18:12
Okay. Well, good afternoon everybody. It's just gone 2 o'clock, so I'm going to resume the hearing sessions into the
18:18
examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. Can I just check, can everybody hear me? Okay. Yeah, good. Um,
18:25
just to remind everybody, uh, my name is David Spencer. I'm the planning inspector appointed by the secretary of
18:31
state to carry out the independent uh examination of the submitted South Tinside uh local plan. This was the plan
18:38
that was submitted uh last March. Uh and my examination
18:44
process is informed by representations that people made on the proposed plan
18:49
going back to January March 2024. So all of those representations that you
18:55
originally made now two years ago are before me. Uh and I'm having regard to
19:01
those. I appreciate people have then uh provided further statements in response to my uh matters, issues and questions.
19:10
Can I please ask that people ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their silent settings, please?
19:17
Uh, and can I at this point um just have the council just remind or advise us in
19:22
terms of just the general housekeeping whether we do a fire test this afternoon? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon,
19:29
everybody. We're not expecting any fire alarms. So, if there is an alarm, could
19:35
you please make your way to the nearest fire exit, which is that side of the room,
19:41
and then to the far side of the hotel car park. Uh, regarding toilet
19:47
provision, uh, the toilets are in the corridor at the bottom end of the
19:53
corridor on the right. Could everyone please note there are
19:58
cables taped to the floor uh, around the room, so please be careful when moving
20:04
round. And then finally, if you have a car in
20:10
the hotel car park, could you please ensure that you've entered your registration number in the
20:18
devices at the hotel reception. Thank you.
20:24
Thank you for that. Now, these sessions are being uh recorded. Uh so for those who are unable to attend, there will be
20:31
recordings made. They are uploaded onto the council's um website shortly after these sessions take place. But can I
20:38
just clarify at this stage does anybody else wish to make a record their own separate recording of this session?
20:48
No. Okay. Uh can I check is there anybody here from the local press?
20:56
No. In terms of these sessions being
21:01
recorded, um it is necessary that people please use the microphone. I'm only
21:06
going to be hearing from people who are seated round the table who've expressed their right to be heard based on the
21:13
representations that they they made. We'll do um introductions um shortly. I just also remind everybody
21:20
that uh in terms of this examination process, I'm being assisted by uh independent program officer Annette Feny
21:27
who I think most people have met or spoken to uh over the course of this examination. And just a reminder,
21:33
Annette is your port of call if you need any uh have any questions about the examination process, need access to any
21:40
of the documents or have any kind of general queries about the process. Annette is based here in this building
21:46
whilst we're sitting, but otherwise her contact details are on the examination
21:51
um website. Hopefully everybody is here this afternoon. We're talking about or
21:58
discussing matter nine uh for the examination which is looking at a variety of uh policies. These are
22:05
burrowwide policies, so they will apply across the burough. Uh, and they relate to policies for climate change, water,
22:14
and health this afternoon. And then we're going to be picking up the design aspect uh early next week. Uh, we're
22:22
going to be following an agenda that I've previously um published. It's been available for some uh time on the
22:28
examination website and I'm going to be asking some questions uh and wanting to hear from people around the table
22:36
uh specifically why the plan from the council I'm anticipating to hear why the plan should be considered sound from
22:43
those who have raised soundness concerns or objections to the plan. I need to be
22:48
clear on what sort of changes you are seeking to be made to the local plan um
22:54
document and why that should be considered uh necessary. Uh we're undoubtedly going to hear uh
23:02
differing views. Uh as I say, these are intended to be structured, informal, but respectful um sessions. I'm going to be
23:09
listening uh and making notes as we we go along. And if there's anything further that I need from anybody, I'll
23:15
make that clear uh as part of the discussion uh as we go along.
23:20
I think looking around the table, most people took part at stage one hearings. So, you know, generally how these uh
23:28
these things work. But are there any initial questions around process or procedure for these examination
23:34
hearings? No. in which case we'll dive straight
23:41
into matter nine. Um it'd be helpful for me and for anybody watching the recording if I understand who's seated
23:47
around the table and is going to participate in this afternoon's discussion. I'd like to start on my
23:53
right please with the council's team. Thank you. Good afternoon sir. My name is Paul
23:59
Shederevian Casey acting for the council.
24:06
My name is Matt Clifford. I'm a senior planning policy officer.
24:11
Hi, I'm Claire Rocliffe, natural environment manager.
24:17
I'm Jeff Horseman, team manager, development management for South Tai Council.
24:25
Good afternoon. My name is Lee Nicholson. I'm a senior environmental protection officer for South Tai Council
24:30
representing the lead local flood authority.
24:36
Good afternoon. Uh, I'm Chris Martin. I'm from the Homebuilders uh, Federation, a representative body for
24:41
the house builders in England and Wales. Good afternoon. I'm Dominick W from Pegasus Group representing Bellway
24:48
Homes. Good afternoon, sir Jack Comroy, SS Planning representing Lavick Hall Farm
24:53
Limited and Durham Cathedral. Good afternoon. I'm councelor Rachel
24:59
Taylor. I'll be representing myself as a counselor in me private submission today.
25:04
Good afternoon. I'm Dave Green. I'm representing the Save the Fellgates uh working group. Save the Felgate Green
25:10
Belt Work Group. My name is Bob Latima, retired
25:15
mechanical engineer, uh campaigner from Widburn.
25:23
Good afternoon. I'm Steve Devel, vice chair of Woodburn Neighborhood Forum.
25:28
Hello, I'm Dave Herbert. I'm a counselor for Green Point in Southside.
25:35
Thank you for that everybody and I hope people have seen from the agenda that we're starting uh this afternoon
25:41
session. It's slightly out of issue order. I'm going to deal with issue two first which is in relation to the water
25:47
uh environment and policies relating to flood risk and water and water quality.
25:54
Um that will probably take us through might take us through to the point of a midafter afternoon um adjournment uh or
26:01
break at that point and then we'll be picking up policies uh under issue one in relation to uh climate change and
26:09
then finally the borrowwide policies in terms of promoting um healthy um communities. People probably around the
26:16
table can recall from the stage one discussion, there was a lot of uh issues raised around water quality uh and the
26:24
water um the wastewater uh infrastructure uh in the burough. Again, just a
26:31
reminder, what's under discussion this afternoon are the buroughwide policies as they're presented in the plan and
26:36
understanding whether they're going to be effective uh and consistent with national policy in relation to what they
26:43
seek to do. just uh uh I'm sure those who are interested in the the matter have seen
26:49
there's have been a reasonable amount of additional material added to the examination website. Uh amongst that I
26:56
have in response to an action point raised that I raised with the council following the stage one hearings and
27:03
updates to their position statement have a revised statement of common ground with the environment agency and a
27:09
revised statement of common ground with North Umbrean uh water. Uh I've also accepted into um the examination. This
27:16
is not by no by no means a complete list I'm going through but I have a recently
27:23
just before Christmas a legal opinion submitted by Mr. Latimer uh that's in
27:29
front of the examination which no doubt we'll come on to discuss. Uh and I've also recently accepted people have may
27:35
have seen the final uh reports the three reports from the office for the environmental protection into the their
27:42
investigations into the environment agency default
27:48
and behind that were the previous or the the kind of the the ongoing the papers that related to the kind of the ongoing
27:55
uh investigation. So they're all on the examination website um and can be
28:01
discussed where relevant as part of this afternoon's um discussion.
28:09
I should probably also add to that uh people will recall that when we were sitting in uh July
28:16
uh there was reference to ongoing appeals planning appeals in the area. Obviously, the Witburn Lodge appeal
28:24
decision was published after the stage one hearings uh were concluded, but
28:30
there that decision and the associated cost decision is also in front of the examination.
28:35
Is this on the evidence, Mr. Lavel? Yes, just on your comment that there's been uh additional material provided by
28:42
the council. I'd just like to point out that I uh put uh some comprehensive report statements in about the four
28:48
documents you me mentioned there, but they've never been published. I am aware of that issue. Um Mr. Lavel,
28:56
I think, um all I'll say at this point is I think there has been correspondence with the
29:01
program officer about um those those statements and I think the advice has
29:06
been if you can talk to that this afternoon or we weave into your points
29:14
the issues you were going to raise then um we'll we'll deal with it that way.
29:22
Okay, I'm going to start then with uh issue uh it's item excuse me
29:30
item one on my agenda and it's the policies around flood uh risk of flooding and conserving um water
29:37
quality. Um I'm going to deal with the flood risk issue uh first and then we'll
29:42
come on to to the water quality matter. Uh obviously there are I raised this at
29:48
my MIQ's 911, 912 and 913 in terms of
29:54
whether the approach that the council's taken in relation to flood risk in plan
29:59
making uh and the policy framework around that when considering proposals for new
30:06
development uh is soundly based in terms of whether it's consistent with national policy uh going to be justified and
30:13
effective. Mr. Clifford please.
30:24
Firstly, dealing with flood risk evidence. A level one strategic flood risk assessment was undertaken in 2022.
