you. Can I invite the council when you're considering I know you're going to sort of go away and look at um
36:13
compensatory improvements given what I've heard from Mr. Butler and from the church commissioners whether there's a
36:19
this can be specifically looked at as part of that that exercise. I'm going to make a note
36:26
of that. Uh absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh
36:31
Mr. BT next please. Thank Thank you.
36:37
Yeah. Um the the main thrust of what I'd like to say is that um I'll introduce
36:44
myself very briefly won't take long. Um I've lived there for a long time and
36:49
with my neighbors uh some of who are behind me, but many others who've asked
36:55
us to speak today. Um, we've been campaigning for since 2016 against this
37:01
and we found some of the original site assessments in relation to what is
37:08
now GA4 ve very discretionary is is is a word I
37:14
would use. I would use a stronger word actually, but I'll use discretionary today. So, I'd like to point those out. Um but but just before I do, um
37:23
I I do not believe that any special circumstances have been proven
37:30
to to actually reduce this this this green belt area. And as Mr. Butler said
37:36
earlier the the the development of G4 would reduce the green belt separation
37:43
area at that point by something of the order of six or or 700 yards
37:50
which is quite significant. It it it would encourage urban sprawl and
37:57
encourage the the the um effectively encourage the the merging of
38:06
South Tside at that point with the the fringe area of of of um North Sunland of
38:12
Sunderland or the the northern fringe area of Sunland rather. Um but you know
38:18
in addition to the things that Mr. Butler said I I would just also like to say that a development will close off
38:24
the the land and restrict views and the openness which which if you visited it
38:30
and we can refer to a statement that was that was made by the cons conservation
38:35
management report a number of years ago. I'll make reference to that later. But
38:41
it it particularly makes reference to that site being open on on the the approach from the south.
38:48
Yeah, the approach from the south in into into Cedan village. Um, so yeah,
38:53
can I if I just move on briefly to the the actual um what we what we picked up
38:59
some examples of the anomalies and I'll just sort of mention these. This is
39:04
going back to um we've me we've mentioned them in all of our objections since 2016, but there was a strategic
39:11
land review uh carried out by the council to identify potential sites that were um
39:19
potentially available to develop and there were a lot of them well over a hundred I believe. And um I mean that
39:27
site for example was gi was was referenced um was it was it was it CA44 at the time or
39:37
something like that CB44 Cleveland Borden 44. So you can see how
39:42
many site that was just within Bordon. So you can see how many sites were actually up for up for um review at that
39:50
point in time. Anyway, a couple of examples. Um the site the GA4 I'm going
39:57
to refer to it as GA4 although it it confuses me um but that it's 10.4
40:05
hectares so it's approximately 25 acres. Yeah. Now
40:11
with reference to the green belt in the in the SLR um review under a category called
40:19
protecting the green belt which is not a category I invented. It's a council category, right? That particular site
40:28
was given the lowest rating of amber and a comment in support of that rating was
40:34
at that time that development of this site would result in the loss of an area of green belt adjacent to existing
40:41
builtup area. So the site size area as I say is 10.4 hectares. But other sites of
40:48
similar size were given a red rating which we we couldn't understand. There
40:54
didn't seem to be any logic behind it. There didn't seem to be any objectivity behind some of these assessments. They
40:59
seem to be very um subjective and they seem to be heavily weighted against what
41:04
is now termed GA4. So, as an example, the site directly
41:10
opposite G4, but on the other side of the road, on the other side of the A1018, which is the main Sunderland
41:17
South Road, there's a site um at the time, I mean, I don't know what the
41:23
reference is now. I've lost track of it all, but SWH021 is 13.9 hectares. And that was given a
41:32
red rating. Although it's it's directly opposite the site that you you're talking about developing. And although
41:39
and it's slightly it is slightly bigger 10 point 10.4 hectares versus 13.9.
41:47
So the example of slightly larger site directly opposite J4 on the other side of the A 101A was given a red rating and
41:54
with a comment that development would result in the loss of an area of green
42:00
belt land that would therefore score very negatively and would therefore score very negatively against this
42:06
objective. So you know where where's the logic in that? Right. sec second
42:13
category that in reference to the green belt um that we that were picked up on
42:20
and there were a few of these but there was a category called enhancing green infrastructure
42:26
and G4 was given a yellow rating at that time with the following comment. It
42:32
forms G4 that is forms part of a wider green infrastructure corridor and is close as
42:41
in and is in close proximity to local wildlife site and SSI
42:48
development and would have a neutral impact.
42:54
But other sites similar size and similarly assessed would deem to have a
42:59
negative impact. In fact, the site that I've just mentioned directly opposite GA4 but on the other side of the road
43:06
the was given a an amber reading with the comment that development would have a negative impact and mitigation would
43:13
be required. So we we we brought all these up at the time but we didn't ever
43:18
get any answers to them. I mean and I think that goes back to one of the points we made earlier that you know you
43:23
make these comments and you make these objections and you don't really get much feedback. So thank you m Mr. Be obviously you know
43:30
some of this is before me in terms of the background. No, no, no, not not yet. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What I want to focus
43:36
on is we've obviously got the green belt review evidence that's before me that is part of this this plan and I want to
43:43
understand from your perspective why that evidence the current evidence I appreciate there
43:49
was a long history and background to plan making um within um South Tinside
43:56
but what I want to focus on is whether the current evidence that's before me in
44:01
terms of the green belt review that assesses this site as moderate harm arm
44:07
is is not uh justified. Um whether
44:12
ultimately I think what you're saying is I would need to to be you would invite me to say that there should be a higher
44:18
as Mr. Butler said a higher degree of harm associated with this site because of the openness
44:25
impact on the countryside. I I I'm not one to cut you off but I
44:30
understand. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. I mean, I just thought we should give you some examples to try to justify why we
44:36
thought it was a biased rating, an unduly low rating at the time. And you
44:44
know, I think I've made the point and thank thank you for allowing me to make it. That's honestly, I don't want to cut cut
44:51
across, but I'm I'm mindful others want to be be heard as well. And um
44:56
I would just I can I just can I just add not not particularly on the ratings but from from that particular site there's
45:03
uninter uninterrupted views to the coast. There's um views of pension
45:10
monument and cleaning water tower and clean mill. Um
45:18
sometime after these these the this the site ratings were were were changed and
45:25
up upgraded but there wasn't any there wasn't any change to the to the overall
45:30
rating of the site as being potentially available for development.
45:36
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll come back to Mr. Duffy please.
45:42
Thank you. Um so first of all um so we're we're we're looking at this point.
45:48
Um the site um I looked through the um through the documents and the site has
45:54
uh variously various designations. I'll I'll give you
45:59
a short list. Uh, it's called G4, SBC051, action plan 5, Field 78, area 25, West
46:09
Hall Farm, and sometimes erroneously and misleadingly, Land at North Farm.
46:17
Now, um, that that sort of um causes confusion amongst uh those trying to
46:25
make their representations. Uh but it also um it also causes confusion
46:32
uh for the consultants. Um and let me just see if I can get
46:37
here. Yeah. So this is the LUC report and uh the heading on chapter 5 page 75
46:46
uh identifies G4 as land at North Farm.
46:53
Now clearly this is uh West Farm. So um there's confusion amongst perhaps
47:02
those making their representations. There's a confusion within the in the um
47:07
within those presenting the case. And uh yeah so I'll I'll leave that
47:13
there. Uh turning to uh the LUC methodology.
47:20
Um they I listened into their presentation on um or their their yeah
47:26
their presentation on the on the Wednesday last week and it's it's not a
47:32
standardized uh methodology. It's an in-house methodology
47:38
and um picking up the point of uh Mr. bey it's it's slightly subjective and
47:45
not necessarily objective. I could imagine that if the council had um
47:51
invited a different consultant to come and prepare the sustainability appraisal
47:58
uh then um uh they may have come up with different results. Um so the point is it's an
48:06
in-house methodology. Perhaps there isn't a standardized methodology out there. Um
48:16
num uh so this is uh this is this this so the council in their presentations
48:23
um and I can't quite remember the the the the the day I have got a reference
48:28
to this um but the council in support of the green belt said uh
48:35
protect the green belt it's a limited resource release has great sensitivity
48:43
treat it very carefully. Now I I may be those were quotes from Mr. Shadowavian
48:50
and I believe those took place on Thursday uh session. I do have a
48:55
reference for that. Um the green belt in numbers.
49:02
So, uh, the South Tines side, um, the South Tines side administrative area
49:08
covers 6,442 hectares. Uh, these are from, uh, key
49:13
governmental data, by the way. There's large spreadsheets of these. Uh, the allocated green belt covers 2350
49:21
uh, hectares and the area of farmland uh, covers 991
49:28
um, hectares. So in essence this uh 10 acre 10 acre uh field uh represents um
49:38
if my maths is correct uh about um 1% of the farmland. Uh but picking up the
49:47
point of Mr. Butler regarding the site um immediately to the south which is the
49:56
uh uh the solar farm. The application currently in covers uh relates to an
50:04
area an area of 47 hectares with this is a substantial um this is a substantial
50:11
uh application 47 hectares and the 61,488
50:16
uh solar panels. Not only that, there's also 4.7 kilometers of highsecurity
50:23
fencing proposed to be surrounding the site. Um now just just uh thinking about
50:32
these in a strategic term. Uh the green belt is a limited resource and
50:40
in fact um the land available to uh Southside is limited as well. And um
50:51
I always think of an analogy related to Christmas and the wrapping paper where
50:56
where you where you um have a present and uh you decide which piece of
51:03
wrapping paper you're going to to use. And when you use the you you pick out
51:08
various bits of and it's never quite enough to to to to cover the the the parcel and you have to start with a new
51:15
sheet of paper. So, uh, yeah, I think
51:21
basically the wrapping paper, uh, isn't isn't necessarily big enough
51:27
to to sustain the ambitions of the local authority in
51:35
in this uh, submission. Yeah. So, thank you. I mean, Mr. Duffy,
51:42
from reading your representations on the plan back in early 2024, I think from uh
51:49
correct me if I'm wrong in summarizing them, I think you're probably going to invite me similar to Mr. Butler to say
51:56
when you look at the kind of the various kind of green belt harms and purposes,
52:01
moderate is too low and in relation to this site that should be higher. And I think you've directed me to how
52:08
Sunderland looked at their corresponding part of the green belt.
52:15
Yes. So there was a um there was a reliance by Sunderland uh Sunderland
52:21
City Council in their in their um local plan. Um and basically they said that um
52:31
uh they were relying on on South Tinside to provide the the green the green belt
52:38
buffer because um there was no uh there was no option
52:43
for them. And this comes back by the this come back again to the duty to
52:49
cooperate. And um I I never found any any evidence
52:56
that there was meaningful uh cooperation between the two parties. I would have
53:02
half expected that um that somebody from um South Tinside
53:08
uh would have picked up the phone to their uh corresponding colleague in Sunderland and and kind of uh hello Bob,
53:17
it's Jerry here. uh you know we need to have a we need to have a a chat about our our emerging local plan um can we
53:27
meet and then the output from that so that would then produce an agenda
53:34
uh there would be the discussion and then there would be minutes of that
53:39
and I've not found anything of that in the documentation presented certainly at
53:46
regulation um uh 19 level. Thank you. Yep. We obviously picked that
53:52
up as part of um the first first day. So I'm I'm reflecting on on those those points. So
53:59
thank you. Um if I can just before I move on and bring in other people, obviously I think when I'm looking at
54:05
the green belt, there's going to be a large degree of you know, I've been out to the site. I'm going to reflect on that and possibly go well very likely go
54:12
back again. When I do go back again, um perhaps Mr. BT I mean is there any kind
54:18
of specific I mean I can walk Sunderland Road I can
54:24
walk uh is it more lane more road more more lane more lane
54:31
particular thing you know viewpoint or perspective that you want me to kind of have
54:37
particular regard to.
54:42
Well, I think obviously the M lane the view from Mur Lane is important, but if
54:48
you if you were to go in go I mean you can actually get into the the site at
54:54
just just beyond the housing at um on Sunland Road and you can see the views
55:00
from there. You can see clearly over to the south. you can see to the east and
55:05
and and from from the middle of that particular site you could probably see
55:11
up to clean hills to the water tower and the and and clean mill.
55:18
So it would be worth I mean it's it's it's not unheard of for people to be in
55:24
the middle of that place looking of that site looking around. um although it's it has it's got it's
55:32
got I think it's got wheat in it at the moment. Thank you. If I can bring in other
55:38
people. So is it Mr. Dickinson next for church commissioners?
55:44
Thank you chair. Uh I just wanted there was a couple of points raised that I would just like to
55:50
respond on. Um firstly the points raised around exceptional circumstances.
55:56
uh I don't believe that this is the hearing session to discuss whether it is
56:01
uh the circumstances are right for the council to review their green veil boundary in totality. This is the
56:08
specific nature of the application. So I'll leave it to the council um to
56:13
discuss their methodology through which they um came to exceptional circumstances based on housing need etc.
56:20
I think that there was another point around whether it was justified and I think that the council have produced
56:26
robust um evidence through a green belt review and the subsequent um amendments
56:32
and clarifications that they've posted uh on these points. And then um finally
56:39
uh there was a point around whether you consider this site distinct
56:44
um and requiring its own assessment or it should be viewed in the wider especially um given the neighboring site
56:52
speculative planning application for a solar farm. Obviously the church commissioners are not the applicant for
56:57
the solar farm. So we can't speak to that or its progress um or where it is.
57:03
But from our point of view, it's an it's a planning application that's being
57:08
determined. So we cannot consider it at this point. Um I think that from our
57:15
point of view and the church commissioner's ownership, the site is owned by the church commissioners as a
57:20
single owner. it is bound to the north and west by housing and that there are
57:26
strong defensible boundaries along Moane and Sunland Road which are utilized roads uh which I think in all
57:33
representations have been cited for their use. Um
57:38
so and that creates a very defensible and permanent boundary to the site um
57:43
when assessing it against the green belt principles especially when you consider
57:48
um the exceptional circumstances about making alterations to the green belt so that no further alterations are required
57:56
at the end of the plan period. Obviously in terms of the site um the
58:02
church commissioners and the council have a statement of common ground where at 5.1 they've set out the um key
58:10
considerations and the specific modifications that they believe are necessary to mitigate those impacts. U
58:17
so I would draw the inspector's attention to those in terms of assessing the impact of the development. Thank
58:24
you. Thank you Mr. Butler. No. Is that
58:30
microphone on from earlier? Okay. Thank you. Can I understand from the
58:35
council I think I heard about this in um week one possibly under matter three. The solar farm proposal is not yet
58:42
determined. Is that correct? It's a it's a currently a planning application with the authority I think.
58:48
Yes, that's correct.
58:55
Before I move off from the green belt issue, final point on this, Mr. Duffy.