30:31
This was accompanied by a site assessment and a
30:38
detailed maps. These documents provide evidence about
30:43
the present and future risk of flooding in South Tinside from all sources of flooding.
30:50
And to ensure that the SFRA reflected the most up-to-date position
30:56
regarding Port River sites, a level one SFRA addendum was completed in 2023.
31:04
This provides a strategic assessment of the suitability relative to flood risk of the sites at the port of time
31:11
considered for allocation in the local plan. A level two SFR
31:18
focused upon the available sites at the port of time was completed in 2024.
31:24
The report found that subject to further work next steps all of the available
31:29
sites at the port of time can be safely developed.
31:37
Moving on to the sequential test, it was updated in 2024 to consider the
31:45
level one SFRA addendum. An application of the sequential test
31:50
for the proposed allocations for housing and general economic development has demonstrated that they
31:57
pass the sequential test. Application of the sequential test for
32:03
the proposed port of time allocations demonstrated
32:09
that an SFR level two needed to be undertaken to demonstrate that those
32:15
sites can be developed safely and without increasing flood risk
32:20
elsewhere. And as I've already mentioned, that was a there was a positive outcome to that level two SFR.
32:29
Um throughout the process we have engaged with the environment agency.
32:35
The response of the environment agency to the consultation on the draft regulation 18
32:42
local plan stated with respect to the sequential flood test.
32:48
We agree with the methodology used and welcome reference to climate change when
32:53
undertaking the sequential test.
32:58
Their response also made several detailed comments about the level one sfra which did not ra raise any concerns
33:05
about the robustness of the documents and this is say set out in the statement
33:12
of common ground with the environment agency.
33:17
The statement of common ground between the council and the environment agency includes the following comment under
33:23
areas of agreement. The environment agency has confirmed that it supports the final doc level two sfra as an
33:32
evidence base in the local plan. So we consider we followed both national
33:39
policy and guidance and the approach is sound.
33:49
Thank you. And in terms of the plan, um I mean that's that's a helpful overview in terms of obviously sites that are
33:56
allocated within the plan passing through the necessary um sequential
34:02
uh processes required by national planning policy. Um, policy seven, which
34:09
is the the uh flood risk and water management policy uh that will apply to all
34:18
developments that come forward in the in the burough. Set out a number of measures that will need to be considered
34:25
in relation to flood risk uh and water management. Uh and thinking about the representations that have been made. Uh
34:34
one of the uh criteria within the policy is to basically not culvert or build
34:41
over um water um courses. Is that approach um justified and is it
34:49
consistent with national policy? We consider the approach is justified.
34:57
Um, we stand by the statement within the PPG with regards to culverting in general
35:04
and the potential for adverse impacts on flood risk, ecology, human health and
35:10
safety and immunity and the impacts that widespread culberting can have. However, the
35:17
council has obviously considered the representations that have been made and
35:23
it is prepared to consider a modification to um
35:30
criterion six in the policy.
35:37
That modification is set out in the relevant MIQ. Um, it is suggested that
35:46
the current wording is retained, but that a further sentence is added to read
35:52
in agreement with the LFA culverting for site access may be
35:57
allowed when accompanied by an FRA demonstrating that the culverting can be achieved without adverse impacts and a
36:05
suitable maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.
36:27
Sorry, Mr. Clifford, can you direct Is that in the the matter nine
36:32
statement? Um, I think it's MIQ 9.13.
36:42
Just double check that. 12, I should say. Sorry.
36:58
Okay. I don't know. if it's just me, but my my statement doesn't have a modification in
37:05
it. MIQ 912.
37:12
I've made a note of
37:21
um I sorry I think it is actually MIQ 9.13
37:30
paragraph 9.68 68. I thought look look
37:40
um No, it's this
37:46
it's 9 913. So it's question 913.
37:53
Yeah. And paragraph 9.68 there's a table beneath it.
38:03
Table four. Do you have that? I think you do.
38:09
And there there should be text in red. Yeah.
38:22
I do. But um my question 913 is about
38:27
criterion. It's another criteria and then that text refers back to that that criteria.
38:33
Sorry, just be bear with me. Sorry.
38:44
Can you give us um can we move on? And what I'll do is just um sorry I gave you the wrong reference as well. I need
38:50
to double check because something may have gone wrong with the um with the printing.
38:56
Made a note. Yeah. I'll come back. Okay. Thank you. Whilst the council's looking at that,
39:03
I'll move on if I may to question nine. Where's the modification refer to?
39:08
13. Criterion nine of the policy
39:17
and criterion nine refers to making the greater use of nature-based solutions uh
39:23
that take a catchment approach. uh and I think in regard various
39:28
representations were made about this and whether there needed to be some sort of qualification or flexibility about this
39:34
particular criterion in terms of seeking that where it's appropriate to do so and
39:40
I think this is what's picked up in um table table four or certainly my
39:47
version of table four of the council's statement. Yeah.
39:54
So I think the council's recognizing their the modification might be necessary to criterion 9 to introduce
40:01
that degree of flexibility in terms of nature-based solutions. Yes sir, that's correct. uh the addition
40:08
of where appropriate make.
40:19
Okay. Well, let see if I hear further from the council on that earlier point. But if I bring in others please just on
40:25
the flood risk policy policy seven. Mr. Conroy.
40:33
Thank you sir. uh my comment was going to be in relation to criterion six which was relating to MIQ 9.12 uh regarding
40:40
the culverton and building over wall causes. So happy to postpone my response for now until the council of uh going on
40:47
uh Mr. Green. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. It's just on the in
40:52
the point that's just been raised in in relation to building over uh culverts or water courses.
40:59
uh you know the council says you know that is consistent with national plan planning practice that they don't do it
41:06
yet the developer uh you know on on on the sp uh disagrees and it it states the
41:15
disagreeing state policy 7 should be revised to allow consideration of development proposals seeking to either
41:21
culivate or build over water courses to be had on a sightsp specific contextual basis which may tie in with what's going
41:28
on at the moment. But it seems to be that there's a disagreement between what south side council is saying that you don't build
41:34
on it and they're surprised that green belt sites throughout the burough you know cuz a lot of them have culverts
41:40
that have streams that have and the council saying that they should not be built on yet the developers are saying
41:46
just build on them you know we'll get around it and you know the consequences of that I mean you know this you know on
41:55
Felgate uh there is a lot of calverts there's the streams run under the estate. Nobody knows what they are uh
42:02
where they are and to to to just build over it would be it would be life-threatening. It would be a major
42:09
disaster. I think we've got the benefit of somebody here from the representing the
42:16
lead local flood authority which am I right in thinking Mr. Nicholson in the situation where we are now that is the
42:22
responsibility of South Tinside. That's correct. Also the low
42:28
the lead local flood authority. So in terms of a general policy well a general
42:34
position of the the flood authority uh on culverting or constructing
42:42
overwater courses. Yes. Just to to build on what was in
42:48
9.12 really what was originally included in policy 7 would be our starting position in lane
42:55
with the PBG. However, having read the MIQs, we accept that this might be may
43:00
be a bit too firm, particularly with regards to providing access to proposals. So, we have no issue with the
43:07
qualifier in agreement with the LLFA. However, we would look to ensure any design is carried out in line with
43:13
modern drainage design standards. So access
43:18
we can we can take a look at it on a sideby-side basis but covering across a red line boundary would we would we
43:24
would refer to the PPG.
43:30
So just so I'm clear Mr. Nicholson the kind of the exception is is
43:35
really for kind of site access. It's not a it's contextual isn't it? It's it would
43:40
be with regards to the site constraint. So we would look to limit it to something like like site access or a
43:46
crossing.
43:57
Okay, Mr. Conroy. Thank you, sir. Uh it appears we discussed uh matter 9.12 anyway, so I'll
44:04
I'll jump in here. Um yeah, look, we would agree with with any proposed modification that allowed a contextual
44:11
sightby-sight basis. Um I mean, just looking here at I think it's criterion 5 part 4 of policy SP8 clearly requires
44:19
vehicular access to enter the site from the Mill roundabout. Now, practically
44:24
speaking, that would require the access road to cross Monton. Now, of course, reading policy 7 part six, which to my
44:32
mind reads explicitly as not building over any water courses, clearly there's
44:38
concern about a potential conflict. So, any any potential modification to policy 7 part six to add flexibility to um a
44:46
sideby-side basis for building over those water courses for access um would be agreeable in principle to to
44:51
ourselves there.
44:56
Thank you. Councelor Herbert please.
45:06
It was stated there that uh Ty dot will not suffer any problems with flooding.
45:11
It already suffers problems with flooding from time to time uh mainly through heavy rainfall but it is on the
45:18
river tying which is tidal and with climate change sea levels are going to rise. Uh I was just wondering how high
45:26
rise in sea level have they accounted for because at the moment we're heading for about 2.7 to three degrees warming
45:32
which said there'll be several meters of of sea level rise. So how can it be assured that they have actually factored
45:39
in that to the calculations?
45:46
Thank you. Is that Mr. Nicholson? Um, with regards to sea level rise, we given
45:53
climate change predictions by the EA that includes nal levels along the length of the T, which include, like I
45:59
say, climate change predictions to varying levels of events. So, anything built along the T, we make we ensure
46:07
those levels of the finished floor levels are above what the the nal projections tell us. So, we're
46:14
protecting them across the life of the development.
46:20
time period that's over
46:26
as I understand I mean some of the EA modeling is looking reasonably far ahead in terms of climate change scenarios
46:33
so we are given it we are given climate change prediction we've got current climate change prediction now typically
46:40
as I understand development is considered over a hundred years oh Sorry
46:48
um was it the the prediction is based over 100 years which would account for
46:53
the typical lifespan of a development. So should should the development disappear we would start again with new
46:59
projections etc. As I think as Mr. Clifford uh mentioned
47:06
in in his introductory remarks and as I I think I've read the the port of Tin has been subject to further it's been
47:13
subject to the level two strategic flood risk assessment and the council's statement I think shows that plan or map
47:21
or the version of the statement I've got shows at
47:27
figure for
47:36
the Port of Time um area.
47:49
Um just just I think just to clarify from the council is that showing that
47:55
various sites have been amended or reduced or that different
48:03
parcels of land have been considered at different um stages through the sort of
48:10
combined employment land and flood risk or or is it sorry has everything on that
48:16
plan been considered as part of the level to SFR strategic flood risk
48:22
assessment work. Yes, the employment sites
48:28
sorry the available employment sites in the port of time were considered as part of the level two SFR
48:36
um and an adjustment was made as a result of the findings. There was a a slight reduction in employment supply
48:43
reflecting those findings.
48:52
Just on the issue of um flooding, I've
48:57
noted the various u points that have been made. Obviously, the policy um
49:03
seven itself pri prioritizes the use of sustainable drainage systems, which we'll come on to um shortly.
49:11
I've got the council's modification in relation to naturebased um solutions.
49:19
I think I will need probably after this hearing session if there is a modification to criterion six to see
49:27
what that looks like. I'm afraid it's not in the version I've got. I think that was an error on our part of
49:33
misunderstanding. So the only uh I think the only
49:39
um modification proposed is in relation to criterion 9
49:47
which you have which you have
49:52
I do have
50:01
I'm sorry do I think I do need to be clear from the council because that does appear to be contrary to the what I heard from Mr. Nicholson and from Mr.
50:08
Clifford. We that's what's in the documentation at the moment. We need to
50:13
there will that's what I'm seeking to clarify. There will be there will be something else. There will be something else coming
50:19
along. Okay. Criterion six in relation to criterion six.
50:27
Okay. Thank you. Before I move off the flood risk point, Mr. Green briefly. Yeah,
50:34
just to uh challenge the you know the statement that Mr. Conroy mate in relation to the covering the monton
50:41
burn. Uh it's not just the monk and burn it's across the entire site.
50:46
Uh you know so it's it's not just just the one part of it and it did create flooding downstream. Now the other thing
50:53
is the sequential flood test. Now I'm on we are discussing public health and air
50:58
quality on Felgate tomorrow but this is sort of going it overlaps. So if I could mention if you could just put us right
51:05
if I'm going into tomorrow's I'd like to challenge it. I'd like challenge the accuracy and the and the robustness of
51:12
it and it might not be just a case on Felgate. It could be with any green belts within the whole area.
51:17
Sorry Mr. Green what what what robustness are you? It's the sequential flood test which Mr.
51:23
Cliff had mentioned. I appreciate I mean we obviously looked at flood risk as part of stage one
51:28
discussions specifically in relation to failgates. Is it a general point about the methodology of the it
51:34
it's just yeah because I can understand how you can have and I know we did discuss this so it be very brief how we
51:40
can have one part in zero flood risk flood zone risk one and the other part next door in flood zone risk 3 A and B
51:47
you know because obviously that presents you know you know massive consequences if flood zone A 3 A and B is correct but
51:56
it's the best way I mean I always say picture speak a thousand words and if I if I'm here uh I can't understand how
52:02
you can't put a flood zone one on an area which has caution ditch liable to
52:08
flooding on it. You know, I know that might sound uh and that that could
52:13
happen in all areas. I mean, why why is that there if that area is a 0% flood
52:18
risk? I just kind of I can't stand the logic of the you know, the flood test. It's it's crazy because it it does
52:26
pictures speak a thousand words. If you're saying a 0% flood risk or surface water risk, why is there a caution ditch
52:33
liable to flooding all the way down the part which says that flood zone one? Okay, I think we are inv
52:42
we obviously picked that up as part of of um the stage one um discussion. And I
52:47
mean I'm mindful that the flood risk the strategic flood risk work has been
52:53
uh agreed with the environment agency or the environment agency have raised no um particular concerns. There may be very
52:59
specific reasons why something goes from flood zone one straight to flood zone um three but I think probably not discussed
53:06
that um this afternoon. Um are there any further points people wish
53:12
to raise in relation to the flood risk policies? I think the points that had been raised
53:18
in representations have been addressed by the council. So, I'm going to move on to uh water quality. There's a uh a
53:26
variety of policies uh within the plan uh that address this. Um, policy nine
53:35
seeks the infrastructure or seeks uh sustainable drainage systems, sometimes
53:40
uh often referred to suds, seeking them on uh major uh developments.
53:47
Uh I'm not I'm sort of going slightly over policy nine, but we may come back to it.
53:53
And then policy 10 deals with the disposal of foul water from uh
53:59
development. uh it sets out a hierarchy um that should be achieved uh and then sets out
54:06
various other criteria in relation to specific um types of um development.
54:15
In terms of the um
54:24
council's uh statement that's um before me um in terms of the the effectiveness
54:34
and consistency of policy 10 um if I can understand from you address
54:40
it I think in response to my uh MIQ's 914 14 through to 917
54:47
from sort of paragraph 9.71 onwards from your statement. But these are um
54:55
policies that have attracted uh or policy 10 has attracted significant interest.
55:01
heard a lot at the stage one um hearings in relation to the uh sewage
55:07
infrastructure network in the southeast of the burough in the Whitburn area
55:15
through to Henden about the ability of that network to accommodate further uh
55:21
further demands uh upon it. Um,
55:28
we're obviously dealing this afternoon with the buroughwide policies and how
55:34
they're they're going to apply across the burough. But I think in terms of the the
55:39
effectiveness and the consistency with national policy, particularly of policy 10, I'll
55:46
invite the council to talk to that first. I don't know. as part of that
55:52
whether the council wants to say anything about the legal opinion that's
55:58
been submitted just before Christmas.
56:03
The answer to the latter question is yes in order to assist you.
56:10
Um you shouldn't expect any difference in our stance as a result of that I
56:16
forewarn you. Um but I will address the legal opinion and also um the
56:24
impact of recent findings by the office in relation to the failure of other
56:30
statuto bodies to carry out their various duties and functions appropriately.
56:36
Um I think if I may suggest um that I deal with that by way of response to
56:42
anything further Mr. Lavel has to say because these documents were introduced
56:47
I think through him or by him. Um we've not taken any exception to that. We're
56:53
happy um to consider them and to respond to them if that assists you. Um but in
56:59
doing it that way it means that there's less of the ball game backwards and forwards if you know what I mean. But in
57:06
the first instance in terms of the effectiveness of this policy
57:11
um I think we can deal with that initially. Over to you
57:18
going to deal with it. Yes.
57:28
So in terms of the effectiveness of the of the council's approach, well firstly
57:34
policy 10, disposal of foul water. First point I'd like to make is it's part of a
57:40
wider policy framework uh and regulatory measures that deal with the issue.
57:48
The policy does not relate directly to the capacity of the sewer network.
57:54
However, paragraph 7.59 of the supporting text does acknowledge that
58:00
capacity is a material consideration. Capacity is also addressed strategically
58:06
through plan making. The council has liazed with North Umbrean water and established that there is capacity to
58:13
support the development allocations in the local plan.
58:19
Whilst the disposal of foul or waste water remains an important issue, the
58:25
recent Whitburn lodge appeal decision reaffirms that foul water and wastewater
58:30
capacity are measures governed by separate regulatory regimes and that
58:36
planning decisions should focus on the use of land not the control of process
58:41
and emissions. Policies
58:46
five, nine and 11 are also relevant in this context. Um, policy five, reducing energy
58:56
consumption and carbon emissions. Criterion one, Roman Italic 5, supports
59:02
sustainable design and construction practices that include water efficiency
59:09
that meets the highest national standard. And water efficiency benefits
59:16
wastewater management by reducing the amount of waste of w the amount that's
59:21
not what entering the sewer network. And criterion three of policy five
59:29
requires major development proposals to include a sustainability statement outlining their approach to a range of
59:36
sustainability issues including wastewater management.