59:00
Yes, thank you sir. Um it it would be just to be um to highlight the
59:06
importance in terms of agriculture in the um in the in the burough. Uh and um
59:14
basically uh 991 hectares is in agricultural land and um
59:22
50 hectares represents each each each um release of
59:28
50 hectares uh amounts to 5% and uh also
59:33
available on the uh the government uh land uh databases. Uh there's 17 farmers in
59:42
South Tinside and uh 50 he fif the average the average uh ownership is or
59:49
sorry the average um uh the average land take for each each farmer is 58
59:56
hectares. So um a 50 a 50 hectare
1:00:01
um plot represents 5% and one farmer. Uh
1:00:07
I'm minded to think that um a as a society we first need water, then we
1:00:14
need food, then we need shelter, and food ranks higher than shelter.
1:00:20
That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh we're on green belt, but I think we're going to sort of overlap
1:00:26
with agricultural land. Mr. Bey, that's okay.
1:00:31
Thank Thank you. And just just touching on um point from Mr. Mr. Duffy there um
1:00:39
I've lived there for 35 years approximately and the the the GA4 has
1:00:44
been um farmed and has produced a productive crop every year that I've
1:00:51
been there as far as I'm aware. Um and the the current farmer has indicated
1:00:59
that it is a a kind of situation. He's got a situation where
1:01:07
if if that land was removed, his livelihood might become unviable. He
1:01:13
hasn't said it will become unviable, but he's indicated that it's it's it's marginal at the moment.
1:01:19
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate I did have a question for this as part of my MIQs. I
1:01:24
hadn't raised it necessarily on the agenda, but I'm clear from the council's position. discussed at previous
1:01:29
sessions, but I think just looking at the council's statement, Mrs. Lamb, this is not compared to the Baldens where we're
1:01:36
looking at yesterday where the latest data provides a distinction between grade three A and 3B. So, we're still in
1:01:43
a position of it's grade three, but the council's assumed for the purposes of
1:01:49
assessing the plan, it's grade three A, the higher the higher grade. Yes, that's correct. So through the
1:01:54
sustainability appraisal sight specific assessments then we have made that assumption and as shown in the map
1:02:01
included in our hearing statement map 10 that shows the updated um classifications from magic maps and
1:02:08
deferra Mr. Dickinson please. I I'd also just like to raise that this
1:02:15
is a point that um is part of the statement of common ground at 4.10.
1:02:21
Thank you. I'm going to move on in terms of the the agenda please. Item three is around uh protected habitats and wading
1:02:27
birds monitoring. I think from the council I'm under no illusion that this
1:02:33
site is firmly within the 7.2 kilometer buffer from protected habitat. So if
1:02:38
development was to take place here, it would need to um contribute into the
1:02:44
mitigation or uh scheme in terms of financial contribution to management. But I wanted
1:02:52
to know under my MIQ554 this issue around wading birds monitoring and the key consideration
1:02:59
that's in the policy in terms of requiring further data and what that potentially means for the develop
1:03:06
potential development of this site please. Okay. Yes. Um so yeah just to clarify
1:03:11
this site does not host any of the qualifying features for the um the Durham course sack or Northia course
1:03:17
spa. Um the waiting birds as we sort of touched on last week um the the surveys
1:03:23
that were undertaken were in response to um sort of knowledge that waiting birds do um use um the fields around the
1:03:32
coast. Um so the the waiting bird studies were undertaken to to get a further knowledge and understanding of
1:03:38
what the impacts could be um of development on these species. Um so as
1:03:45
set out in the council's response to to 5.54 um the the waiting bird study
1:03:51
identified that G4 um was identified as an amber site and it was used by um some
1:03:57
bird species um through the the monitoring surveys. um the the waiting bird survey um
1:04:03
document NAT 20 um sets out um potential mitigation measures that can be
1:04:08
undertaken um to to help offset the the impacts of development should that come forward. Um and one of the points that
1:04:16
was raised is in section F1 of the the waiting bird survey which identifies um
1:04:23
the mitigation um requirements and that said that any plan application is
1:04:29
supported by at least one years uh one season of additional bird um one season
1:04:35
additional non-breeding um monitoring data for fields within 750 mters um including nocturnal survey and
1:04:42
appropriate equipment. Um so this is just to um make sure that when the plan
1:04:48
application comes forward is informed by the most robust and upto-date data for the for the waiting birds. Um obviously
1:04:56
how fields are managed um obviously affects how the birds use the fields. So
1:05:02
if it's if it's being plowed depending on what crops are in there it all has an impact on on the fields are used. So
1:05:09
it's that that requirement is in there as a key consideration to make sure that the information being assessed at plan
1:05:16
application at plan application stage is robust as possible.
1:05:24
Thank you Mr. Butler. Next please. Thank you sir. Uh in our view it's
1:05:29
essential that the proposed additional non-breeding monitoring data for waiting birds for the fields uh is carried out
1:05:36
including a nocturnal survey with appropriate equipment. I'm puzzled by the situation over the area of this
1:05:45
survey sir. Um in uh the council statement at 5223
1:05:50
as Mrs. has now said the monitoring date of field should be within 750 mters uh
1:05:56
of of the site. However, in the statement of common ground uh submitted to you by the council and the church
1:06:03
commissioners, um it says that it should be within 500 meters which was uh in uh
1:06:10
previous discussions. uh I would submit that if the advice uh from the waiting
1:06:17
bird survey is 750 mters it should be 750 mters and secondly uh it says uh
1:06:25
that this should be carried out where practicable. Um
1:06:30
the situation is is that um this site is in close proximity to the regionally
1:06:37
important uh wild balden flats wildlife uh site and mean that the fields are
1:06:44
regularly visited by waiting birds. Uh these surveys were carried out for the
1:06:49
field immediately to the south in connection with the proposed solar farm planning application and revealed not
1:06:55
only significant use by visiting waiting birds but also breeding of several pairs of avisets last year and indeed in the
1:07:03
council statement itself it does accept that G4 was used by lapwing in 1919 to
1:07:09
20 surveys. So we have clear evidence of waiting birds using both the field and
1:07:15
the surrounding fields and it's their connection to the bowl and flat site that's most important of why these
1:07:21
surveys are needed. So I'd say clarity are we talking about 500 meters or 750
1:07:26
please? So I invite Mr. Dickinson first and then
1:07:32
to the council please. I just wanted to clarify um the point
1:07:40
around where practicable. Uh that is a point specifically around access. Uh
1:07:46
obviously the church commissioners can grant access onto their own land but if land is outside of the ownership of the
1:07:51
church commissioners they would do everything in their power to um try and find the most appropriate locations to
1:07:57
do the monitoring as part of the methodology. Okay.
1:08:03
And in relation to the issue of the 750 m versus 500 m.
1:08:09
Uh yes, it should be 750 m. Um it's set out in the council's um statement in
1:08:14
paragraph 5.225 225 that the it did say 500 meters in the the reg 19 plan but in
1:08:22
to make sure it corresponds with the the evidence we it should be 750 m and that
1:08:28
we'll also pick that up in statement of common ground for clarification. Thank you for that. That's helpful. I'm
1:08:36
going to move on in terms of the agenda please. Um in rel in relation to looking at
1:08:42
alterations to the green belt uh and uh ex uh considerations of exceptional
1:08:48
circumstances one of the factors in the national planning policy framework is whether sites well serve or would be
1:08:54
well served by public transport. Um if I can turn to the council first
1:09:00
please. It's at um response to my MIQ55.
1:09:07
have obviously been to the site. I've observed various bus stops indeed one directly adjacent to this site. Um but
1:09:14
if I can turn to the council first please in terms of how it's considered this issue. Thank you.
1:09:20
Thank you sir. Yes, the site is well related to facilities in Cleveland and
1:09:29
it's well served by public transport. Uh firstly in terms of retail there are two
1:09:35
clusters of retail services within CDN. These are East Balden Road and Front
1:09:42
Street. East Balden Road is designated as a local neighborhood hub in the local
1:09:48
plan. Front Street is designated as a local center and those findings were
1:09:55
informed by the local centers and neighborhood hubs commentary which forms
1:10:03
part of the overall retail study.
1:10:08
So in terms of uh active travel opportunities, the council has an adopted local cycling and walking
1:10:16
infrastructure plan and appendix 8 active travel routes and
1:10:22
local plan housing allocations in the infrastructure delivery plan shows that the site is next to an existing active
1:10:29
travel route and close to proposed active travel routes.
1:10:36
Moving on to public transport. There are a number of bus stops in the area
1:10:42
providing services which travel around the burough and to Sunderland.
1:10:48
And there's also many school bus services in the area allowing access to a number of different schools.
1:10:57
The site is approximately 1.5 kilometers away from East Balden Metro Station
1:11:05
and the station has direct regular services towards South Hilton and also towards Newcastle airport.
1:11:14
Table nine of the council's response to MIQ 5.55
1:11:20
provides details of which bus services are accessible from the site and
1:11:25
includes their destinations and frequency. Thank you.
1:11:32
Thank you. Can I just clarify with the the um the council from yesterday when
1:11:38
we were looking at the Baldens there was a reference to bus 30 being a halfhourly
1:11:43
service and a note in table nine there's there's another I don't it's the same 30
1:11:49
Mr. mail. Yes, that's correct. And the service is indeed an hourly service. I think it's
1:11:55
in our representations rather than a halfhourly service that is indeed hourly service. Okay.
1:12:01
I think the reference to the halfhourly service is indeed um could be in reflection to the 24 service that runs
1:12:07
from South Shields to Sunland. I I believe that's possibly a 15minute frequency. Um um just for clarification,
1:12:14
the the 30 service comes into the cleaning area via Whipurn Road onto the 1018. Um and obviously the 21st 24
1:12:22
service one runs parallel to the actual site in question. Thanks. Thank you for that. Okay. In terms of uh
1:12:29
other other submissions, Mr. Butler, please. Just for clarity, uh yesterday, I think it was me who said that the 30 service
1:12:36
was a half hourly service and was reduced to an hourly service.
1:12:42
Mr. Butler, in relation to this site and whether it's reasonable to conclude that it is well served by public transport,
1:12:49
please. Thank you, sir. In terms of um access to East Balden Metro Station, uh residents
1:12:56
along Mo Lane have long campaigned for a footpath link uh along the rural part of the road to East Balden Metro Station.
1:13:04
Um if site G4 is developed then demand for pedestrian access to the metro
1:13:09
station will increase. Um the council has plans for the rural part of more lane to be designated as the quiet lane
1:13:17
which would provide safer pedestrian and cycle route and indeed as we heard uh there is proposals for for cycling uh in
1:13:24
the active travel proposals. Um such a footpath would also give access to the
1:13:31
local wildlife site. Um in addition, we feel that the site itself in terms of
1:13:38
the uh framework uh outline could benefit from access from the southwest
1:13:45
corner uh to linking onto more lane. So that would provide a direct access for pedestrians and cyclists to to head
1:13:53
towards the metro station. and secondly uh from the northeast corner which would
1:13:59
allow access by cycle and foot to the village center. So there were two key
1:14:05
points that we've made in relation to that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bey. I've read from your
1:14:12
representation I think you're concerned this this will become a car dependent
1:14:17
development. Yes. I would just point out a couple of things. um the the the the service 24 um
1:14:24
which runs from South Shields to Sunderland and Sunderland to South Shields obviously um that's been reduced
1:14:30
in frequency in recent years. Um it's it's okay for commuting if you're going to Sunland or or the South Shield, but
1:14:36
obviously nowhere else. The metro is absolutely packed to the to the to to to
1:14:45
the point of not being usable for anyone else at peak times. So if you try to get on, you know, peak peak times, it's very
1:14:52
difficult. Um and and parking is difficult at the metro already. It um I
1:14:59
I don't believe that that if that site is developed, anyone will walk to the
1:15:05
metro and they won't walk to Cleon Village ever. There's no parking in Ceden Village as it is. Um so it will
1:15:10
become a car dependent development. And it's it's interesting that in the local
1:15:16
paper last night there was a um there was an article stating that Sunderland
1:15:22
Road as it approaches Cenon is the 10th most polluted spot in South Tinside with
1:15:27
third world three times the third world health organization's recommended limits of nitrogen dioxide.
1:15:37
So it's already a busy road but it will and and you know so
1:15:44
This will meet. Thank you, Mr. Bey. Mr. Duffy, next, please.
1:15:50
Yeah, it's it's more of an observation. Um, and uh
1:15:56
it's pos possibly objective as to whether it's uh well served or decently served. Uh but uh the point that Mr. Bey
1:16:04
made is uh north south links are very good. East east east west aren't. Um
1:16:11
and the facilities are are not that great. There's no
1:16:18
information boards in the bus shelters uh giving the next service and stuff. Uh
1:16:23
there could some be some useful work gone into um those sort of communication
1:16:29
links so that people know exactly where they stand. That's all I'll say on that. Thank you.
1:16:36
Thank you. Very briefly, Mr. piece and then I'll bring in a very brief point. Currently there
1:16:42
there is no footpath on the development side of the A 1018.
1:17:05
Thank you for that. Um, Mr. Mail, you were able yesterday to to bring me to
1:17:13
detention of Valden data. I don't know. Yeah, I hadn't envisioned this, but I don't know if you've got your fingertips
1:17:19
or whether you recognize what's being said about uh cleaning. I actually read the article uh itself
1:17:25
last night. Sir, I think I'm sort of heavily involved in the non-ontinuous
1:17:30
data monitoring from an air quality perspective. We use diffusion tubes. There's a range of sites that have been
1:17:35
quoted in the clean area as well. What we tend to focus on in inc exceedence levels is defer related rather than the
1:17:42
the world health organization. Um I can quantify that in terms of the sites in
1:17:47
question there's been no exceedences in nitrogen dioxide over the last 5 years. Um and the council reports that on a
1:17:54
regular basis through its annual status report into DERA. I think in terms of some of the comments that have been made
1:18:00
in terms of the infrastructure uh needs around the site in terms of potential footpaths, improved linkages, improved
1:18:06
bus stop facilities, we would expect that to probably come forward as part of a transport assessment and the fallout
1:18:12
from that. Um and then the council would indeed pick up on that. Again, I think it's been raised around as of yesterday
1:18:19
the capacity of the car parking situation at East Boulder Metro Station that is in our infrastructure delivery
1:18:26
plan. Um, as we said yesterday, we've long campaigned with Nexus and supported
1:18:31
Nexus with regards to that. Um, the site in question is a network rail asset.
1:18:37
That said, we would support Nexus in any development of expanding that potential cult subject to the land being made
1:18:44
available. Thank you, sir. Mr. Dickinson, and then Mr. VT I'd just
1:18:50
like to put on record that the church commissioners um agree with the statement just made and that um any
1:18:56
future planning application will be supported with a robust transport assessment from which the the impacts on
1:19:02
things like parking um public transport and um driving facilities will be
1:19:08
considered and mitigations where necessary will be identified.
1:19:14
Mr. BT please.
1:19:29
close to the site. Yeah. And um East East East Balden Road was mentioned
1:19:35
and there there there is there's a couple of hairdressers there and I think there's a cafe there, but there isn't
1:19:41
any shop as such. So, just to correct that point. Yeah.
1:19:59
Thank you for those. We're going to move on in terms of it's a related issue. It's item five on my agenda in terms of
1:20:04
whether safe and suitable access to the site um can be achieved just in general terms. And then I was keen to just
1:20:12
understand because the policy itself requires consideration of improving the
1:20:17
more lane Sunderland road staggered junction and whether that's justified
1:20:22
whether there's evidence that that is a junction that does need uh some improvement either because of safety
1:20:28
issues or general highway capacity flow of um uh
1:20:34
flow of traffic. If I could turn to the council first of this something you've put in the plan uh as a key
1:20:40
consideration for this site what the basis for that is. Thank you sir. So firstly we'd say that
1:20:46
yes safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved. The site has been considered through the
1:20:53
strategic housing land availability process and no particular concerns were
1:20:58
raised um by the council's transport team. In terms of the modeling that was
1:21:05
undertaken for the local road network assessment, um that basically demonstrated
1:21:13
some increased queuing and delay on the side road arms and as a result of that the assessment
1:21:21
recommended the introduction of a scheme that would allow increased opportunities
1:21:27
for vehicles to move to and from the side roads. So that's where that um
1:21:34
requirement has come from and it could also incorporate crossings
1:21:39
which would assist pedestrians to cross all arms of the junction. Thank you.
1:21:52
Go to Mr. Dickinson next then to Mr. Butler and then to Mr. Duffy. So Mr.
1:21:58
Dickinson first please. Thank you chair. Uh I think that just to draw your attention to the statement of
1:22:05
common ground. Uh obviously we believe that this is one of the um modification
1:22:11
the key considerations for the site um at bullet point 4 of the um of the
1:22:19
statement of common ground. Um and just to add the additional where appropriate
1:22:25
to the um key considerations and I would just draw attention again to the point was raised to the last matter which is
1:22:32
um all of this will be considered in a detailed transport assessment which will support the planning application and
1:22:38
make recommendations um on improvements to junctions and access.
1:22:44
Thank you Mr. Butler please. First uh thank you sir. Um the matter here
1:22:51
that we're looking at is the key considerations to a site allocation of a large housing site. And I think that to
1:22:58
keep referring to the fact that these matters will be swept up in any traffic
1:23:03
assessment that comes with a planning application isn't sufficient for the judgment that you're going to have to
1:23:09
make as to whether this is a viable site to take forward. Um in the council's uh
1:23:16
statement to you uh they accept that this is one of the sites that will
1:23:23
contribute to uh the fact that five junctions uh in the villages will
1:23:29
require mitigation and it's one of the top five contributors to that peak. Um
1:23:37
starting with the uh more lane Sunder of the road junction. Um it is in our view
1:23:43
justified uh to explore that opportunity and um again I would ask what where
1:23:51
appropriate means. Um the council were quite clear that that uh was something
1:23:56
put it in the key considerations and then we find in the statement of common ground that the term where appropriate
1:24:01
appears. Um the road is um more lane uh
1:24:07
uh has had some traffic calming measures to a 20 mph zone uh in the residential
1:24:12
area, but the route from Mo Lane uh across that staggered junction to
1:24:17
Whitburn and the coast is still a very wellused route and obviously intersects with a very busy uh Sunderland to South
1:24:24
Shields Road. Um the other matters uh measures that that uh need uh
1:24:31
consideration following traffic from the site is the issue of further congestion in Cleveland and village center. And in
1:24:38
the um INV5 report um the assessment of
1:24:43
the junction 23 uh the 1018 CDN lane priority junction um that assessment
1:24:51
does accept that one arm can be seen to be operating in excess of theoretical capacity in the evening peak although in
1:24:58
the uh IDP 25 report um it's only
1:25:04
considered to be desirable um and a achievable date of 2035.
1:25:12
Um this proposal is to look at um a a signaling solution to the center of
1:25:18
Cleveland Village. And there's no doubt that uh there is uh you know a lot of
1:25:24
issues that would need to resolve in terms of the traffic control in the center of Clayton village and and one
1:25:30
wonders whether uh this development um generating this extra traffic should not
1:25:37
be considered to bring that forward in terms of the IDP situation. You also have the impact on the junction of
1:25:45
Whitburn Road to the 1018 um uh where you have a right turning lane uh when
1:25:50
heading uh south uh to get into Whitburn Road and uh the diffies of turning uh
1:25:58
right out of Whitburn Road towards Sunderland to the south
1:26:03
and and linking to those maneuvers, the proposal by the site promoters in their
1:26:10
regulation 19 submission for access to the site itself is two ghost island
1:26:18
junctions as they call them two right-hand turning lanes um into the site to to enable traffic
1:26:25
from the north to enter the site. Um so that would mean we'd have three rightand
1:26:31
turning lanes uh within about 500 meters along uh the 1018. the 30 mph limit
1:26:39
clearly would have to be adjusted uh if you're going to have those two right-hand turning lanes. Uh but it does
1:26:46
seem uh that there needs to be a lot further work as to whether you could practically have the two access points
1:26:53
as being suggested by the site promoters at this point. So again I would ask that that's uh considered carefully by
1:27:00
yourself. And finally, there is the wider impact of traffic from this site
1:27:07
uh in East Balden and the 184 corridor which we we we touched upon yesterday.
1:27:12
Um a lot of people from this site will travel through East Balden towards uh
1:27:18
the A19 and that will only exacerbate the problems that we heard about yesterday of those junctions. Thank you.
1:27:25
Thank you, Mr. Duffy, please. Uh thank you, sir. Um
1:27:31
yeah. So they that that 1018 road just to the just to the north of the site sir
1:27:38
there is a junction between the 1018 and uh a road called Whitburn road. I
1:27:45
believe it might be the B1299. It may not be. Um but there was there
1:27:50
was recently some um tra uh some signaling uh some road works happening around that
1:27:57
area and uh very quickly the the traffic could be seen to be backing up um
1:28:05
traveling from um Sunderland into uh Cleon and uh almost uh clogging up the
1:28:13
junction the very junction that we're talking about. Uh now bearing in mind
1:28:18
that the construction phase on uh such a site um I believe the church uh I
1:28:25
believe the um uh yeah the owners of the site have identified that uh a
1:28:32
construction phase they they would look to build out in about five years the 29
1:28:39
uh dwellings uh but conceivably there'd be infrastructure works before that and
1:28:45
an overhang So, a seven-year period of construction traffic um be a complete
1:28:52
nightmare, I'm afraid. And uh I'm also mindful that in the local area because
1:28:59
of the nature of the land use uh there are a lot of uh horse riding and um
1:29:06
there's a a traveling community that actively use uh pony and traps and uh
1:29:13
there's seemingly no age limit on who can drive a pony and trap because these are often young people aged uh perhaps
1:29:21
young teenagers. uh going about their lawful um uh past
1:29:27
time and um the junction isn't the the
1:29:32
current junction isn't designed to facilitate that. Uh literally uh three
1:29:38
days ago I witnessed um uh somebody riding a horse. It was a young girl
1:29:44
riding a horse at the junction being led by uh somebody who was uh watching over
1:29:50
her. But they had uh great difficulty in um in crossing the road until I halted
1:29:57
the traffic on the as I was driving I I just slowed up to to give them a bit of
1:30:03
space to cross. And we're talking a lot about cars and traffic, but there are
1:30:09
pedestrians, there's um yeah, there's pedestrians,
1:30:14
there's horse traffic, there's cyclists as well as the cars and um uh any extra
1:30:21
pressure on that junction which uh has quite a history of of accidents on right
1:30:27
turning vehicles. Uh that would be awkward. I think that's all I'm going to
1:30:33
say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson, please.
1:30:38
Thank you, chair. Just um a couple of clarifications on the points um just made. Um firstly, it won't be a traffic
1:30:45
assessment. It will be a transport assessment. So, it will assess multiple modes of transport and their
1:30:50
appropriateness. Um I think that the other point was
1:30:56
raised around the two access points to the development. Those are reserved matters if you're looking at planning
1:31:02
applications and they will be fully considered um either alongside the outline application or as a reserved
1:31:08
matters application subsequent to outline consent. And the point around um where
1:31:14
appropriate on the um wording of the um
1:31:20
key considerations obviously the church have submitted their evidence alongside
1:31:26
their vision documents etc around what is currently understood to be the
1:31:31
traffic impacts on that junction and will again reassess at the time of the planning application because as time
1:31:38
passes usage change and the church are very aware and want to deliver sustainable development um at this
1:31:44
location. And sorry, the last point of clarification was the delivery time
1:31:51
period raised by Mr. Duffy um saying 7 years, but as set out in the um
1:31:57
statement of common ground trajectory, it's between 2028 to 2033, which is 5
1:32:02
years and I'm sure we'll discuss that in a
1:32:07
minute. We will. Okay. for a move off um
1:32:12
trans transport and access. Final point from Mr. BT.
1:32:19
Yes, brief. Yeah, that's yeah, briefly it's worth pointing out that the A1018
1:32:27
is a a regularly used emergency transport route um for police cars, but
1:32:33
ambulances particularly, fire engines. So, they're coming down there all the time. So, point Mr. Butler made about
1:32:39
the three barriers really to progress along that road in the future potentially would be a would be a lot
1:32:46
more significant than than you would imagine. Thanks.
1:32:51
Thank you for that. I'm going to move on to item six on the agenda which is around wider infrastructure requirements. Um this is a theme I've
1:32:59
picked up through various questions various sites. So the key considerations for this site and indeed for others
1:33:05
don't necessarily in outline or say uh specific uh infrastructure requirements
1:33:12
uh are necessarily identified. I appreciate there are other policies of the plan that um deal with that. If I
1:33:20
could turn to the council now to just briefly in terms of your response to my MIQ5
1:33:26
um 57 in terms of potential infrastructure
1:33:31
requirements from the sort of approximately 260 houses and how the council's looked at that please Mr.
1:33:37
Clifford. Thank you sir. It is acknowledged there will be social
1:33:43
infrastructure impacts as a result of the proposed development.
1:33:49
Um as you've referenced there are policies in the plan which address that
1:33:55
SP 2550 59 and 60 in terms of the development management process.
1:34:02
So firstly in terms of school places um just to explain firstly primary
1:34:09
school places it's the assessment is on an area basis.
1:34:14
So there are six primary school planning areas for the burough um that the school
1:34:23
places planning um team use and
1:34:30
area six is the villages. Um so it's on an area basis and
1:34:35
regarding primary school places the assessment in the infrastructure
1:34:40
delivery plan is that West Balden Primary School and
1:34:47
Whitburn Village Primary School can be appropriately extended to accommodate
1:34:52
local plan impacts in that area. And just to add to that, we have
1:34:59
undertaken high level feasibility work. Um so when we say they can be
1:35:06
appropriately extended, uh we have done some analysis regarding secondary school places, the
1:35:14
the assessment for that area shows that Balden Secondary School has the
1:35:20
potential to accommodate pupils from residential development in
1:35:25
the area.
1:35:31
regarding I just also um reiterate that as previously stated
1:35:38
there are many school bus services which run in the area allowing access to a number of different schools.
1:35:47
Moving on to primary care capacity. The council has leazed with the integrated
1:35:53
care board during the preparation of the infrastructure delivery plan.
1:36:00
That liaison is is ongoing because the IDP is a live document
1:36:06
and if a planning application is submitted then the ICB will be consulted.
1:36:14
I could go on to junctions etc. but I think we've covered that.
1:36:23
Uh we can turn to others on my my left. So starting with Mr. Butler in terms of
1:36:29
infrastructure requirements please. Uh thank you sir. Um yes the primary u
1:36:36
area assessment is done across the villages but we're talking about Caden village here. We're talking about uh
1:36:43
Cleon Academy, which if you look at the uh summary tables at the end of INV5,
1:36:49
you'll see Cleon Academy has no capacity. Um so we have a situation
1:36:54
where the council is suggesting that children uh that would come to live on
1:36:59
this development would either go to Whitburn or to West Balden for their
1:37:05
primary school education. It's just not practical. It will not happen. Uh
1:37:12
therefore um the council needs to have greater consideration as to how it's
1:37:18
going to plan for any uh population growth in its villages u in its
1:37:25
communities not trying to send children to other communities. The secondary
1:37:30
level is a separate matter and I accept that uh parental choice means that uh uh
1:37:36
older children will travel by bus to the schools of their choice. Uh but again at
1:37:42
the moment we're only being presented with Balden uh secondary school as as the potential area of of operation.
1:37:50
And secondly on health um the the council's evidence itself says uh that
1:37:56
there is a deficit of 40 clinical rooms across the practices practices in this
1:38:02
area. Um you know we have uh a major situation uh as we referred to yesterday
1:38:09
uh in terms of of Balden and the practices there uh one of them closing to new patients at some time. Uh it's
1:38:16
all very well to say uh that the IDP is on uh ongoing and and this will be uh
1:38:22
consultation with the ICB at planning application stage. But we're talking about the exceptional circumstances of
1:38:29
of uh assessing whether these sites will be taken out of the green belt. And as part of those considerations, we need to
1:38:35
have the infrastructure that so people can uh be certain that uh that they will
1:38:42
be able uh to access these essential facilities. Thank you.
1:38:49
Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Next, please. Uh yes, briefly uh sir. Um yeah,
1:38:54
obviously um there's no doctor's surgery in Clean Village, so uh you're uh adding
1:39:01
extra extra demand uh with no with no supply. Um if I've got that the right
1:39:08
way round. Um primary school that could quickly become overloaded if it isn't
1:39:14
already. Secondary schools, um I have little comprehension, but obviously there are one or two around and about.
1:39:21
Uh but the main the main thing really is um these are just policies and uh
1:39:28
there's no there's no commitment for for money. I appreciate you have these sort
1:39:33
of section 106 agreements and things uh but there's such a lag on the provision
1:39:40
that um it's um yeah it it is it is an issue to
1:39:48
be considered. I think that's all I'll say on that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dickinson please.
1:39:54
Thank you chair. Um I just reflecting on the question raised is um
1:40:02
the fact that there is no social utility infrastructure identified within the key considerations. Um it's the
1:40:09
commissioner's belief um and agreement with the council that these are sufficiently covered in other parts of
1:40:16
the local plan and are not needed to be repeated at this stage which would could create confusion or double counting in
1:40:23
these matters. Um so in that way it is effective and obviously the evidence is
1:40:28
supplied in the infrastructure delivery plan to support those policies so it is justified.
1:40:35
Thank you Mr. Clifford again please. Thank you sir. Just to be absolutely
1:40:41
clear when we're talking about the the area basis of analysis we're not
1:40:47
necessarily saying that where there's schools that could be extended that that's where children from this
1:40:53
development would go. There's a management process. Um so
1:41:01
in terms of managing the the demand across the area um it could be that
1:41:06
children from this development in the first instance there will be more potentially uh in the
1:41:14
immediate localized area. There will be um you know possibly children going to
1:41:21
uh fill that capacity from elsewhere where the schools could be extended. Um
1:41:26
so it's a kind of um it's an iterative process. It's not a simple sort of black
1:41:31
and white that that's where there is capacity to extend. So that's where the children would go.