59:41
Uh moving on to policy nine sustainable urban drainage systems. It sets out the
59:47
the council's approach to suds through the development management system. Paragraph 7.53 states surface water
59:55
separation as directing water to surface bodies
1:00:00
also reduces surface water entering sewage systems
1:00:05
that could contribute to combined sewer outflows in extreme wet weather.
1:00:11
And policy 9 provides a framework for the LFA to ensure that every opportunity
1:00:17
has been explored to keep surface water out of the combined sewer network.
1:00:27
In respect of policy 11, it's not an part of the approach to
1:00:33
managing waste water through the planning process. However, its effectiveness is partly dependent
1:00:40
on the effectiveness of the approach to managing waste water.
1:00:46
So, in summary, the council considers that policy 10 is an effective approach and is supported by policies five and
1:00:53
nine which contribute to reducing the amount
1:00:58
of surface water entering the network. This is an overall effective approach to
1:01:05
ensuring the satisfactory disposal file water from new development.
1:01:14
Thank you. Thank you for that. If I can now turn to
1:01:21
those who perhaps take a different view on the matter. Um if I perhaps hear from
1:01:26
Mr. Lavel first and then I'll come to Mr. Latimer. So Mr. Lavel
1:01:34
you
1:01:39
uh the policies for 10 and 11 in the plan they're not based on proportionate evidence
1:01:46
as the evidence used to justify the plan it's neither robust nor up to date.
1:01:52
Uh the update regarding sewer network submitted by the council as part of the documents is misleading and contains
1:01:59
information that's not correct. I submitted a comprehensive rebuttal to the evidence referred to in this update
1:02:05
in October 2025 but my evidence is missing from the examination as as it
1:02:11
was not published. The council have failed in their duty to
1:02:16
cooperate as they have not engaged constructively, actively and an ongoing
1:02:21
basis with neighboring councils and public bodies such as offwat defa the
1:02:28
environment agency and the office for environmental protection to develop the strategic policies on the disposal of f
1:02:35
water and protecting water quality. The council again today claimed to work
1:02:42
closely with the environment agency and North Water. Consultation between the council and
1:02:48
North human water or the council and the environment agency on the local plan last took place at regulation 19 stage.
1:02:58
The council has not consulted with the environment agency regard regarding the guidance on storm overflow assessment
1:03:04
framework 2025 published on 24th of March which is a significant bearing on
1:03:11
the improvements required to reduce sewage spills at Witburn and Henden
1:03:18
there's been no active engagement regarding the off decision notice and North Waters undertakings in respect of
1:03:25
the Henden Widburn system published in June 2025.
1:03:30
There's been no engagement regarding the recent Office for Environmental Protection findings in December 2025
1:03:38
regarding the Environment Agency unlawfully failing to take proper account of environmental law with regard
1:03:45
to the requirements of the 1994 urban wastewater regulations. The OEP had
1:03:51
particular regard to the contents of the letter dated the 3rd of February 2023 from the director general environment of
1:03:59
the European Commission to Mr. Robert Latimer concerning spills of untreated
1:04:05
waste water at Whitburn and the data concerning spills at Witburn since the
1:04:10
2012 European Court of Justice judgment. The regulatory processes have failed and
1:04:18
continue to fail to ensure that the sewer network serving the Witburn
1:04:24
Clayton and Baldens can cope with the demands of planned growth within the Hendon sewage treatment works catchment
1:04:30
without significant harm to the environment. The plan is not positively prepared.
1:04:38
It's not based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.
1:04:46
There's been no joint consultation between South Tinside Council and Southernland City Council and
1:04:52
appropriate bodies regarding the cumulative effect on the Henden Woodburn sewage system of the 625 houses proposed
1:05:00
in this plan together with over 1,000 houses proposed as part of the Riverside
1:05:07
Sunland master plan which also part of the Henden Witburn sewage catchment
1:05:12
area. North Moon Water has failed to produce a wastewater treatment works plan, a
1:05:19
network flow compliance plan, and failed to provide a plan for an additional
1:05:25
study at Widburn by the 8th of December last year as agreed in their undertaking
1:05:31
to off the North Umbrea River Basin District Management Plan was last updated in
1:05:38
2015, so is out of date. Since then, we have had the installment or installation
1:05:44
of event duration monitors on combined sewer flow overflows throughout the burough which provide significant data
1:05:50
to inform such a plan. I'll just touch on the Whitburn Lodge appeal. The
1:05:56
evidence provided to this appeal is not factual. I highlight these two. Northman
1:06:03
water are implementing the necessary regimes to ensure pollution controls are operating effectively and outside the
1:06:10
realms of planning decisions. They're not. No plan has been developed as yet.
1:06:17
Another example, North Water also detailed that the redevelopment of this site would see a reduction in the volume
1:06:24
of flows entering the existing public sewage system, therefore having a positive impact on matters of concern
1:06:31
related to drainage, both surface and foul. This is not true. There will be an
1:06:36
increase in flows. These statements should have been challenged by the council.
1:06:42
I'll touch on what the uh barister will want to speak about. The leading case on
1:06:49
the overlap between planning and pollution controls is now the case of the measel farmers union versus Herafa
1:06:56
Council, the JPL 1364. I'll quote from that judgment. An approach which assumed
1:07:03
no environmental harm on the basis of a regulatory regime which beyond any doubt
1:07:08
has failed to protect the environment from harm would be contrary to the
1:07:14
statutory purposes. There is therefore good good reason to depart from 194 of
1:07:20
the 2023 NPF. This case law was not mentioned in the
1:07:27
Woodburn Lodge appeal. I wasn't invited to the 15th of September meeting to
1:07:32
discuss the appeal decision, but I would have argued that the council should have identified the omission to consider the
1:07:39
case law and should have recommended the local planning authority to apply for judicial review of this decision.
1:07:46
Obviously, you're out of time now, am I? I'll just like to touch on betterment, which is a big thing in my mind.
1:07:54
In this appeal, in the end, the claim of bet was reduced to providing a certainty to what surface water will be entering
1:08:01
the combined sewer. It's obvious the volumes of combined
1:08:07
sewage will increase. The betterment argument relied upon in
1:08:13
this decision has no legal definition. I'd like to supply the examination with
1:08:18
a definition of betterment that is more relevant to wastewater pollution.
1:08:24
Wastewater pollution betterment refers to the efforts and actions taken to improve the quality of waste water
1:08:31
before it is released into the environment. These include reducing the amount of waste water generated,
1:08:37
treating it properly to remove harmful contaminant contaminants and ensuring that treated waste water is reused or
1:08:44
recycled for beneficial purposes. Due to the increase of waste water from
1:08:51
the proposed developments on greenfield sites in the plan, there will be no wastewater pollution betterment.
1:08:57
Wastewater pollution at Witburn will get worse unless improvements in the Henden Witburn sewage system are made. So I
1:09:06
provided you with the alternative wording for policy test. I don't know if you've
1:09:12
saved it. Not at this stage. My recollection from
1:09:18
your original representations this is made on behalf of the Witburn Neighborhood Forum is that uh I
1:09:24
appreciate this is a couple of years ago now Mr. Lavel and you've as you've highlighted a number of things have
1:09:30
changed. I think I would just like to clarify for the purposes of this examination
1:09:37
we we don't have the action plan that North Umbrean Water have submitted to um uh
1:09:44
OffWatt they haven't submitted it yet. They haven't. It's not in front of me. It's not in front of But you know, I
1:09:51
don't know if they have submitted something to No, no, they haven't submitted. I spoke to the MP's office this morning and she speak.
1:09:56
Okay. Um, in terms of the wording for policy 10, my recollection from your
1:10:03
representations, Mr. Bell, is that you were seeking something similar to what's in the Whitburn neighborhood plan at
1:10:09
policy WP12. That there should be a rigorous analysis. Yes, you did ask me if my position remained the same and I
1:10:16
did send you a reply to say it is altered now. Okay. Can you just briefly summarize to me what your altered
1:10:22
position is? I can read it out if you like because I I mean I'm from the stage one hearings I was sort of coming away
1:10:29
thinking well is it the view of the Whitburn neighborhood forum and others that there should be some form of
1:10:34
moratorum on development there shouldn't be anything further. um bearing in mind this is a buroughwide
1:10:42
policy we're looking at as part of this discussion or is it similar to where we were before that there's
1:10:49
from your perspective if I put it in these terms still a degree of uncertainty about how the system is
1:10:56
going to improve and get into regulatory compliance notwithstanding some of the the evidence um I've heard about that
1:11:04
um that you know there was effectively a stronger policy rather than a a
1:11:10
moratorum because of the uh the council's position on the whip lodge appeal and uh some of
1:11:18
the statements they put to the local parl authority I've now revisited uh
1:11:25
where we talk about rigorous analysis and I've uh I've got wording of a more
1:11:31
strategic approach. Thank you. If I can hear that now that
1:11:37
would be helpful. Thank you. Uh this is the more strategic approach approach. Bear with me.