1:41:41
Thank you Mr. Bey please. I think it's worth saying that um or
1:41:46
stressing that currently as a resident many of my current neighbors children
1:41:55
cannot go to school in Cedon. Thank you.
1:42:01
Okay, it's coming up to um 11:00. We haven't quite covered everything on the agenda for this morning. Um I was kind
1:42:09
of hoping to structure it to kind of deal with Cleon first and then Whitburn. I see Mr. Lavell is here for for
1:42:17
Whitburn. Um my intention is to try and conclude the
1:42:24
discussion on Cleon um today. So that may mean pushing Whitburn back slightly.
1:42:31
Um is there anybody else in the room who's affected by that? Mr. Dickinson, you so you're here already. Um,
1:42:39
so I'm going to try and conclude the Cleon um, discussion. Um, I was
1:42:44
envisioning taking a short midm morninging break. I wonder if it's convenient to do that now so we can have
1:42:50
sort of 10 15 minute comfort break. We'll then come back. I'm going to budget no more than half an hour to
1:42:56
conclude Cleon and then we'll move straight into to Whitburn.
1:43:03
So bear with us Mr. Lavel. Um, so if we take a break now, it's just come up to
1:43:08
11:00. If we be back in this room for quart 11, please, and then we'll conclude the Cleon discussion.
1:59:49
Okay, thank you everybody. It's just come up to quarter past uh 11. So I'm going to resume this hearing session.
1:59:55
We're going to spend up to about half an hour further on Cleon and then I'm going to move on to uh the sites at Whitburn.
2:00:03
So I'm on agenda item uh seven. Before I get on to that, Mr. Clifford, is that
2:00:12
name plate is that a legacy from before the break? No, that's okay. Thank you. Uh, so under item seven, I'm
2:00:19
trying to sort of bring together a number of issues uh that have been identified within the representations.
2:00:25
An opportunity to um briefly discuss these further uh in terms of obviously an objective of
2:00:31
the planning system is ultimately to result in well-designed um places.
2:00:36
There's obviously a clear theme in representations from the local community
2:00:41
in terms of um how this development could be successfully integrated
2:00:48
uh in this part of Cleon. Obviously visited the site there's housing sort of backing onto the site to the west west
2:00:55
and to the north. Um council's obviously considered this as part of the
2:01:02
uh site's framework document. uh in terms of how this site could come
2:01:08
forward. It's indicative. It's not prescriptive. It's a guide um at this
2:01:13
stage for the as evidence for for plan making.
2:01:18
And obviously the policy SP7 uh includes a number of kind of key considerations
2:01:23
particularly around sort of landscaping and setting back uh from the Sunderland Road um frontage.
2:01:31
Uh perhaps if I could invite the council at the first instance to just uh
2:01:37
draw out in response to my MIQ560 how it's looked at the capacity of this site and potential opportunities to
2:01:44
integrate the development into its uh its setting please.
2:01:50
Yeah. So, um, as set out in the site frameworks document, the there's an area
2:01:55
to the south of the site where there's currently some, um, surface water flood
2:02:01
risk. Um, and that's the the frameworks sort of envisage that that would be retained um as green space and um a
2:02:10
drainage system and that sort of as you come up into the village that would soften that impact um on the gateway to
2:02:17
the village. The key considerations for the site state that development should retain existing mature trees and ensure
2:02:24
landscaping is an integral part of the design which should also assist in integrating the development into the
2:02:31
village setting. Thank you for that. Now obviously I've
2:02:38
had various kind of submissions before me uh photographs. Obviously this is a site that's in sort of um as Mr. bees
2:02:45
referred to currently sort of arable arable farmland. Uh obviously um
2:02:51
encroachment into countryside is part of green belt matters which we discussed previously but I think there's wider
2:02:57
concern about just how you uh can sort of uh develop this site in a
2:03:04
way that kind of feel would ultimately kind of feel part of Mr. Butler.
2:03:11
Uh thank you sir. I think in contrast to to site GA2 the that we considered
2:03:18
yesterday, we have here a a clear uh constraint uh proposal within the
2:03:24
indicative layout to uh as Mr. Cooper has said uh to not develop uh the uh
2:03:31
southern quarter of the site and and that's clearly uh an area which has the
2:03:36
most flood risk which I assume we'll come back to at your next point. uh in
2:03:42
terms of the uh intersection as well uh of that area with the wildlife corridor
2:03:49
network as as drawn is is also important constraint. So from those two points of
2:03:55
view uh clearly there are constraints there and I'll draw attention to to other constraints that you've referred
2:04:02
to uh particularly the noise from the A1018 and the need uh for substantial uh
2:04:09
planting as a potential uh mitigation to that noise uh for any housing that would
2:04:16
be uh fronting onto the 1018. Uh and clearly as well um the uh type of
2:04:24
development you have at West Meadows Road uh which has a lot of mature trees
2:04:29
in place. Uh there's the need to try and uh also provide uh uh further uh tree
2:04:36
planting uh to the west of the site. So all of those things I think are are
2:04:42
issues that uh can uh be still considered as constraints and I would
2:04:47
ask you to consider whether they are s sufficient to maybe the site to go forward.
2:04:54
Thank you. But in principle um Mr. Butler. I mean, just thinking about the character of this area. Thinking about
2:05:00
the kind of the the tree belt woodland um to the edge of the football academy
2:05:06
as you've referred to. There's kind of other woodland and trees. Um
2:05:13
uh this kind of edge of of Cleon would further tree planting landscaping along
2:05:19
particularly the A108 sort of boundary to the site. Think about things like noise. Would that just
2:05:25
be would that be you know uh hostile to the local character or complimentary or
2:05:32
fit in with the kind of the existing kind of framework? I think in terms of well-designed places
2:05:39
uh uh additional tree planting is essential to any development and to provide uh open space as well. And again
2:05:46
in contrast to to G2 we see a a small area of open space uh being suggested at
2:05:53
the center of the site. um you know that could be uh you know made into a more practical open space potentially in any
2:06:00
any uh development that that if you were minded to allocate the site. So those
2:06:06
those issues I think uh you know could temper the issue. But notwithstanding
2:06:11
that it's clear and Mr. Bey no doubt will explain that to you that uh this is a uh a cherished piece of the green belt
2:06:20
at the edge of the village and you know people would not want to see it developed in principle.
2:06:27
Thank you um Mr. Bey and then then Mr. Duffy. We go in that order. Thank you.
2:06:35
Yes. Thanks. Um yeah, I just really wanted to read an extract from uh uh uh
2:06:41
about the characteristics in relation to what Mr. Butler has just said about that particular area, that particular um
2:06:48
aspect of Caden. And it's it was it's an extract from a council publication, but
2:06:53
it was it was part of a conservation management report. And what it says about that particular site is the rural
2:07:00
edge along the eastern side of the village that is Caton village provides a glimpse of its historic setting with
2:07:08
open fields, hedros and a belt of mature trees and that is from a a council
2:07:15
publication. So I think that says it all. It is well
2:07:20
regarded. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Duffy please.
2:07:26
Yeah. Um obviously uh my standpoint is this is the uh wrong site but um without
2:07:33
prejudicing without prejudicing that that particular standpoint um the the
2:07:40
local vernacular as you uh pass the site is one of glimpsed oak open um open
2:07:48
agricultural fields glimpse through uh uh broken tree hedges and that type of
2:07:54
thing. Um and it's there is talk about um the the
2:08:02
planting uh and there is talking about talk about a buffer between the uh
2:08:07
between the development and the uh the houses immediately to the west of the site and the north of the site. Although
2:08:15
it's unclear what the dimension of that buffer is. And um you know if it if it
2:08:24
was uh let's say 15 m it's probably far too little. If it's if
2:08:31
it's 30 m that would be ideal. Um now I know that Stantech uh who um
2:08:39
were were previously working for the church commissioners had um uh had had
2:08:45
submitted some um had submitted some um viewpoints and um that was in partic in
2:08:54
in in in respect of the the the buffer zones and things like that. Um, and I
2:09:01
I'm I'm sure that those would be an enhancement to what is currently on the
2:09:07
table. I'll leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson.
2:09:15
Mr. Duffy. No. No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson, please. Thank you. Um, as Mr. Duffy has raised
2:09:24
um as part of our representations um the commissioners have submitted a vision document which demonstrates how
2:09:30
the site could be brought forward um which as so aligned to the key considerations um of the planning policy
2:09:38
um to show that it is deliverable achievable and sustainable um I'd also draw attention to the fact that the key
2:09:45
considerations um have three separate matters in regards to landscape um as
2:09:52
the first three bullet points which is ensure the design and layout creates or enhances clear and defensible
2:09:58
boundaries. We retain existing mature trees which I think that even along um
2:10:04
to my right we're all agreed is an important part of any master plan moving forward and then ensure the landscaping
2:10:11
is an integral part of the design um and making sure that development is set back from the eastern boundary. So all of
2:10:18
those things being in the policy will ensure that they make their way into the formal application process. Just in
2:10:24
terms of your question in integrating the development um and some of the points that have been raised, obviously
2:10:29
the site is 10 10.3 hectares of which only 6.9 hectares are being proposed as
2:10:36
developable area. That includes a buffer to the south as well which is where integrated sustainable urban drainage is
2:10:44
going to be located. um away from the flood risk zones. And obviously moving
2:10:50
forward as part of any application because of the require national requirements there will be a high level
2:10:56
of either design coding or design framework that will be supporting the planning application move forward.
2:11:08
Thank you. As you mentioned there, Mr. Dickinson, it's the second part of my 7.
2:11:14
Um I think the evidence does point to surface water issues on part of the site
2:11:20
uh and from the um as the council referred to earlier when they've been looking at this and the capacity of the
2:11:26
site is to kind of avoid that area and to envelop it within kind of open space
2:11:32
open space provision and to provide sustainable urban drainage systems. Obviously, there
2:11:37
are other policies of the plan that will um will cover that. Um but from uh those
2:11:46
representing the local community or local interests, is flood risk such an issue on this site that it's um that
2:11:53
would not be a justified approach? Mr. Butler?
2:11:58
Uh thank you, sir. the um site framework document refers to the southwest corner
2:12:04
of the site as a one inund years weather event. I think um we're finding with
2:12:09
climate change that the these matters come around far more regularly. So there's no doubt uh that and and you
2:12:17
know the developers are not suggesting that they would do this that that part of the site would be suitable for
2:12:23
development and that's why this buffer zone is allocated. Um the
2:12:30
issue about the remainder of the site and the um issue of where surface water
2:12:36
will be disposed you know is uh still a major problem. the field to the east of
2:12:42
the 1018 was subject to a substantial flood alleviation scheme in recent years
2:12:49
um and uh that you know has been partially effective but you still see
2:12:54
surface water flooding in that field as well. So it is difficult to know whether the whole site would be uh more affected
2:13:03
and also whether in addition to the proposed suds area any more detailed uh
2:13:09
surface water retention would be needed as we're seeing in in sites being developed in East Balden. Thank you.
2:13:17
Thank you Mr. Duffy. Please I'll put my microphone on this time.
2:13:22
Thank you. Um yeah. So um it it's odd that in recent years um uh pluial uh
2:13:31
flooding has been an issue um more of an issue in in that area. the the the
2:13:38
character the site is characterized because it's at effectively at the bottom of a huge catchment area and uh
2:13:47
the water's got very little little place to go which is why um ponding in the in
2:13:53
the in the field has uh to the uh to the south of the site has has been more more
2:14:01
prevalent in recent years. Um obviously the um the development would include uh
2:14:07
suds drainage uh but if there's nowhere for the water to go there's nowhere for the water to go and um yeah so um
2:14:18
in recent year the there's been a history of flooding um I think um
2:14:25
from memory the uh tinware uh fire and rescue service have been
2:14:31
called out to uh historic flooding although that may that may be uh from
2:14:38
date from 2000. Um but uh there definitely are capacity issues
2:14:45
and uh the council have um done a lot of work in refurbishing drainage from uh
2:14:51
Cleon Village down to uh the bottom of West Meadows Road. in recent years
2:14:56
that's gone on that that's been a um a two-year uh a two-year project for them. Um and I
2:15:06
can't but help think that um that is that has been brought forward by by the
2:15:12
issues relating to surface water. uh the the drainage probably doesn't uh benefit
2:15:19
from the fact that um uh a lot of it dates from um 1902 when the um
2:15:28
when development in the area started and a lot of the a lot of the drainage is combined. So there's no separation
2:15:34
between um rain uh storm water and um and foul water. Thank you.
2:15:51
Thank you, Mr. BT. Please,
2:15:57
you might need to turn your microphone off, Mr. Duffy, to allow that one. I'm sorry. That's okay.
2:16:02
Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Um yeah, just just to say that uh every year the h the houses that
2:16:10
back onto the site, the rear gardens of the houses that back onto the site at the north end of the site flood in the
2:16:17
winter. Um so that's that's a fact. Um
2:16:23
and I'm I'm also reliably informed that there are regular um calls to the
2:16:30
counselors uh about surface water flooding on Main
2:16:35
and West Meadows Road which continue despite the the work that the the the
2:16:40
drainage work that works that have been carried out over recent years. Thanks.
2:16:52
Okay, thank you for those um those submissions. If I move on um around
2:16:58
enhancing biodiversity, I've read various representations around uh uh
2:17:04
wildlife that's been observed on the site over the years uh and the biodiversity
2:17:10
uh value that people suggest that the site has. Obviously policies of the plan
2:17:15
will be seeking biodiversity net gain in line with um national um standards
2:17:22
when looking at the site uh and its ability to provide biodiversity net gain
2:17:28
in relation to everything else that might be uh sort of it is uh sufficient
2:17:35
assurance or comfort at this stage that um that can be accommodated. I'll invite
2:17:41
Mr. Dickinson first and then um bring in others. Thank you. Um thank you chair. So um I think the
2:17:48
starting point uh would be to say that any planning application that does come forward will be supported with um the
2:17:56
sufficient evidence um around ecology and habitat surveys that will need to be taken place um as part of any planning
2:18:03
application coming forward. Um obviously this is a landscape-led approach and one
2:18:08
of the key considerations is protecting the existing mature trees and hedros
2:18:13
along the de along the development boundary which will be the um kind of
2:18:19
principal location of biodiversity value along the site um because of the
2:18:24
fact that the field is an agricultural working field. There is with sites such as them as
2:18:31
these greenfield sites um it is not expected at this time that any off-site
2:18:37
contribution towards biod diversity net gain will be sought but this will be subject to the final design of the
2:18:44
scheme coming forward and the appropriate um biodiversity calculation and units calculation that will need to
2:18:51
accompany the development and any condition attached to a future planning application requiring it to demonstrate
2:18:58
the requisite biodiversity net gain. Can I just clarify with the council
2:19:05
before I come to Mr. Butler, a number of sites I've been looking at are in uh the council's wildlife corridors. Is this
2:19:12
another site that's in a wildlife corridor, please? There is a small section um to the the
2:19:19
southwest of the site which does fall within um the wildlife corridor by virtue again of a of a buffer around a
2:19:25
an existing core site. and would um I could obviously look back
2:19:32
at the the mapping but immediately that strikes me that that corridor would overlap with the area
2:19:39
that's kind of proposed or anticipated for kind of open space or not to be developed on. In any event,
2:19:44
yes, that's correct, Mr. Butler, please.