1:11:47
I would suggest the following man modification. New development will not be permitted in
1:11:53
the Witburn sewage catchment area that is Witburn, Clayton and Balden areas unless there is an independent and ver
1:11:59
verifiable planning assessment demonstrating that there is adequate sewage and surface water drainage
1:12:04
infrastructure to serve the development. The assessment must demonstrate that the proposed development would not lead to
1:12:10
harm to local water courses or the coastal waters or foreshore of the South Tinside area by way of sewage and other
1:12:17
pollution. or problems for existing residents or residents subsequently occupying the development.
1:12:24
The planning assessment will consider treatment and dry weather flow capacity at the wastewater treatment works at
1:12:29
Henden and if deemed necessary at Howard versus consents. It will consider if the
1:12:35
net increase in waste water will be adequately collected and treated in compliance with the urban wastewater
1:12:42
treatment regulations 1994. The assessment must be carried out jointly between the local authority, the
1:12:48
environment agency and Northian water. The assessment must identify any
1:12:53
additional interventions which would be cost beneficial consistent with BTKE
1:13:01
in accordance with the requirements of the environmental agency's guidance on storm overflow assessment framework 2025
1:13:09
published on 24th of March 2025. The assessment must be published in
1:13:14
draft form and made available for public consultation before it is finalized.
1:13:20
Where the sewage treatment works are close to capacity andor improvements are required to the sewage network to comply
1:13:26
with the urban wastewater treatment regulations. The local planning authority will look at potential for phase development and use a grampian
1:13:33
condition to ensure development comes forward in line with the required upgrades.
1:13:39
Development will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that surface water drainage will not add to the existing
1:13:45
site runoff or cause any adverse impact the neighboring properties and the surrounding environment. As it's quite
1:13:52
wordy, but I try to include everything on the strategic level.
1:13:58
Thank you for that. So I think in in summary, Mr. the veil. You're seeking a more kind of I think it still comes
1:14:05
under the the banner of kind of a rigorous analysis, but you're setting out more detail in terms of what
1:14:12
I would I would be satisfied with rigorous apart from the fact that the the council decided rigorous is rather a
1:14:18
subjective phrase to use. Although they accepted the neighborhood plan, they've now stated that they obviously don't
1:14:24
believe in the Widburn sewage policy because they disagree with the use of the word rigorous.
1:14:30
So for your modification rather than the word rigorous, you're setting out those various kind of parameters that a
1:14:36
development proposal would need to satisfy in order for it to go ahead through those kind of various
1:14:42
yeah steps. I think that would be an appropriate approach bearing in mind the history of the Woodburn Henden sewage treatment
1:14:48
works and it will be I'm trying to for get I'm trying to guess what north water
1:14:54
plan will be and I think it'll be something along those lines.
1:15:00
Thank you. Does the council want I'm I was going to go to Mr. Latimer next.
1:15:05
It was Mr. Latim. I should have
1:15:12
be very happy to hear. Okay. So, I can
1:15:20
next hear from Mr. Latimer. and can invite Mr. Can you use the microphone because it will help people in the room
1:15:26
and online. I forgot me notes and Steve's managed to get it on the
1:15:47
Well, my name's Bob Latima. Uh I was born and still live in uh Wickburn. Um I
1:15:53
used to be the local garage owner. Uh I'm an engineer by trade and uh I um I
1:16:00
have an engineering business. I retired about 12 years ago. Uh my youngest son
1:16:06
took over. We worked in the Nissan car plant installing the machines and the
1:16:11
plant became the most productive car plant in Europe, which is something I'm really proud of. So on that basis I'm
1:16:20
used with finding faults and diagnosing things and I just want to put it across
1:16:26
that I'm not just you know making this up. If I start by saying I feel it
1:16:32
cannot be right for a local plan inquiry to process to be considered acceptable
1:16:37
when it is left it to the public to highlight the serious errors in this in its preparation. The plan was rejected
1:16:45
at least twice by the planning committee and the counselors who represent the public. Now it is left to the public to
1:16:52
convince you why this plan is not fit for purpose and it should be thrown out.
1:16:59
The local plan has been refused by all by all local counselors at least twice.
1:17:05
They represented the pe the the um they represented the opinions of the people
1:17:12
of South Tide.
1:17:20
There there's uh there've been a local plan plans from East Balden to Widburn
1:17:26
entered and approved by the council and again they assured the opinions of the local people but this local plan does
1:17:33
not include their policies about the local sewage treatment. Now a few of us
1:17:39
as local individuals have have to try and make sure that this local plan
1:17:44
safeguards the rights of local people and also their health and safety
1:17:50
of the environment
1:17:56
against us. We have the local planning authority. We have the council officers and their barrista
1:18:02
paid for by us. I've got to laugh. um the developers, the church commissioners
1:18:08
and in the background the water company and NWL and the EA.
1:18:15
I want to say that I rely upon you, the inspector, to accept the responsibility of putting
1:18:21
the safe disposal of treatment of sewage and the capacity needed for that treatment and the protection of our
1:18:28
environment into the local plan of South Tide. This is not what the council and
1:18:33
the LPA intend to do as can be seen by policy 10 which remains the same as it
1:18:39
was when it was refused by the local counselors. I took part in the two in the 2001
1:18:46
public inquiry regarding the Windburn storm system when it was a found immediately that the permit wasn't fit
1:18:52
for purpose. The inspector at that public inquiry made the following comment. The model's
1:18:59
shortcomings were identified in a 1993 technical audit report which recommended
1:19:04
that the model should be changed before being used for design purposes. Otherwise, it was likely to
1:19:10
significantly underestimate CSO spillage and storage requirements. However,
1:19:15
construction had started and NWL rejected the recommendation.
1:19:21
Today, that is what was wrong with the system. Cso spillage and storage. The
1:19:26
council and the air stood back and allowed this to happen. And it appears no one wants to mention this at this
1:19:32
inquiry. Adding more houses to this system would be a horrendous error. In
1:19:38
2012, in 2012, the European Court of Justice
1:19:43
found the Witburn system was not compliant with the urban wastewater treatment directive, although the AA and
1:19:50
Northern Marine Water said it was and gave the UK five years to upgrade the Witburn system by the end of December.
1:19:58
In 2023, the Witburn system spilled over 1 million tons of untreated sewage, the
1:20:04
greatest volume ever. Now that was I don't know what's that six years after the judgment
1:20:11
um in 200 also although not part of the
1:20:17
original system using the screening pumps um
1:20:22
over 300,000 tons of sewage was returned back into the foul sewer showing beyond
1:20:27
doubt that there's no capacity to take anymore the council quote in PPF
1:20:33
paragraph 188 as saying policy should only condescends themselves with land
1:20:39
use with the use of land rather than the control of processes and emissions. I've
1:20:44
provided a legal opinion and two pieces of recent case law showing this is incorrect.
1:20:51
Since the stage one hearings, there have been a number of important things that which should affect the local plan.
1:20:58
There's an in the addition of our local panel about the NPPF of two recent recent cases which will
1:21:04
become case law and there are many more to come. There have been several updates from OEP
1:21:11
about an illegal actions by offford and the EA and defa
1:21:17
trust and believe evidence given by the EA. There's been a lot of mention of the
1:21:23
study by NWL for offwat about the Witburn system improvements which they
1:21:28
received on December the 8, 2025, but have not been able to see this see the
1:21:34
content. It is important the inspector sees this if only to find out the likely date of such improvements. Until then,
1:21:42
there is no capacity for more sur.
1:21:48
I had a meeting with our MP and with the minister following a letter from Emma Hari saying the schema for Witburn long
1:21:56
outfall is unlikely to meet design standards in 10 years and that the reduction plan will be met in 2050 2050.
1:22:06
I'm 82 so I'll not see it.
1:22:14
Her department stated after the meeting that off don't have a time frame but will more on we will know more at
1:22:22
December the 8th. Again there has been a delay to house building until there's a
1:22:28
definite date when there will be more capacity. Policy 10 is inadequate to provide this.
1:22:36
He asked about the effect of the Witburn Lodge appeal. We have legal confirmation that the appeal wrongly depended upon
1:22:44
incorrect information from NWL and DA and the local planning authority.
1:22:49
Uh I think it was the the local lead flood authority. The inspector asked the
1:22:55
council a straight question. Would policy 10 be part of an effective approach to ensure satisfactory disposal
1:23:02
of foul water from new development? The council replies yes when the evidence
1:23:07
and the discharge records confirm policy 10 would be no good whatsoever as an
1:23:12
effective approach. In fact to allow policy 10 to play any part of this local plan would give license to NWL to dump
1:23:20
even more foul water. The question the the inspector goes on and asks a further
1:23:27
question about the including the Witburn forum's wording of rigorous analysis.
1:23:32
The the council replies, "No, it would not be necessary for the plan soundness
1:23:37
for policy 19 to be comparatively rewarded to policy WNP12 in the
1:23:45
Midwitburn neighborhood plan. The council considers the word rigorous to be highly subjective and this would lead
1:23:52
to practical difficulties with implementation."