2:19:50
Yes, thank you, sir. I think you you've you've clarified in your own mind uh what's happening here. Um last season
2:19:56
was the first time in many years in my experience that the southern quarter of the site has been plowed by the farmer.
2:20:03
Um it's been the practice of the farmer to leave that part of the site in
2:20:08
grassland for many years. And I think that's why when the U assessment was
2:20:14
done of the wildlife corridor um based as a buffer which in obviously is
2:20:20
centered on Balden Flats local wildlife area uh that that area did form part of
2:20:27
the wildlife corridor network. So it is there uh it's it's important uh
2:20:34
notwithstanding that this year it's it's got an arable crop on it but nevertheless um the key considerations
2:20:42
in our view are not sufficient uh in protecting the existing features u and
2:20:47
therefore we would like to see them strengthened um because of that presence of the wildlife corridor network there
2:20:54
and uh its uh association with uh the core site nearby. by and in view of that
2:21:02
um there is the potential for you to uh retain that area of land in green belt
2:21:08
uh and um you know see that uh it's
2:21:14
u remains undeveloped. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Duffy please.
2:21:22
Yeah just just briefly sir. Uh um yeah I take the point that Mr. Butler has made
2:21:27
about the um the plowing of the an area that was um I forget what the
2:21:33
agricultural term is but it was it was it was it was it was unplow remained
2:21:38
unplowed for many years. Um there is there is um there definitely is uh a
2:21:45
wildlife element and I think that if the development proceeded that would get
2:21:50
displaced because uh even the buffer zones wouldn't be able to accommodate it. There's um there's feeasants, uh
2:21:58
there's foxes, and uh there
2:22:45
or I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. Um, no
2:22:53
doubt uh that the council seeking is it 30% affordable housing
2:22:58
uh on this site. Um
2:23:04
obviously that's been um subject to local plan viability.
2:23:09
uh local panwide viability assessments. Are there other h types of housing were
2:23:16
this allocation to um be found sound in principle? Uh does the
2:23:22
policy need to be modified to cover other types of housing that should be delivered on this site?
2:23:31
Mr. Butler. Uh thank you sir. Uh as you heard in evidence in relation to site GA2
2:23:37
yesterday, uh we draw your attention to the strategic housing market assessment and the overall need for housing for
2:23:45
older people. Uh and therefore uh if this site was allocated uh then there's
2:23:51
a potential for that and and clearly in terms of uh our commentary yesterday uh
2:23:57
we fully support the 30% affordable uh mix. And uh if you look at the viability
2:24:03
study, you see uh the profit level there of over12 million pounds. We believe that uh uh you know it's more than
2:24:12
affordable to have that type of mix. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson.
2:24:21
I would just concur apologies. I would just concur with um
2:24:27
what's been raised that uh as part of the statement of common ground um policy
2:24:32
18 is flagged as being a agreement that we would achieve 30% affordable housing as it currently stands on the site in
2:24:39
terms of providing a mix. Um the policy doesn't currently um to my knowledge
2:24:46
define the specific type of housing that's coming forward and retaining that flexibility will be essential to
2:24:52
ensuring that opportunities for other types of housing can come forward and can be brought forward by the market.
2:25:10
Thank you Mr. Bey please. Yeah just on the point of the type type
2:25:16
of housing I'd just like to say that um it's generally felt that the developers
2:25:21
uh irrespective of what's planned will be very commercially focused and likely
2:25:28
to build executive type housing family type housing on that site.
2:25:37
Thank you. Obviously I have in mind there are various policies of the plan that would apply to to all developments.
2:25:43
So I've got those in mind as well. Thank you. I'm going to come on to the last item for Cleon. It's around delivery
2:25:49
time frames. Um it's to help my understanding when I'm looking at the overall picture of when housing could be
2:25:56
delivered within um the burough. Uh obviously the council had looked at
2:26:02
this as part of the strategic housing land availability assessment and had provided a um a buildout rate or an
2:26:11
anticipated buildout rate at table 10 of the council's proof of evidence.
2:26:17
Um the trajectory that's now in the statement of common ground is slightly different. Um
2:26:25
got a number of factors to consider here. M uh Mr. Dickinson and then invite the council as well. Obviously there's a
2:26:32
process of plan adoption still to go through. Um
2:26:37
then there'll be um either further survey work. We've already referred to
2:26:43
another year's um wider survey um material.
2:26:50
Um then a submission of a planning application whether that'll be an outline or um full detailed scheme for
2:26:59
this site notwithstanding also take it the church commissioners do not
2:27:04
build directly so there'll be a disposal process uh even if the council was minded to
2:27:11
approve a scheme it's likely to be subject to section 106 contributions
2:27:17
etc discharge of conditions you can See where I'm going with this, Mr. Dickinson?
2:27:22
Then development on site. Um, so is
2:27:28
first completions of now 59 units in to
2:27:33
by um 31st of March 2029. Realistic.
2:27:39
[Music] The site is a green field site accessible um already by two major
2:27:47
highways. There are no um immediate infrastructure requirements
2:27:53
uh that would need to be delivered ahead of time that would to make the scheme acceptable beyond mitigating its
2:28:00
potential impact. Obviously work is ongoing alongside the
2:28:07
local plan to ensure that our own evidence base for any future planning
2:28:12
application um is supported robustly. Uh obviously the key issue here is that if a planning
2:28:19
application is submitted now it would not benefit from the allocation and would be in the green belt. So um we the
2:28:27
allocation would need to be adopted before any decision is made on the
2:28:33
planning application. Looking at the buildout rate 50 homes 59
2:28:40
uh leading into 50 units a year is a very standard delivery rate. um which I
2:28:46
think is um upheld in various industry reports such as the Lichfield buildout report. Um so I don't believe that there
2:28:53
is that there should be much concern about the delivery rate from the point of starting. So at this moment in time,
2:29:00
I believe it's entirely reasonable um given that we have proposed in the vision document a policy compliance
2:29:06
scheme why um a straightforward planning application process couldn't be achieved
2:29:14
and hence why the statement of common ground has the trajectory included within it.
2:29:27
Thank you uh Mr. Mr. Butler, please. Uh, thank you, sir. Um, residents uh
2:29:35
will undoubtedly be concerned about the length of construction period uh whether it is indeed uh reduced to five years. I
2:29:42
think you're suggesting perhaps that that's uh a likelihood that may not be
2:29:48
achievable. Um the indicative layout as I uh spoke to earlier, it proposes two
2:29:55
entry points to the site uh from the 1018 and clearly uh traffic management
2:30:01
arrangements will be required uh on this very busy road to to carry out the
2:30:06
construction. So that that there are real issues about the the length of the construction period. Um, but I'm pleased
2:30:14
to hear uh the representative church commissioners uh say that uh the allocation would need to be adopted
2:30:20
before any decision on a planning application because that's not what we heard yesterday relating to to site GA2.
2:30:26
So uh I'm pleased about that. Thank you Mr. Bey and then Mr. Duffy and
2:30:33
then we'll probably bring this session to a conclusion. Thank you. Yes, just very briefly I said before the the SLA
2:30:41
was carried out in 2016. So we've been living with this since 2016 as a resident and a residents not not myself
2:30:48
generally. So we're now talking about commencing 20 28 29 five years worth of
2:30:56
development. So that takes us to 2034. That's a long time. I'll probably be
2:31:04
dead. I mean, it's it's it's unacceptable. It's a it's a ridiculous
2:31:10
amount of time to have to wait and have this hanging over us. Um,
2:31:15
in addition to the to the um upset and the and the upheaval and the building
2:31:20
work and the noise and everything else that's going on. I mean, just having it there in your background in your
2:31:26
background all the time ruined people's retirement. But I think I've probably said enough.
2:31:31
Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Please. Yeah. Just uh just shortly. Um so
2:31:38
obviously the um the the development will be uh governed by
2:31:45
the construction phase of the development will be uh governed by the uh construction design and management
2:31:50
regulations 2015. U my issue isn't so much with the u delivery or safe
2:31:56
delivery but but really w with the sequencing. And uh often on developments
2:32:02
we see uh the housing uh the housing brought forward first and then the um
2:32:10
and then the the the the things that nobody really wanted to do follow on
2:32:15
afterwards. Uh personally if the development proceeds uh I would my my
2:32:22
preference would be that the buffer zones are prioritized in terms of the the the planting on the fridges um so
2:32:28
that they they have a time they have the five years to mature rather than being delivered right at the end. Uh that was
2:32:36
my point. Thank you. Thank you. If we just turn briefly to the council, I appreciate as part of the
2:32:41
key considerations, there isn't um something in relation to phasing or master planning uh as part of this
2:32:47
policy, but for the benefit of this hearing session, are there other policies in
2:32:53
relation to design implementation within the plan that would speak to some of the
2:32:59
kind of issues which I'm hearing this morning which perhaps more relate to the planning application stage rather than
2:33:05
the principle of the allocation.
2:33:14
Uh yes. So obviously we have uh policies in the plan which relate to the delivery of infrastructure which will be
2:33:20
applicable um to uh this plan application um should it come forward.
2:33:34
Thank you. you know the general I should prepare to recall all this but uh this the mind is the mind is failing me but
2:33:41
um again similarly people get concerned about you know things around like delivery of affordable housing again of
2:33:47
the of the policies that help assist around the timing of of that um in terms
2:33:53
of any kind of phasing conditions about when you'd expect to see the mix of housing coming forward
2:34:03
um obviously there are policies around providing a mix of housing and affordable housing but it doesn't
2:34:08
necessarily touch on the phasing of that.
2:34:14
Thank you. Can I just draw your attention in the context to um
2:34:26
policy 47 design principles
2:34:32
um which provide a very extensive and comprehensive list of material considerations which need to be taken
2:34:37
into account at development management stage.
2:34:44
Thank you. I'm going to draw a line now under the Cleon um session. Thank you
2:34:50
everybody for your contributions for that. We're going to have a change of seats. Mr. Lavel's patiently been
2:34:56
waiting. Um should we just have a short break for a couple of minutes? Allow uh
2:35:01
Clean to leave and u Mr. Lavel to come in.
2:37:41
Thank you. I think everybody's here now for the uh the session on Whitburn. Um
2:37:47
I'm not going to reintroduce myself or ask people to um uh reintroduce
2:37:53
themselves other than obviously Mr. Lavel, you're joining us on behalf of the Whitburn Neighborhood Forum and I
2:37:59
appre saw you at earlier sessions of the the plan examination. Um my original timetable which I've um
2:38:08
not stuck to um was to hopefully sort of conclude this by 1:00 today with a
2:38:14
potential that we might go on into the early afternoon. But I appreciate people may have other commitments or um
2:38:22
obligations. Um, Mr. Dickinson, I appreciate you here on behalf. Is it site G6? Is that the
2:38:30
church commissioner's interest? That is correct. Yes.
2:38:35
Um, Mr. Lavel, have you got any kind of particular time constraints I need to be
2:38:41
aware of? I did promise the wife.
2:38:49
Okay. Well, if we we'll see how we get on. If there's there's a number of ways
2:38:54
we can deal with this as we're trying to run them as discussions, that's one way, but ultimately it's a right to be heard.
2:38:59
So if you felt Mr. Lavel, well, this is what I want to say. That's that's me covered. And then I'll exit stage left.
2:39:07
I've said my piece. We can do it that way or we can see how we get on with the discussion and how long it takes.
2:39:12
Yeah, certainly.
2:39:18
Thank you. you and I see the council's team has remained the same from uh we're in your hands entirely. Our
2:39:24
personal agendas are not concern. Okay. Thank you. I'm just thinking also
2:39:30
for recordings you there's no there's no new people at this moment in time to introduce. Okay. So obviously here for
2:39:37
sites G5 G6 uh to the nor at the northern um edge of Whitburn. I outlined
2:39:44
in my mass issues and questions. I've obviously tried to deal with things in a what I thought was a a reasonable kind
2:39:51
of sequence. So as various parts of the discussion on day one we looked at the habitat regulations in more general
2:39:58
terms. On day two we looked at the kind of
2:40:03
general spatial um strategy uh and I heard I appreciate the Whitburn
2:40:08
neighborhood forum made representations also from Mr. Latimer uh in relation to that. I'll try through the sort of just
2:40:15
covering notes on the agenda to kind of see where I saw um things being um picked up. So we have looked at the
2:40:23
sewage treatment uh and sewage network capacity uh in broad terms as part of
2:40:30
matter three but we will come back to that I'm sure Mr. Lavel very briefly or
2:40:36
briefly on as part of this um discussion. I've also just put a note there to
2:40:42
everybody involved in the examination. I am aware people have made the examination aware that there has been a
2:40:48
decision on the Whitburn Lodge site which forms part of G5
2:40:53
and that's subject to a planning appeal which remains to be determined. Just to make things absolutely
2:41:00
distinct I am just focusing on the local plan and what's in the local plan. I'm
2:41:06
not dealing with the appeal. have no connection to the appeal or what's happening in terms of that separate process. But obviously if it outputs or
2:41:13
there's a decision within the time frame of this examination then that may be material um to this this process. So I
2:41:20
just wanted to make that that clear. We need to focus at this stage on what's in uh the local plan and in the case of
2:41:27
today policy SP7 and sites G5 um and G6.
2:41:34
So if I could like start first, it was item two on my agenda and it is is kind of coming back to the uh the water
2:41:41
sewage um issue. I'd just like to understand Mr. Lavel in terms of the position of the Wetburn Neighborhood
2:41:47
Forum in terms of your hearing statement potential changes um that you say the
2:41:54
plan could be made sound after North Umbrean Water has fully complied with its formal undertakings. Just unclear
2:42:02
from you is that when it's implemented what was in the offw what report?
2:42:11
Uh can I introduce myself again because there's people here like the church commissioners who don't know who I am or
2:42:18
what I'm about. My name is Steve Laval and I'm the elected vice chair of the Woodburn Neighborhood Forum. The
2:42:24
Woodburn Neighborhood Forum was initiated designated in January 2017.
2:42:30
So, we've been working a long time on this. It was later redesated in 2022.