1:23:57
This is hypocritical response from the council when you consider policy WN12
1:24:02
was watered down by ACOM the council and then the inspector but was adopted as
1:24:08
part of the neighborhood plan and now the council say rigorous is objective when it was on their recommendation it
1:24:14
was used they will have they will have no analysis of applications apart from
1:24:20
leazing or let's say agreeing with NWL and the who have totally discredited
1:24:26
who have been totally discredited by Offwart and the OEP.
1:24:33
Does the recent planning appeal decision at Witburn Lodge mean policy 10 would be
1:24:39
effective and consistent with NPPF? Paragraph 188 policies should concern
1:24:46
themselves with the use of land rather than the control of processes. My concern is Whitburn.
1:24:54
But as an example of the lack of sewage capacity, I want to just tell you about the flows of sewage around the proposed
1:25:00
Heaven Riverside master plan, which show how useless the policies about sewage
1:25:06
capacity is and how very little that the council is actually carrying out
1:25:12
investigations to back up what they're saying. Wagenware
1:25:18
road pumping station heaven. Now it's possibly that the Felgate site will be
1:25:23
connected to that in 2024. It discharged the sea for 2,946
1:25:30
hours. That's spilling at the river Tine. the Tinside CSO near the Tine
1:25:36
Tunnel. That would be the other one. Felgate could connect to 932 hours of
1:25:41
spills into the river dawn and then it goes into time. The Hen Treatment works
1:25:46
2024. It has three overflows. The first one
1:25:52
2523 hours in 2024 1,379
1:25:59
and 10 hours uh 7 723 hours all spilling into the river tine
1:26:05
but then it goes into the sea. The river tide's nothing more than an open sewer
1:26:10
and you know I just cannot see where especially environmental health where where are you as an example of relying
1:26:19
on assurances oh this shows the lack of any real investigation into figures supplied by the NWL to the local
1:26:25
planning authority there's definitely a lack of capacity of sewage treatment in the whole of 7
1:26:32
again as an example of relying on assurances from NWL and the EA I need to tell about the suggesting in the
1:26:39
post-hering letter action points sewer network capacity that that Henden will
1:26:46
only receive um will only receive floors from 420 new
1:26:53
houses at Southside but the 400 houses that will be built at Town in farm area
1:26:58
will flow to Alexander Bridge next to Alexandran Bridge is an overflow into the river we've seen numerous discharges
1:27:06
is in in November.
1:27:20
Yeah. Next to Alexander Bridge is the overflow of the river we where I've seen numerous
1:27:26
discharges. In November 20, 2025, for instance, there were 38 hours of flows
1:27:32
into the river and they want to put another 400 houses into that. The sewage system overflows everywhere. Now there
1:27:39
can be no confidence that there's capacity for any more.
1:27:44
Um I'm just going to intervene there, Mr. Latim. Well, I want to say to you I want to say
1:27:50
to you what should be done. That's where I was hoping we were getting to. Yeah, that's what I need to understand. You know, I I just feel, you know, we're
1:27:58
not getting across what what we want to say. You know, it's like you're saying I'm short of time. Um you know, I'm only
1:28:04
one person. There's a lot of persons here. Policy 10, the planners do not agree to rigorous analysis. They show
1:28:12
the most minimal concern for evidence about the capacity of the sewage system. They still
1:28:19
I cannot get that word out. Agently say they liazison with AA and NWL and rely
1:28:25
on their information and assurances. Do we agree with that? You know the people
1:28:30
here. Do we agree with that? NWL and the A totally discredited
1:28:37
there's no doubt about that by off what and the OEP even shown they've actually
1:28:43
acted illegally would anyone else here seek vital information and assurances
1:28:48
which would which would affect their households thousands of households and the environment from such discredited
1:28:54
sources I wouldn't even buy a secondhand car from these people policy 10 and
1:29:00
others must include rulings that the local planning authority of indep independent in verification of all data
1:29:08
about the sewage capacity. If new building goes on, it is likely that soon 2 million tons of untreated sewer will
1:29:15
discharge the sea with the will the buyers or renters of these new houses
1:29:20
assume that all their sewage is out of sight and will be treated. They will they will more probably see it again in
1:29:27
their local stream or at the beach or even flooding their house. This is what the planners are allowing to happen. It
1:29:34
is vital that the local plan is corrected to deal with today's problems and not just go give a green light for
1:29:41
the council and the planners to act as they have been. Thank you.
1:29:47
Thank you for that Mr. Latimer. I mean just before Christmas you submitted or
1:29:55
requested that the legal opinion be submitted. Uh, and I've read that and
1:30:00
I'm sure other people have as well. My
1:30:07
interpretation or assessment of that legal opinion is um it obviously sets
1:30:12
out uh what whether the council's position is is unreasonable um or not and whether
1:30:20
it's reasonable to consider kind of alternatives and there could be alternative alternative policy wording
1:30:28
um to policy 10. From your perspective, is that
1:30:35
alternative policy wording uh similar to what I've heard from Mr. Lavel? Is it more well, we need
1:30:42
something very similar to the Wetburn neighborhood plan in terms of a rigorous analysis? Is that what you're
1:30:49
No. Um I'm an engineer, you know, it this can't
1:30:55
this it can't proceed any further until it has a real investigation. not only
1:31:02
for the future but what has gone on. It's like you know you have if you will repair the
1:31:08
machine in Nissan you have to go back to see how it was designed in the first place and you have to look at that and
1:31:14
say how can we go forward in the future how can we repair that now this system
1:31:20
has gone beyond that um it's not just the treatment works it's the actual
1:31:26
system itself and I think the whole to south tide um we don't have a treatment
1:31:32
works you know witburns a storm system um and they're using it as a treatment
1:31:37
works and uh you know South Tside sewers go to to Hen I've just showed you Hen
1:31:45
doesn't have a capacity and what's wrong with these people why aren't they why why is it I can find that out and they
1:31:51
can't um I think the local plan shouldn't proceed at all until we get
1:31:57
reassurances in the actual sewage system of for the whole of South China side is investigated
1:32:04
I do want to come back to the council if it's a very brief point. Mr. Laval, just to touch on what Mr. what Mr. Latim
1:32:11
said, we had a meeting with the the water minister and what we want is we want a church le inquiry into the sewage
1:32:18
system at Whitburn and Henden. Obviously, what she fought us off with is we December the 8th you'll get the
1:32:24
plan. We'll see we'll take it from there. But as I point out to you, I told the MP's office this morning, North
1:32:31
Waters failed to produce that plan as yet.
1:32:37
There may well be other points people want to raise in relation to policies uh 9, 10, and 11. I think I'm going to give
1:32:44
the council the opportunity to respond to what's specifically been raised in relation to Whitburn because I'm not
1:32:50
sure Mr. green you're going to talk about whip burn specifically and I don't recall your representation relevant to
1:32:56
this session on waste water. Yeah was just to follow up what Mr. Latam said about about Holden
1:33:05
uh no problems enough I know you've raised the issue under health and it's part of your appendices
1:33:11
to your health submissions for tomorrow's session. Yeah that's the case. Yeah. Can I also
1:33:17
state that I totally agree with Mr. Lavel uh in that I think that's exactly
1:33:23
what he's just said. I mean, you know, I've got all the documents, you know, we read through most of them, but the same
1:33:29
thing applies to SP8, you know, that it is the same. It's it's exactly the same
1:33:35
circumstances. Okay. Thank you. If I can turn to the council as the council will have heard
1:33:42
and seen from representations that have been made on the plan going back to 2024
1:33:49
particularly in there is a geograph geographical dimension to this in terms
1:33:55
of the concern about the wastewater network as I say in the southeast of the burough of Whitburn
1:34:02
that there should be similar policy approach uh in this plan as there was in
1:34:08
the Whitburn neighborhood plan in terms of rigorous analysis heard I'm afraid it
1:34:13
is for the first time this afternoon from Mr. the veil in terms of there
1:34:18
could be an alternative policy wording. I'm going to say it's along broadly similar lines but maybe some more deep
1:34:25
but the principle remains can we have a policy that's uh requires the council
1:34:32
as part of its decision-m process to rigor rigorously analyze development
1:34:37
proposals to ensure that there is capacity uh within the sewage network to
1:34:43
accommodate development going forward. I'm going to deal with this as concisely
1:34:49
as I can, but in dealing with that final point, and I know that's what you want the focus to be on because you have an
1:34:56
understanding of the legal process and the requirements placed on local planning authorities. If I may suggest I
1:35:04
deal with some background first in order to contextualize
1:35:09
my submissions and so that members of the public might understand the reasons why I'm making the submissions I am
1:35:18
first and foremost one can understand public disqu
1:35:23
about the performance of the undertaker and not only the undertaker but also
1:35:30
those statutory bodies responsible apable for monitoring its performance
1:35:36
and there's been a plethora of actions and enforcement actions taken in
1:35:42
relation to those bodies by the office for environmental protection
1:35:49
as well as offwatt action against North Umbrean water.