2:42:35
The form was established to allow the local community to participate in the neighborhood planning activities within
2:42:41
the Witburn area of South Tinside and has a formal and legally recognized
2:42:46
status within the planning process. The Witburn neighborhood plan was formally adopted by South Tinside
2:42:53
Council's cabinet on September the 7th, 2022. is followed a community referendum where
2:42:58
the plan received overwhelming support. The Whitburn forum are pleased that
2:43:04
matter three special strategy will look at the issue of whether the principle of further housing growth within the
2:43:09
catchment of Whitburn sewage network and Henden treatment works is acceptable or
2:43:14
whether there are any timing implications. The proposed southside local plan deals
2:43:22
with disposal of f water and protecting water quality are policies 10 and 11 respectively. Witburn forum will engage
2:43:30
with the stage two hearings to argue that these policies are unsound as they are not based on a robust and credible
2:43:37
evidence base. I'll move on to policy SP7 which is mentioned in the statement
2:43:42
of common ground. The examination is focused on what is in the proposed local
2:43:48
plan and whether what is set out in policy SP7 for GA5 and G6 is sound. A
2:43:55
key consideration in policy SP7 urban and village growth areas is that it will
2:44:00
have regard to the Witburn village neighborhood plan. The examination is
2:44:06
informed that policy WNP12 sewage policy in the Witburn nearwood
2:44:12
plan already forms part of the development plan. This is the policy.
2:44:18
Planning proposals will not be supported unless it be shown by rigorous analysis that there is sufficient capacity in the
2:44:24
local sewage system and that any new connections will not increase the risk
2:44:30
of system back up flooding or cause any adverse impact to the neighborhood area
2:44:37
environment. The forum that I represent believes that the
2:44:43
sewage policy in the Witburn neighborhood plan is regarded by the council officers as part of the de
2:44:49
development plan on paper only. A sewage system uses pipes to collect
2:44:56
and take rain, waste water and trade water for treatment and disposal.
2:45:05
It be it can be shown that in practice the officers from the council choose not to look for the rigorous analysis that
2:45:12
there is sufficient capacity in the local sewage system. They choose to focus only on wastewater treatment works
2:45:18
treatment capacity to justify their recommendations. They ignore sufficiency in the sewage
2:45:25
system. Had they complied with the sewage policy and sought the rigorous analysis the policy requires, they would
2:45:32
have uncovered the fact that over 1 million tons of untreated sewage was discharged into the environment from the
2:45:39
sewage system at Witburn in 2023. Such large volumes must cause an adverse
2:45:46
effect to the Witburn neighborhood area environment. Policy SP7 is not sound as
2:45:53
it does not meet objective objectively assessed requirements with respect to the sewage infrastructure requirements
2:46:00
for the Woodburn neighborhood area.
2:46:05
The examination asks for clarification of the Woodburn neighborhood forum
2:46:10
hearing statement and potential changes to the plan they would like to see recommended.
2:46:16
I would comment on the evidence presented to the examination to date in order to clarify the Wisburn
2:46:22
Neighborhood Forum hearing statement. Last week, the inspector, you good self,
2:46:28
asked the officers, Mr. Clifford present, if there was anything in the
2:46:33
off decision notice that would alter their position and arrive at an alternative conclusion.
2:46:40
The council officers confirmed that the position of the council has not altered.
2:46:46
They regard the issues raised in the offwood report are one of compliance for
2:46:51
North Water to address rather than the planning system.
2:46:56
The reply to question about the position of the council raises concern for the
2:47:01
forum. I am aware that local plan examination is not looking at the detail
2:47:06
of the planning application scheme for the Woodburn Lodge G5. However, above
2:47:12
the detail, there are aspects regarding the stated position of the council in the application for the Woodburn Lodge
2:47:19
that the forum regard as significant a significant conflict to the evidence presented to the local plan examination.
2:47:28
The declaration that nothing in the off decision has altered the council's position is at odds with the council's
2:47:35
reason for refusing the Widburn Lodge planning application which is referred to in post sub 34 statement of common
2:47:43
ground southside council and level. I quote the reasons
2:47:50
planning committee considered that by virtue of increased drainage discharges from the proposed development into a
2:47:56
combined sewer system whose performance was already a concern to regulators puts into question whether the pollution
2:48:03
control regime governing the handling of wastewater is operating effectively in
2:48:09
the lo locality surrounding the appeal site. Consequently, planning committee
2:48:15
considered that the assumption in paragraph 201 of the national planning policy framework cannot be relied
2:48:22
upon in this instance. It goes on to say, "Furthermore, in
2:48:27
addition to the development not being in accordance with NPPF paragraph 187, the proposal the proposals are also
2:48:34
considered to be contrary to the development plan policies within the neighborhood Witburn Neighborhood Plan
2:48:40
WP and the council's adopted local development framework LDF.
2:48:47
Planning committee in reaching their decision are entitled to give different weight or differing weight to the re
2:48:53
relevant planning considerations as compared to the offic's report and in consequence reach a different decision
2:49:00
to that recommended by officers. That was the case here. The planning
2:49:05
committee gave far greater weight in the exercise of their assessment and determination of the planning
2:49:10
application and relative to what was set out in the officer assessment to the above mentioned matters namely foul
2:49:18
drainage impacts including concerns raised by offwood and the office for environmental protection and to
2:49:24
objections concerning foul drainage in the repres representations received in
2:49:30
relation to the proposal as summarized in the committee reports.
2:49:35
Planning committee considered that harm would arise to both human health and biod diversity from the proposed
2:49:41
development by virtue of the increased risk to the environment from the increased drainage discharges that the
2:49:48
development would generate to a sewage system in respect of which of what have already raised concerns regarding
2:49:55
non-compliance with the urban waste water treatment regulations. Having
2:50:00
regard to such harm and given the concerns raised by offwart and the office for environmental protection, it
2:50:06
cannot be assumed that the pollution pollution control regime governing the handling of wastewater is operating
2:50:13
effectively as set out in paragraph 2011 of the NPPF.
2:50:19
Planning Committee therefore determined that the development was contary to paragraph 187 of the NPPF policies WNP1,
2:50:27
WNP5 and WNP12 of the Witburn Neighborwood Plan Policies EA3 and EF5
2:50:36
of the South Tside LDF core strategy policy DM7 of the South Tside LDF
2:50:42
development management policies DPD and policies SP13
2:50:48
3 11 SP21 and 34 of the publication
2:50:54
draft South Tinside Plan. The planning officers in their recommendations chose to discount the evidence of offw what
2:51:01
and deem the evidence presented by North Marine Water to be more credible and persuasive enough to influence their
2:51:06
recommendations. By the way, sir, the uh it's all on the website stite website the reasons for
2:51:14
refusal. The council that is the elected officials however regarded the issue
2:51:20
raised in the offwalk report are significant enough to be addressed in the planning system. The council gave
2:51:27
more weight to evidence supplied to them from offwart than the weight it gave to assurances provided by Northumbian
2:51:33
water. This is at odds with the council officer statement that the position of the council has not altered.
2:51:41
The Witburn Forum have discussed their concerns and submitted evidence to these same offices of South Tide Council for
2:51:48
over seven years demonstrating that sewage pollution at Widburn is a significant issue and that Northland
2:51:55
water were in breach of the urban wastewater treatment regulations with respect to the Henden Widburn sewage
2:52:01
system. Our concerns have not been given due regard and our evidence did not prevail
2:52:07
with the officers of the council. Our evidence was also submitted to the
2:52:13
regulator offwhat and was accepted contributing to the off decision notice.
2:52:20
Last week the inquiry was informed that in terms of wastewater infrastructure capacity and sufficiency,
2:52:27
the council is led by the evidence that prevails and the guidance of the statutory undertaker.
2:52:34
I suggest it is the council officers that are led by the guidance of North Umbian water rather than the elected
2:52:41
officials. That is the council. The council is entitled to give
2:52:46
differing weight to the relevant planning considerations and compared to the officer recommendations and have
2:52:52
done so. North water as a statutory undertaker have failed in their statutes
2:52:59
and should not be considered or regarded as a credible consultee.
2:53:04
Last week at this examination, Northman Water would have you believe that the Water Industry Act sits outside of
2:53:12
planning matters. The Environment Act 2021 includes provisions that make drainage
2:53:19
and wastewater management plans a statutory part of the planning process,
2:53:25
highlighting the link between the Water Industry Act and the wider planning
2:53:30
environment.
2:53:37
Following the commence I should say the wider planning frameworks following the commencement of section 79 of the
2:53:43
environment act 2021. It's a statutory requirement under section 94A of the
2:53:49
water industry act 1991 for sewage undertakers to prepare, publish and
2:53:56
maintain a drainage and sewage management plan here and after called a drainage and water or DWMP.
2:54:04
The latest DWMP produced by North Umbrean Water is big on promises to
2:54:10
reduce storm overflows but contains no details whatsoever of how this will be
2:54:16
achieved. Mr. Murray from North Water claimed that
2:54:21
the Henden Witburn system was operating within its permit conditions. This is
2:54:27
not the case. The findings of Offwart accepted by Northwoman Water. By the
2:54:33
way, these are findings, not allocations. As the council officers point out, show that the Henden So
2:54:39
sewage treatment works is breaching the urban wastewater treatment regulations.
2:54:44
It is a condition of the Henden discharge permit that the sewage
2:54:50
treatment works is operated in compliance with the urban wastewater
2:54:55
treatment regulations. Mr. Walton denied that Northwind water had constructed an
2:55:01
illegal connection to the Widburn sewage system.
2:55:06
I have the warning letter and compliance assessment report sent by
2:55:12
the EA in May 2021 to Northwind Water which gives the details of this illegal
2:55:19
connection and identifies the permit breach. The compliance assessment report
2:55:25
074090 to my knowledge remains in the public register.
2:55:31
Mr. Latimer explained how condition 8 of the Henden permit has never been complied with. The environment agency do
2:55:38
not agree, but my research indicates that the EA's understanding of the Henden sewage treatment works operating
2:55:45
system is incorrect and the EA's interpretation of the inspector's report in October 2001 to inquire into
2:55:52
discharges from Westburn steel pumping station from Henden sewage treatment works is flawed. I agree with Mr.
2:55:58
Latimer. It's also a condition of the Henden discharge permit that the EA are
2:56:04
supplied annually with data of the combined sewer overflow discharges from the 310 m overflow as opposed to the 1.5
2:56:13
kilometer overflow that North Water indicated off. In 2020, Northman water
2:56:20
supplied this data to the EA which claimed there had been 27 discharges
2:56:25
amounting to 15 hours and 52 minutes that year. I challenge this. Northian
2:56:32
Water amended the data and increased their figure to 178 discharges amounting
2:56:38
to 636 hours, an increase of 4,000%.
2:56:43
The EA accepted this new figure but took no further action for this technical breach of permit.
2:56:49
Northern Water SE for the urban wastewater treatment regulations offwood are not the regulator. The environment
2:56:56
agency is the off decision notice clearly identifies Northman's water's
2:57:01
failings and how these have occurred. The failings relate to the management, operation, maintenance and performance
2:57:09
of its wastewater treatment works and the collecting systems that's the sewer networks that flow to them. There's a
2:57:16
whole section devoted to the Henden Whitburn sewage system and Northwind water have accepted these findings.
2:57:25
The EA have confirmed that if another authority say North Water is in breach
2:57:30
of the urban waste water treatment regulations and are taking enforcement action, the EA would not take
2:57:36
enforcement action over the same breach of legislation. This is the case with the off decision
2:57:42
notice regarding the Henden Woodburn sewage system. I'll move on to what you asked for. How to make the plan sound.
2:57:50
Thank you. This is it. The plan could be made sound after
2:57:56
Northman Water has fully complied with its formal undertakings under section 19
2:58:01
of the Water Industry Act 91. That will see it commit to investing an additional
2:58:07
15.7 million pound to minimize spills beyond compliance and improve the
2:58:13
natural environment in the operating area. As per the offward decision notice, the following undertaking is
2:58:21
required to be completed as a minimum before policy SP7 can be considered as
2:58:26
sound. A fresh analysis of potential options is required for reducing both the frequency and the volume of spin
2:58:33
spills from the widburn henden system including ensuring that it is using a robust model for assessing resultant
2:58:40
harm which takes into account of tidal patterns in the area and which considers the operation of the system as a whole.
2:58:49
These undertakings include adhering to the government's storm overflows discharge reduction plan which seek to
2:58:55
reduce spills from Northland water storm overflows to 10 per year whilst employing best technical knowledge not
2:59:02
exceeding excessive cost. As a result of the 2012 ECC ECG
2:59:08
judgment, an improvement scheme employing best technical knowledge not exceeding excessive cost to reduce the
2:59:15
spills at Whitburn was completed in 2017. After 5 years, it became apparent to the
2:59:22
forum that the scheme had failed. The EA insisted it needed 10 years of
2:59:28
statistical data to evaluate the scheme's effectiveness. Offwat DERA and the AEA now confirm that
2:59:36
the scheme has failed. Using this methodology, the forum would
2:59:42
like to see the fresh analysis of options undertaken and work commence to reduce bills from the Woodburn Long
2:59:47
outfall to 10 per year whilst employing best technical knowledge not entailing
2:59:53
excessive cost. After this work is completed, the forum expect 10 years of
2:59:59
statistical data to be obtained to evaluate the scheme's effectiveness before considering supporting planning
3:00:06
applications. The allocation of the proposed 730 homes in G4, G5, G6 and G7 is likely due to
3:00:14
urban creep to introduce extra volumes of surface water in the combined sewage network
3:00:20
irrespective of any mitification of surface water flows being mitigated by Suds etc. The proposed 730 homes,
3:00:28
according to water industry calculations, will generate an extra 96,000 tons of f seage flows from areas
3:00:36
where there are presently zero flows. If after 10 years spills are reduced to 10
3:00:42
per year at Whitburn, the forum will support planning applications for medium-scale developments of between 10
3:00:48
and 49 houses as proposed in G5 and G6.
3:00:53
If there is no solution whilst employing best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost, the form will will not
3:01:01
support planning proposals in the neighborhood area and will object to planning proposals in the G3 and G4
3:01:08
areas that are bigger than small scale of one to nine dwellings in order to support their campaign to stop sewage
3:01:15
pollution at Whitburn. Thank you. Thank you. uh
3:01:22
in terms of so I'm sorry I just do need to come back and be clear on what the forum is seeking as part of this this
3:01:29
plan. I appreciate there is a separate planning application process just on clear Mr. Lavel in terms of what you're
3:01:35
seeing or how I understand where you ultimately brought us to
3:01:41
I think what you're saying to me is that by the time uh North Umbrean Water have
3:01:47
come up with a solution uh in terms of best It's the best. It's the btn
3:01:55
ke not exceeding excessive cost. Then the 10 years further monitoring data. I
3:02:02
think what you're saying to me is from the forum's perspective, no development or none of these housing sites should be
3:02:09
considered for development within this plan period because that would probably be taking us to towards the end of the
3:02:15
plan period. Yeah, that's great. Obviously, you'll have seen the time scales in the off
3:02:22
decision notice, and they're talking about having the analysis done by December 2025, which obviously gives
3:02:28
some light at the end of the tunnel. But if you want to play on a a fair and open
3:02:35
playing field, uh we have been uh shouting from the rooftops that the 2017
3:02:41
scheme which was the cheapest option North Water could choose because I've
3:02:47
seen the different options. Uh we could see immediately that was failing when having hit 890,000 tons of sewage
3:02:54
discharge, 1 million tons of sewage discharge, 997,000
3:03:01
tons of sewage discharge. So all the time there was a lot of resistance from
3:03:06
all the authorities that we had to wait 10 years from 2017. So to be fair, let's
3:03:12
assess what work's got to be done. Let's do the work and let's assess it after 10 years.
3:03:20
Thank you. I'm mindful we had quite a bit of discussion on this as part of matter three last week. The council gave
3:03:26
me its view at that point. Is there anything further it wishes to add uh in light of what I heard was talking
3:03:32
specifically about sites G5 and G6? Sir, no. Not not making light of the
3:03:38
points Mr. Lavel is um sincerely making on behalf of um
3:03:44
the group he represents. There's nothing we can really add to the discussion which has already taken place.
3:03:51
Um we are assured um by the statutory undertaker that there is adequate
3:03:57
capacity in the system to accommodate local plan growth. Uh whatever um obligations it's under to
3:04:05
offw what in terms of undertakings that is a question for it and its licensing
3:04:11
um and the way it conducts its operation. Um um but there is nothing um
3:04:17
in that process which would prevent or should prevent these allocations being made on the assumption that the
3:04:24
statutory undertaker will act within the law um and that its assurances given to
3:04:30
you personally uh at this examination are um uh sound.
3:04:41
Okay. Thank you. I think it's definitely a matter for me to uh to go away and um
3:04:48
and deliberate on, but that's useful helpful to me, Mr. Lavel, in terms of what the forums um statement was was
3:04:56
driving at in relation to that that part that I identified at paragraph
3:05:02
um two. Okay, I'm going to move on in terms of the agenda. Um coming on to a
3:05:10
proposed alteration to the green belt boundary. Obviously both the Whitburn Lodge site
3:05:17
um treating it as an allocation for the purposes of this plan examination and the adjoining lands north of sheer water
3:05:25
currently both within um the green belt. If I can understand please first from
3:05:31
the council uh as the starting point as I've identified at various other uh
3:05:37
sites the council's approach to the green belt how it's looked at this particular parcel which I think is WH1
3:05:45
uh to the north of the village uh and then uh what kind of offsetting or
3:05:51
compensatory uh improvements have been identified through that uh through that
3:05:56
green belt review work Please.
3:06:01
Yes. So the site what well both sites both J5 and J6 were considered within
3:06:06
the wider parcel G um WH1 within the green belt uh review. Um that was a WH1
3:06:13
itself is a a wider parcel that has been assessed which also included um field
3:06:19
parcels um adjacent to the proposed allocations on the other side of the road. um within table 4.3 within the the
3:06:28
the green belt study, it shows that all the parcels within that wider WH1
3:06:35
um parcel which was assessed um scored a a moderate um assessment in terms of um
3:06:41
harm. Um again as with the other sites um a more detailed assessment of the the
3:06:47
sites J5 and J6 is set out within appendix C of the document um which
3:06:53
specifically identifies that um both sites um have a moderate um rating
3:06:58
against purpose one two and three and then a low uh assessment against purpose
3:07:04
for in terms of offsetting. Once again, that's been informed by the green belts
3:07:09
um review appendices and also the site frameworks document. Um key um points
3:07:16
which have been carried through into the key considerations include the retention of trees and the creation of defensible
3:07:22
boundaries and obviously not withstanding earlier conversations that we've had about compensating measures
3:07:27
for these sites.
3:07:36
Thank you. I don't know Mr. Lavell if you want to speak to the kind of the forums position. I appreciate um we're
3:07:43
dealing with kind of two sites here in one. So there's kind of Wickburn Lodge first and then the parcel of land
3:07:48
between Wickburn Lodge and um sheer or the approach into sheer water.
3:07:54
Sorry to have to do this but just to comment on assurance given by North Water to go back to that point. North
3:08:01
model made a big uh see and give figures about how they were going to improve
3:08:06
things in terms of smart flow etc. What I'd say is it's very limited what they can do in Henden because a simple look
3:08:14
on Google Maps shows the Henden wastewater treatment works which has no storm overflow tanks is landlocked. To
3:08:20
the north it's got Hudson dock. To the uh east it's got the North Sea to the
3:08:25
west it's got a major train line and to the south it's got Henden Beach. Just going back to their assurances that they
3:08:31
we're going to sort them out. The the proof of the puzzle will be in the eating and I would like to be engaged. the forward be engaged with both
3:08:38
Northland water the year and off with regard that in terms of uh the
3:08:44
discussion at this moment in time uh which we have no further comments to be made apart from what we've already
3:08:49
entered at regulation 18 and 19 thank you just understand from that Mr.
3:08:56
Lavel, I don't know if um this is your area within the forum. The way I the way I read it was um there's perhaps an
3:09:02
understanding around the Whitburn Lodge site that something needs to be potentially done there or that the
3:09:08
public when you've kind of engaged them through neighborhood planning kind of processes
3:09:14
want to see something or want to see the site improved. Put it put it bluntly. Um
3:09:19
but the concern is more around the site G6. Yes. uh the GS6 I don't know if it's
3:09:26
part of this I think it's the next one is it the GS6 one is a of concern
3:09:32
because it represents a wildlife corridor etc you know be blocked off physically blocked off and uh G5 uh we
3:09:40
have worked extensively with develops with levelvel over many years uh for them to develop that site and again the
3:09:48
stumbling block there became the wastewater issue
3:09:59
Thank you.
3:10:22
Okay, thank you uh for that. Um if I move on from green belt to item four,
3:10:29
obviously this is a site that's particularly close to uh particularly the Durham Coast um
3:10:36
special area of conservation. Um
3:10:41
it's also um I think it's about I think if I recall it's approximately about 400
3:10:47
mters from uh the the special area of conservation. We discussed this briefly
3:10:53
on uh day one when looking at the habitat regulation assessment
3:10:58
and uh I believe it's also a uh a site that will also need to be I presume this
3:11:03
is in relation to G6 a site that will need to be uh subject to an additional
3:11:09
year's monitoring as part of the um wading birds um survey work in terms of
3:11:17
the proximity to the um special area of conservation. I think the habitat
3:11:23
regulation assessment has drilled down into a further level of appropriate assessment and concluded that there are
3:11:30
no adverse a conclusion of no likely significant effects. So no adverse
3:11:35
effects on the qualifying features of either both the SACE or the special area
3:11:41
protection area can be can be arrived at. Is that correct?
3:11:46
Yes, that's correct. Um I'd just sort of like to reiterate the points that were made by Miss Rockcliffe on day one in
3:11:52
terms of urban edge effects and the the Durham um sack. Um the the qualifying
3:11:58
features for the Durham sack is vegetated seaglyph. So um the it's a
3:12:03
very specific um habitat that is um designated as part of this um as part of
3:12:10
the Dermacore sack. Um obviously the the site itself um the proposed allocation
3:12:16
is 400 meters away from that and between that there is a a significant area of the the Whitburn Coastal Park um which
3:12:24
acts as a a buffer in terms of the development area and the the the vegetation on on the sea cliffs um as
3:12:31
Mr. Ro Cliff um pointed out um last week um the the potential risk in terms of
3:12:37
urban edge effects to this are quite limited because of the limited amount of development on the cliffs. Um um we've
3:12:44
also um identified that on the w on the course there's two locations where there
3:12:50
are noted to be um urban edge effects um in the um the sack survey report
3:12:57
document that three and neither of those are um adjacent to the the area where
3:13:02
the proposed allocations are. Um so again I think in terms of these
3:13:09
allocations the likelihood of urban edge effects um affecting the the Durham co
3:13:15
sack is quite limited because of the the proximity um from the actual vegetated
3:13:20
cliffs and due to that that buffer area behind in terms of the whipburn coastal park.
3:13:29
Yeah we accept a lot of what Mr. Slam says in terms of it being removed and the people I think m rock cliff
3:13:34
mentioned last week that the the flight tipping etc wouldn't be an issue as it is somewhere further down obviously
3:13:40
there's more than the sack in terms of protected areas there and we have discussed that length the HR shall we
3:13:45
say and I'd just like to comment on the a comment made by Mrs. Raw cliff which I had to look up and she mentioned a study
3:13:52
by Butler and Godard and she says about sewage is a food for
3:13:58
birds and when you treat the sewage the birds populations decreased. I've looked at that study sir and it I think it was
3:14:04
conducted up in Amble where the the amazing thing about it was it was commi commissioned by north water
3:14:11
and you know my opinion of north water and also it uh it doesn't have a definitive
3:14:18
conclusion so it just strongly suggests thank you I think if I recall one of the action points for the council from uh
3:14:25
the habitat regulation assessment session was linked to um
3:14:32
look again at that kind of part of the habitat regulation assessment and whether there's further kind of detail
3:14:39
or further material um that um the assessment wanted to conclude on because I think I made a note myself that study
3:14:47
referred to by Miss Rorcliffe is not in the bibliography
3:14:52
for the habitat regulation assessment. So it may be something that adds to the evidence base.
3:15:00
Thank you. And uh similarly in terms of we discussed the waiting bird survey in relation just uh previously to the site
3:15:07
in Cleon. It's not a preclusion to development taking place. It's just to
3:15:12
further establish the baseline from whatever of to kind of mitigation might
3:15:18
be required um from that site. Yeah, that's correct. It's a similar
3:15:24
situation as what we discussed this morning in terms that would be there to to provide a more robust um understanding of how the the waiting
3:15:31
birds in the area use the the site.
3:15:37
Thank you. Uh and moving on to item five uh of the agenda. this in relation to
3:15:43
both sites. Again, come back to kind of green belt um alterations, but just in
3:15:49
terms of securing sustainable development more generally, I asked the question, it was part of my MIQ's um
3:15:55
whether this these sites this general location is well related to facilities in Whitburn and well served by public um
3:16:03
transport. I mean, it's obviously very much at the northern tip of the village.
3:16:09
Um, should I should I be concerned about that, Mr. Clifford?
3:16:16
Thank you, sir. We consider the site to be well related to facilities in
3:16:21
Whitburn and well served by public transport and that there will be a genuine choice of trans transport modes.
3:16:30
So firstly in terms of um bus stops the
3:16:36
site is close to bus stops with a number of bus stops number of bus routes passing the site directly. So there are
3:16:44
two direct services on the A183 coast road. Those are the E1 and E2
3:16:51
directly opposite the site with the E6 operating on Lizard Lane.
3:16:58
These services provide halfhour connectivity to Sunderland and South Shields and also to Whitburn local
3:17:07
center and I'll come to Whitburn local center shortly. Uh table 11 of the
3:17:15
council's response to MIQ 5.66 provides details of bus services
3:17:25
in terms of active travel opportunities. As was mentioned earlier, the council
3:17:30
has an adopted local cycling and walking infrastructure plan and appendix 8
3:17:35
active travel routes and local plan housing allocations in
3:17:40
the infrastructure delivery plan shows the site is next to a proposed active
3:17:45
travel route. The site is just over 400 meters away
3:17:52
from the nearest convenience store. The nearest doctor's surgery is just
3:17:58
over one kilometer away that can also be accessed by bus
3:18:04
services that pass the site.
3:18:09
I referenced Whitburn local center um that's identified in the neighbor plan
3:18:15
as well as the local plan. And in terms of the evidence for the local plan, the
3:18:23
retail study that I mentioned earlier, the neighborhood commentary
3:18:28
um considered it to be a highly vital and and viable local center providing
3:18:36
very well to meet the needs of local residents.
3:18:42
In terms of um school provision, the nearest primary school is Marsden
3:18:48
Primary School, which is less than 200 mters from the site.
3:18:53
And the nearest secondary school, Whitburn Academy, is 1.1 miles from the
3:18:59
site and that is accessible via two of the bus routes that pass the site.
3:19:07
Thank you.
3:19:14
Thank you for that.
3:19:22
Mr. Lavell, is there anything you want to add in terms Yeah, you're quite right, Mr. Clifford. There's two buses. There's the E1 and
3:19:27
the A2 that go from Shields to Sunland backwards and forwards every half hour. In terms of um
3:19:34
links elsewhere, we are very much at the northern tip of Whitburn. We're also
3:19:40
miles away from the nearest metro. So if people don't uh want to work in Sunland
3:19:46
or Shields, they've got to then get the car to travel further a field or catch bus pushes etc. The uh
3:19:54
the sites themselves are about a mile away from the center of Witburn, you'll know yourself. And we were in
3:20:00
discussions with the uh the owners and uh we introduced uh various housing
3:20:06
associations and people that build old people's homes and uh McCarthy and Stone
3:20:12
etc. were not interested in the site. They said it was far too far away uh for old people. There wasn't enough services
3:20:18
around there and they would wouldn't even consider it because we thought that would be viable you know for the site itself at G5. So they wouldn't consider
3:20:25
it. Uh Mr. Clifford did mention the the uh the doctor surgery which is a mile
3:20:30
away. You know, you'd have to catch a bus. Uh but uh through no fault of the
3:20:36
council, the dentist is now situated at Southwick which means two buses for the old people. Uh so that it causes a great
3:20:42
deal of concern in terms of how to get there. I've actually just been there this morning. It's it's a Riverside down
3:20:49
at South. So that's a concern for the dentist. You know, I'll not to touch up on the uh the school situation because I
3:20:56
think Mars Primary School is fantastic school and I I think uh the eb and flow of population. I don't think there's no
3:21:03
concern from my perspective. But what I would say overall and I think it it's been touched upon at Clayton Balden is
3:21:10
it very much will become if you look at those parts of land a a small commuting
3:21:17
community. There's no two ways about it. the people will have to travel by cars to get wherever they want and especially
3:21:23
to get the places of work you know which will obviously add to the the bottlenecks here and there sometimes a
3:21:29
nightmare to get out to Wburn on the morning to the village center you
3:21:34
thank you but I mean there are bus stops near the site Mr. Yeah, there's bus stops. There's bus
3:21:40
stops outside the Whitburn Lodge and there's a bus stop outside she water and there's a bus stop just
3:21:46
opposite. So that's easy within walking distance.
3:21:57
And just for my benefits, we've discussed both this morning at um at
3:22:03
Cleonen and also at Balden yesterday um area six primary school provision and
3:22:10
there's reference to Whitburn. Is Whitburn for a primary school the same as Marsden? Is is the one school or
3:22:17
are there two two separate schools? Two separate schools. So there's two primary schools. Yes. Within Yeah.