1:35:54
So in one way or another all of these responsible authorities including the
1:35:59
environment agency and DERA have let the system down. So I can well understand
1:36:06
exactly why people feel very sensitive about this.
1:36:12
However, the starting point for our consideration is national planning policy
1:36:18
and that requires that planning decisions should assume that the regimes
1:36:25
i.e. those which are uh carried out undertaken or applied by the various
1:36:32
authorities to which I've referred and that regime which applies to North
1:36:37
Umbrean water um will operate effectively. Clearly in
1:36:43
the past they haven't. That's been an issue.
1:36:51
That's a starting point. The MPPF is planning policy. It is not law. It is a
1:36:57
material consideration but an important material consideration.
1:37:02
And there are good reasons why government asks us to defer
1:37:09
to those other regimes as a means of making the planning system
1:37:15
more efficient so that these regimes work in tandem not in a frictional way.
1:37:29
The basic duty imposed on North Umbrean water is to maintain the capacity the
1:37:35
sewage capacity
1:37:41
and it is the right of any developer to connect to the system. So it's the duty
1:37:47
of the undertaker to make sure that capacity exists and that it complies in
1:37:54
making that capacity available complies with its obligations under statute and
1:38:00
the regulations.
1:38:06
You will understand sir and I'm sure everyone around here will understand that the regulatory regime in relation
1:38:13
to waste water is extremely complex.
1:38:19
And that that regime um has to be informed by an
1:38:24
extraordinarily complex database and scientific understanding of the
1:38:32
impacts of dealing with waste water
1:38:37
on the environment and the means by which any adverse effect might be obiated. It's very
1:38:44
complex and it requires of course not just an an understanding of the current
1:38:50
situation but also on capacity requirements for future needs.
1:39:02
And I I I make that point now because I'm going to come back to it in the context of what's being proposed by way
1:39:08
of a potential modification to the policy. Okay.
1:39:16
Now I I I've read the opinion of Mr. Chat
1:39:21
um a fellow barrista and um it is a model of um elegant concisiveness and it
1:39:30
does set out the law absolutely and utterly correctly.
1:39:38
So I do not demure from the opinion.
1:39:45
However, the opinion takes us only so far as inevitably it could.
1:39:56
The exaltation by central government to assume that the regimes will operate
1:40:02
effectively is of course subject to a local planning authority acting
1:40:07
reasonably. So if it is possessed of information
1:40:14
which suggests that it should be on notice as to
1:40:20
the adequacy of the system to cope with the amount of development coming through
1:40:26
the system and to deal with it within the
1:40:32
parameters of the regulations and the pollution control regime.
1:40:39
Then of course it may become a relevant material consideration for planning purposes
1:40:45
in determining whether or not the development should be allowed to proceed or whether or not for example the
1:40:51
occupation of the development ought to be regulated in some way to ensure that
1:40:56
future capacity is available for the needs of the future population
1:41:02
without harm occurring to the environment.
1:41:10
That depends upon the exercise, the reasonable exercise of planning discretion.
1:41:18
But a local planning authority is not bound as it were to investigate of its
1:41:24
own accord any potential failures that may exist
1:41:34
but is not prevented from doing so if circumstances compel it to do so.
1:41:43
So where are we?
1:41:51
You've had the evidence of North Umbrean Mortar whose evidence to this examination was given after the various
1:41:59
enforcement actions and judgments had been undertaken and made.
1:42:08
They do not object to any development proposed in the local plan.
1:42:18
And so far as they are concerned, there will be adequate capacity to deal with
1:42:26
the growth anticipated in the plan.
1:42:35
I'll come back to them in a minute. Offwatt's action against
1:42:42
North Umbrean water and I can summarize it. It's it's on the
1:42:47
web offwots's website. Um
1:42:53
they they concluded that Northfield mortar contra
1:42:58
contravened regulations including
1:43:05
section 94 of the water industry act 1991.
1:43:13
But they went on to say that North Umbrean Mortar has
1:43:18
provided undertakings under section 19 of the 91 act that will see it commit to
1:43:24
investing an additional 15.7 million pounds to improve the quality of the
1:43:30
environment in its region and further reduce spills. This will be entirely funded by the
1:43:36
company and its shareholders rather than customers. North Umbrean Mort has al also committed to developing and
1:43:42
delivering a series of action plans which you've heard about uh that will address the contraventions
1:43:48
we have identified and bring it back into compliance with its obligations. That's essentially what OffWalt has
1:43:54
found. It's happy with that outcome.
1:43:59
I don't know where the five-year action plan is at the moment. Um I'm not quite
1:44:04
sure that we've had any further response since last time. We are still following that up, but we don't anticipate there
1:44:11
are going to be any problems with it at the moment.
1:44:19
In that context and given that assurance, there is nothing to put us on
1:44:24
notice that we should be concerned about instigating a separate inquiry into the
1:44:30
capacity of the Suridge network for the purposes of this plan. And neither does it put us on notice that we should be
1:44:36
considering a device in policy terms that requires us to carry out such an investigation.
1:44:49
Because what it would do is impose a layer of interrogation in the plan
1:44:58
that would impose a positive obligation on the local planning authority to
1:45:03
assess capacity and performance of the undertaker surge infrastructure each time it considers an application for
1:45:11
permission in relation to a major proposed development.
1:45:19
You can go back to the point I was making before about how complex that assessment would be.
1:45:27
It would be time consuming.
1:45:32
It would be farreaching in its other implications too in terms of the
1:45:38
technical knowledge needed to come to any verifiable decision which was not
1:45:45
based upon asurances from the undertaker itself i.e. independently gathered
1:45:51
information and would have a disproportionate and
1:45:59
wholly unacceptable impact on resources
1:46:07
and equally importantly the effectiveness of the plan in
1:46:13
delivering much needed development in a timely manner.
1:46:20
it would not be appropriate to impose any further layer of scrutiny.
1:46:29
What I do propose, however, is that we can make it abundantly clear that even
1:46:36
though North Umbrean Water is not a statutory undertaker
1:46:42
and a statutory, sorry, is not a statutory consultee as an undertaker
1:46:47
that we will consult with North Umbrean Water
1:46:53
on the issue of capacity in relation to major developments as they come forward either
1:46:59
via the allocations or independently if they come apart from an allocation
1:47:08
and that can be made clear in the supporting text of paragraph 7.59
1:47:14
of the plan.
1:47:22
So I'm saying that I'm well what I'm asking you to do effectively is to exercise your planning judgment
1:47:29
which you're entitled to do taking into account everything that's been said around this table taking into into
1:47:36
account all that is available publicly in terms of the off report and the other
1:47:41
uh material which has been submitted to the examination by Mr. in Latima and others
1:47:48
and come to the conclusion that it would not be reasonable or necessary to impose
1:47:56
any policy requirement that would result in the kind of delays
1:48:02
in expenditure, unnecessary delays in expenditure by imposing that further
1:48:07
level of scrutiny in circumstances where it's been found that the statutory
1:48:12
undertaker will perform. more in accordance with the evidence you've
1:48:18
heard from that undertaken to this examination. Those are my submissions.
1:48:24
Thank you. Is there anything further the council wishes to say? I mean, some of the further evidence that's been put to me is the Office for Environmental
1:48:30
Protection reports. They're fairly recent. One of them was to the Environment Agency, which probably the
1:48:36
one I focused um the most on. Um they're described as final and concluding
1:48:43
reports. So notwithstanding everything that's preceded them and it's recognized that there is an issue I think in terms
1:48:50
of the permitting um but it has given the environment agency time and it will
1:48:56
recognize that this is going to take some time to work through thinking about
1:49:01
some of the developments that are in the plan that we're talking about uh in this part of the burough notwithstanding this
1:49:08
a borrowed policy I look at the schlar a number of them are not due to take place
1:49:13
will be built out anytime soon. They're a few years away from first. So there's
1:49:20
a period of time between now and when some of these sites are likely to come forward. I mean Whitburn Lodge probably
1:49:27
will come forward sooner than later. Okay. They didn't hang about. Um
1:49:37
you referred Mr. um Sherven to you know there was
1:49:44
In terms of the local planning authority acting reasonably depending as you say what um response you get from North
1:49:51
Umbrean water the occupation could be regulated in some way. Mr. Lavell
1:49:57
referred to a Grampion condition but there could be
1:50:03
conditions around the phasing of developments when development is occupied. Is it
1:50:09
necessary in your view or to to to to tell me that whether any of something
1:50:14
along those lines could be reflected in a modified policy 10 or is that
1:50:21
unnecessary? That that's it's both unnecessary and um imposes an
1:50:27
awkward um requirement. Um and I say an awkward requirement
1:50:34
because um clearly if
1:50:39
there is an issue it's something which needs to be addressed anyway as a material consideration at application
1:50:44
stage. Um and if information comes to light that there is potentially a problem and
1:50:52
discussions uh consultations with North Umbrean Water discloses that there might be a problem with capacity in the
1:50:58
system, then either it might be appropriate at that stage for the local planning
1:51:03
authority in its development management function to impose either a granting condition or
1:51:11
a condition which says which limits occupation until such time as a matter is resolved. olved to the local planning
1:51:17
authority satisfaction. But those are not matters which one can predict as it were through the policy
1:51:24
and not having a requirement in the policy doesn't prevent and should not
1:51:29
prevent the local planning authority from acting lawfully at that point in time. So those safeguards are there
1:51:37
anyway. Thank you. And just a final point for
1:51:42
the council before I bring in others been referred to the Whitburn neighborhood plan policy WMP12.