3:22:40
Okay. Thank you. Uh item six on my agenda is around again I've taken a similar approach as I took to Cleveland
3:22:47
in terms of ultimately achieving a a well-designed place. I think from the
3:22:52
forums um mainly through your original representations on the plan back in 2024
3:23:01
less so your hearing statement I think concern about the relationship particularly site G6
3:23:07
the coastal park and the wildlife corridor. and turn to the council first before we come to Mr. Lavell. So this is
3:23:14
a both of these sites wholly within a wildlife
3:23:19
corridor. Um appendix B of the wildlife corridor
3:23:25
map obviously shows um the extent of the wildlife corridors in Southside. um G6
3:23:30
does wholly fall within the wildlife corridor whereas G5 has been um sort of
3:23:36
cut out as part of the methodology of the the review document was to remove um
3:23:41
built development from the the wildlife corridors.
3:23:48
Thank you. And in terms of the proposed boundaries of the site, it's quite it seems clear to me on the ground there's
3:23:55
there's no sort of overlap with the coastal park. it will butt it will butt up to the edge of the coastal part but
3:24:01
there's no sort of issue of overlap or um so that's a
3:24:12
um not not a a particular potentially a particular um issue uh in terms of the
3:24:19
wildlife um corridors I think as I've heard at other sessions obviously this is
3:24:25
something to respond to and reflect um sort of um reflect on and kind of um
3:24:32
when considering a a detailed proposal. It's not necessarily a a barrier um to u
3:24:39
development but um Mr. Lavel from the forums
3:24:44
perspective because I think you had concerns about the impact on the wildlife corridor.
3:24:52
Yeah, I think Mrs. Islam has covered it in as much as G5's been built on for years, you know, with Burn Lodge and
3:24:57
previous things, but G6 is obviously uh if you built on that, it would shut the
3:25:04
door, you know, because you have uh G5 and then you have the the houses across
3:25:09
the street there. So, you've got all of that close closes off the corridor and you've got a small parcel of land, GS6,
3:25:16
which is the open part of the corridor and then you've got sheer water starting at the very end. So you'd have a whole
3:25:23
building line stretching for half a mile or more where the the wildlife corridor
3:25:28
would no longer exist in that particular area. So there are concerns about that.
3:25:34
I mean what what is the corridor intending to do at this point? Is it to kind of get kind of allow passage or
3:25:41
connection through from the coast for particular species through to you know
3:25:48
more open farmland to the west?
3:25:54
Unfortunately I don't know the specifics um in terms of the species and um how
3:25:59
they would use that corridor. If further information is required I'm sure I'll be able to leers with Miss Rockcliffe to
3:26:04
provide more information. Thank you. I'll bring in uh Mr. Dickinson, please.
3:26:10
Um thank you. Uh again, I felt that question was directed at the council, that's why I put my um
3:26:17
name card down, but in specific comments to um the corridor being shut off.
3:26:23
Obviously in our representations we have submitted indicative feasibility layouts
3:26:29
which do show green and blue infrastructure integrated into the layout including a southern um
3:26:37
boundary including a southern buff buffer zone um within the site and it is
3:26:44
obviously the intention of the applicant to demonstrate biodiversity net gain in line with the policies and to also act
3:26:52
on the key consider considerations which are within the statement of common ground. Um which obviously includes
3:26:59
retaining existing and mature trees um and ensure landscape is an integral part
3:27:04
of the design. And the feasibility layout shows a policy compliance scheme across all of
3:27:11
those matters.
3:27:18
Move on. But just Mr. L is there anything further on that point? Are you happy we've covered? Yeah, I I don't
3:27:23
understand how he's standing about the southern border because if you close the uh corridor off, you close the corridor off. We're not talking about digging a
3:27:29
tunnel or anything, are we? I think it's uh in terms of the the
3:27:35
detailed layout of the site, if this was put forward, if this does go forward as an allocation, obviously then be
3:27:41
subsequently a planning application. Uh there are key considerations obviously set out in the policy. I'll obviously
3:27:46
reflect on whether they're sufficient, whether there needs to be more more content on that. I think what Mr.
3:27:52
Dickinson saying from the evidence that's before me when the site promoters have looked at it there's room to
3:27:58
accommodate um sort of a a green corridor through the site because one of
3:28:06
the things we haven't talked about I wasn't necessarily intending to go there is new development has to provide for
3:28:11
biodiversity net gain so you got to improve on what's what's already there and that's that's in legislation uh as
3:28:19
well as um other policies of this plan. If I can move on then to heritage
3:28:26
matters. Uh this was addressed at my MIQ568. Uh various representations on the plan
3:28:33
uh have raised obviously the potential whether's a heritage harm from the loss of the Whitburn Lodge um building.
3:28:40
Obviously I've been to the area. I've seen the current condition that it's that it's in. Um there are other
3:28:48
interesting features on the site I think that kind of point back to the mining kind of heritage. Um but perhaps if I
3:28:56
bring it Mrs. Routlled for the authority in terms of whether
3:29:01
uh it's potential sort of local heritage harm uh from site G5.
3:29:08
Thank you. Um the Whitburn Lodge is not a designated heritage asset and it's not
3:29:14
on the council's local list. It is accepted. It is of some local interest.
3:29:20
Um and this was raised through a representation made at regul regulation
3:29:26
19 stage. Um but I'd direct you to local plan policy 45 which deals with
3:29:33
non-desated heritage assets. Um, this policy is consistent with
3:29:39
paragraph 203 of the September 2023 version of the
3:29:45
MPPPF. Um, and it allows for um proportionate
3:29:51
sort of decision making. So, if a an application comes forward, you might ask
3:29:57
for a building recording or a deskbased assessment. Um and these are things that
3:30:04
would be admitted into the town and historic environment record which is
3:30:09
public publicly accessible
3:30:26
but I mean sorry Mr. Lavel. Yeah, you've been yourself. So that
3:30:31
those Boboli plaques referring back to the mining heritage, you know, I think there's a consensus that those are going
3:30:37
to be preserved in some way, shape or form, you know, spoke to the owners, etc. But there has been representations.
3:30:42
Fair enough. It's not a listed building, etc. But the the building itself
3:30:49
originally was a building, a very small building called Hope House. It was one
3:30:55
of the first homesteads actually built in Widburn, one of four or five I believe. It it harks back to 1744.
3:31:04
Unfortunately, because of the fire damage, etc. since then, whether it's
3:31:09
feasible to preserve any of it, you know, or to link it to the heritage is another
3:31:16
matter. What I haven't seen is any sort of structural sort of survey to say whether it's not feasible at all to
3:31:23
retain some parts of hope. Obviously the the developers as such just want to raise it to the ground because then they
3:31:30
have more land to build upon but there has been representation after representation and as the forum would
3:31:37
try to field them and try to deal with it in a common sense approach you know say look it's firebombed you know it's
3:31:43
it's it's really collapses are made to the forum we we must retain
3:31:48
it we we must retain it it's one of the last homesteads that still survive in Widburn and it should But again, without
3:31:56
a sort of a some sort of feasibility study, I can't respond to the, you know,
3:32:01
to the applicants applications I receive. Obviously, I'm mindful I'm looking at it
3:32:07
very much from a a local plan allocation perspective, I mean, putting aside
3:32:13
what's currently um being dealt with through the appeal process, but say
3:32:18
another proposal was put forward to the local planning authority. Um, Mrs. routage. I mean, are there policies
3:32:24
there that would would require potentially a heritage
3:32:29
kind of assessment if that was felt necessary? I appreciate having looked at the building. It I think the council
3:32:35
describes it as significant damage that's occurred um as a result of the fire and potentially
3:32:42
uh I don't know how long the building's been empty prior to the fire.
3:32:47
Thank you. Um yes, we would always consider uh where we know that there is there is some um local heritage
3:32:54
interest, we'd always include that um in an assessment of a planning application.
3:33:01
Um and based on um the heritage significance
3:33:06
um we would form a decision um
3:33:12
to to sort of determine whether or not we we need to um undertake any further
3:33:18
work, any recording um things like that that would uh that
3:33:23
would help inform the final decision.
3:33:30
Yes. Yes. Again, I mean say if there is if it is taken into consideration hope house and is is written up somewhere,
3:33:36
you know that it has been considered because up till now because it's not a listed building basically it's not grade
3:33:42
one or grade two or anything like that. It it doesn't seem to have been afforded shall we say the interest that it it's
3:33:48
afforded by residents, shall we say. Thank you. Well, I see the council's
3:33:54
statement on this matter speaks to Hope House. Obviously it's something the council
3:34:00
is aware of. Okay. Thank you for that on heritage um matters. Um
3:34:06
finally under 63 in terms of looking at these two these two sites obviously they they are next
3:34:13
to one another but separately allocated presumably reflecting how they've come
3:34:18
forward and presented within this strategic housing land availability
3:34:24
assessment framework.
3:34:30
Was there a potentially a realistic option of a single allocation for the
3:34:36
wider sites or are there any particular concerns or matters about the sites coming forward separately rather than in
3:34:44
than in in tandem or in a coordinated way at this location?
3:34:49
Yes. So the sites have always been put forward to us as separate sites given the they're in separate ownerships. um
3:34:55
we don't see any sort of particular reason why they would need to come forward together. There's no major
3:35:00
infrastructure requirements for the site. So there's no need for them to kind of come together on that basis. Um
3:35:07
but you know equally there's no reason that they they couldn't come forward together if that was a possibility.
3:35:18
Thank you. And then similarly to the site we were discussing yesterday in Balden. This is a location where there
3:35:24
is an existing neighborhood plan obviously referred to policies there and a design guide. The policy steer has the
3:35:31
the key considerations are to have regard to those two documents. The neighborhood plan is obviously part of the
3:35:38
uh development plan for the area. I don't think I've read anywhere that there's any kind of uh dissent or
3:35:45
disagreement that that should comprise part of the policy and that's a sound uh a sound approach. I think thinking about
3:35:53
Mr. Lavel to where you started from the start of the this this discussion obviously you've got particular policies
3:35:59
in the uh the neighborhood plan. Yeah. Again we've worked extensive
3:36:05
extensively with the the owners of the site and in terms of the Whitburn design guide. You know we're happy that we've
3:36:12
moved forward together and the stumbling block over that site as we contend is
3:36:17
the uh sewage pollution at Whitman.
3:36:28
Thank you. So finally coming on to delivery of the site. Uh again similar
3:36:34
um discussion. So, uh
3:36:49
it's in here somewhere. So, there are two two sites that are
3:36:54
before me. Uh site G5. I appreciate people aren't here necessarily uh
3:37:00
representing that site because I don't think there were duly made regulation 19 representations but obviously it is
3:37:08
slightly different in terms of um that is a site as we mentioned is subject to
3:37:14
a uh current planning proposal now at the appeal um stage in terms of um this the
3:37:23
council's um position on this this site without sort
3:37:29
of prejudice to that separate appeal process. When does the council consider that um that site for about
3:37:37
approximately 30 dwellings would come forward? Um so I know in the statement of common
3:37:42
ground the site promoters there had um given a kind of rough indication of that they envisaged completion within 18
3:37:49
months. the schlar's taken a bit more of a conservative approach given the uncertainty um over the appeal and and
3:37:57
application process. Um so the schlar trae trajectory currently has that site
3:38:03
um completing in 2829. Um but obviously that's a process that's
3:38:10
under review um and the trajectory and the shara are updated annually.
3:38:17
Thank you. And for the purpose of when we look at the overall trajectory for stage two, would that be using the
3:38:24
schlar figure of 28 29? Um so we envisage there'll be some some more work
3:38:30
done on the trajectory after obviously this stage. Um the sh's sort of due an update
3:38:36
for from 2425 anyway. Um so yeah, we'll be looking at updating that.
3:38:47
Thank you. I appreciate that's um sort of a a sort of a more fluid site given
3:38:54
the sort of concurrent um planning um process. In relation to site G6, Mr.
3:39:01
Dickinson um your clients or your yes your clients um
3:39:07
uh site uh again similar to previous previous site we've discussed
3:39:13
anticipating first completions by 2829 as well. Uh yes um very much um expecting to
3:39:21
start onsite and with completions starting from 2829 into 2930. Um as with
3:39:28
the previous site, there's no um kind of infrastructure or key constraints that would stop us um progressing. We have
3:39:36
proposed a policy compliance scheme as part of the feasibility approach. Um so there's no particular view that anything
3:39:43
extracted should be done during the planning application process. Obviously the key difference here is we're talking about a smaller site. Um hence why the
3:39:52
delivery rate is smaller because uh the people that you if you took this housing
3:39:57
allocation forward you would be going to different types of developers to build out this site. Probably more small
3:40:03
medium enterprise type developers who would have a more limited or a different approach to delivery than maybe a bigger
3:40:12
volume um house builder.
3:40:26
Thank you for that and I understand obviously there are the respective kind of different positions on overall
3:40:31
delivery uh in terms of when these sites come forward. understand from the forum's position there needs to be a
3:40:38
much longer lead in time in relation to the wastewater issue from the council's perspective for the purpose of
3:40:45
allocating these sites now in this local plan. Um that's um not something that's
3:40:51
subject to phasing at this stage. they can they can be allocated
3:40:58
but I think from yes I think yes as I it's probably yes
3:41:04
for me to go back to look at what's in the offwatch uh report in terms of the
3:41:09
recommendations and then I understand your point Mr. Lavel that you then say there needs to be a further 10-year
3:41:15
monitoring on top of that. Um, okay. I've got nothing further I want to
3:41:22
say on that other than No, I think you covered everything. Thank you very much for for listening to me.
3:41:27
You're welcome. And I think in terms of waste water, uh, yeah, that's something to for me to think and reflect on from
3:41:35
everything I've heard over the last um, two weeks. Okay. There's nothing further on in
3:41:42
relation to the two sites at uh, Whitburn. Thank you for those um submissions. That brings to a conclusion
3:41:50
all the particular uh matter five discussions. I do want to
3:41:57
have a further I'm calling it an administrative session with the council in in this room. U hopefully it's going
3:42:04
to be recorded. I want the program officer in attendance as well just to sort of um in very general broad terms
3:42:13
where we are now and then just look very broadly at what the potential road map
3:42:18
going forward could look like and just have a a reasonably kind of open
3:42:23
discussion. Uh I'm not anticipating a lot of detail but just kind of understand respective positions. There's
3:42:30
obviously various excuse me, things that have come out of the stage one uh hearings in terms of actions for the
3:42:37
council. It's probably helpful if I share with the authority where I am and my availability. So, we just understand
3:42:44
what broadly um the program could could look like. Not going to hold anybody to
3:42:51
specific dates, but it will just be helpful, I think, to myself and to Mrs. Feny if we can just have that um that
3:42:58
discussion. Um the time now amazingly is 1:00. Thank you everybody. We're back on
3:43:05
track so you can uh meet your obligations Mr. Lavel. Similly Mr.
3:43:11
Dickerson. We're not going to keep you prisoner here till late afternoon. Um we'll break now. I think I'd like the
3:43:17
lunchtime adjournment. There's a few things I need to reflect on. Um would it be possible to be back in this room at
3:43:23
quarter to two? I think we'd probably need no more than 15 minutes, something that magnitude so
3:43:30
can be finished. Okay. So, I'll be back in this room at quarter two with the council and the program officer. Thank
3:43:36
you everybody.