1:51:50
I heard your submissions shadow around you know the reasonleness and whether
1:51:55
going through the uh the process of a rigorous analysis um you know is a proportionate and kind
1:52:03
of acceptable impact on resources. Can you understand from the not you but whether it's other people from the
1:52:09
council understand from the community's perspective they've had a made neighbor plan less than three years ago had this
1:52:18
policy requirement put in it was examined the council has a sorry the burough
1:52:24
council has a role in that process in terms of uh general conformity
1:52:32
obviously passed through the uh the eye of that exam examination. Why is it now
1:52:38
3 years later something similar is just too ownorous for this for this plan? And
1:52:46
have I got to kind of treat that neighborhood plan with um a degree of
1:52:52
caution?
1:52:57
First of all, these submissions are not made um in any way dismissively
1:53:03
of a neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plan deals with one development
1:53:09
in Whitman. We're dealing here with a planwide uh with planwide development.
1:53:17
Secondly, things have moved on uh since then with respect to the
1:53:24
findings of what and the response by orumb water matters
1:53:31
which were very much more up in the air at that point in time.
1:53:39
Now, sir, you may take the view, well actually I'm sympathetic to that. I think we ought to impose it. If you do
1:53:45
then that will be part of your recommendation. All I can do is make
1:53:50
submissions to you on
1:53:56
whether or not such an approach is necessary, which I've done, and what the implications of imposing
1:54:04
such a requirement would be on outcomes and particularly the
1:54:11
effectiveness of the plan and delivering much neededed development.
1:54:19
Thank you. I'll come back to uh the Whitburn uh community next and then
1:54:26
after I've heard from them, it's probably likely we will take a mid-after afternoon break. So I hear from who
1:54:31
wants to go first, Mr. Latim or Mr. Lavel? Go first. First of all, I'd just like to point out that the the Whitburn
1:54:38
neighborhood plan didn't deal with just one development. It was a neighborhood area. Yes.
1:54:43
Absolutely right. When I say one development, I meant a smaller development area. Yes, it's it's a neighborhood area. It's
1:54:49
just not one development. And I'll give the council the due I met with the lead
1:54:55
of the council of the that department I think about eight years ago. At that
1:55:01
time they said we don't have the resources you know to investigate these matters etc. But I'll give them a due
1:55:08
they've built up a fantastic sort of understanding you know and it isn't as complex as it pointed out in net effect
1:55:15
what the storm overflow assessment says with burn long sea overflow should not
1:55:22
spill any more than 10 spills a year.
1:55:28
So the plan should set out which hasn't been produced yet. How are they going to
1:55:34
achieve that? And as Bob pointed out, there was a previous improvement plan to get the spills down at Whitburn to below
1:55:41
20 in line with the European Court judgment. That hasn't been achieved. It's unlikely. All the departments are
1:55:47
saying it's unlikely to be achieved. And with respect to the investment, the 15.7
1:55:53
million pound, it's got nothing to do with Whitburn. They're giving it to charities.
1:55:59
No overflows have been identified in the 2 million pound investment. It's all pie in the sky. It's all wishful thinking.
1:56:05
Nothing been water has been scrutinized and been found to fail. They
1:56:12
should produce a plan and that plan should say how they going to actually comply with the law. They have to comply
1:56:19
with the law. You know, we're talking about state cases, but that's what uh the judge ruled in that stated case that
1:56:26
no matter what they have to comply with the law, and that's why they can take a different opinion as to whether uh uh
1:56:32
emissions, etc. should overrule that. But that that's the bottom line from the
1:56:38
neighborhood plan. If North Water isn't complying with the law, how can we
1:56:44
proceed with the developments? And that's why I mentioned grabbing conditions because if they have plans
1:56:49
that are sort of concrete plans and they can say we can project that we're going to do this and that and the other and
1:56:54
we're going to get that down and explain how they're going to spend the money because as I said the 15.7 million pounds got nothing to do with Wburn. Uh
1:57:01
how are we going to achieve that then what can we consider but I don't think it's an ownorous duty on the council to
1:57:07
monitor uh what you're going to do how you going to get out 10 spills a year.
1:57:13
Thank you Mr. Latima, I apologize if I've got it wrong, but
1:57:19
I'd like to say to Mr. Shadow Reion that
1:57:24
his submission and his assumptions are wrong is that it's not complex at all. I've
1:57:32
just received from off now uh Northion Waters business plan. The system was
1:57:38
designed to take 35,000 people, 35,000 of the population. We now find they're
1:57:46
putting 53,000 in. I've got a meeting next week with OffWood to discuss that.
1:57:51
Now, that's not complex. That's just bad management. And it the other thing is
1:57:59
that I appreciate what you said about uh Mr. Shadow, but it proves that council
1:58:04
were wrong. And also the 15.7 million if
1:58:09
you want I can email it to you but from offw whatot the letter from offw whatwart not one penny of the 15.7
1:58:16
million goes into the witburn system um the 35,000 to 56,000
1:58:25
is totally wrong. I've just thought of something that in the local plan what it
1:58:31
has to happen is that Witburn has to comply with the urban wastewater treatment directive. That's a must. And
1:58:39
not just Whitburn, the whole sewage infrastructure of South Tide.
1:58:52
Thank you. And just a reminder, the offwatt or the undertaking to the offwatt is on the examination website.
1:58:57
I'll go back to that in terms of the 15.7 million and what it uh what it
1:59:02
means. I think I've had submissions from both sides. We're getting to quarter to
1:59:08
4. I'm afraid I do need a break after an hour and three quarters. Um we'll carry
1:59:13
on the discussion after the break. Is there anything further specifically
1:59:19
about the Whitburn issue and policy 10 that people want to bring to my
1:59:24
attention before I take the afternoon break because I think the matter
1:59:30
whitburn Mr. It's I want to mention which is related but it's related to NWL as well.
1:59:37
Uh but I can mention after the break from your be okay.
1:59:45
Well I'm I'm I'm mindful other people in the room may also want a break. It feels
1:59:50
to me it's getting quite warm in this room this afternoon. Um can I mention one more thing very briefly? M
2:00:03
is built next to my premises and I had a reassurances from North Water what it
2:00:08
would do, how it would do it, how many times it would do it and everything turned out proved to be wrong. And I
2:00:16
approached North Umbian Water and pointed it out. We had a commercial fishing boat. He was picking up sewage
2:00:22
debris in the traps and this that and the other. So we gave up on that and I I was invited to go to the meet the
2:00:29
chairman of North Water and I went and I was really shocked because it was there
2:00:34
was more people there than what is here and at the end I was offered £5,000 to
2:00:40
shut up and I was totally shocked at that and that's what's kept me going but
2:00:45
that was in 1997. Now, North Humbian Water is owned by the
2:00:52
richest man in Hong Kong and uh their sole purpose is profit. Now, just before
2:01:00
Christmas, the we have a bear that Boxing Day dip just before Christmas
2:01:06
that came. You saw the software engineers going into the pumping station. Must have been to try and hold
2:01:12
it back. There they were after the day, Boxing Day. There they are again. Now,
2:01:17
you know, I'm just a member of the public and somehow we've got to get this situation looked into. It isn't just any
2:01:25
good saying um you know we don't we don't agree and this that and the other and the planners
2:01:31
can don't have to do this. The planners have to.
2:01:36
Thank you very point but it was pointed out that North Water
2:01:43
give extensive evidence to save the capacity. I'd like to point out that the environment agency consider North Umbian
2:01:48
water in breach of the permit at both uh Witburn and at Henden. At Witburn,
2:01:53
there's a a compliance assessment uh report still in existence about an illegal connection made and I've just
2:02:01
recently found out from the environment agency that they're not complying with a permanent attendant because they're not
2:02:06
passing forward sufficient uh flows in terms of full flow to treatment. Thank you.
2:02:11
That's outside my window. Thank you. I'm clear on I'm gonna move
2:02:16
to the break shortly. I'm just what I'm going to say by sort of bringing this discussion
2:02:22
point together and then if people are here only for policy 10, you then be
2:02:27
able to leave after or during the break. I've heard the respective submissions. I
2:02:32
understand the council's position. And I'm clear on what um Whitburn community
2:02:38
and others are looking for in terms of the wording of policy 10. I've got the
2:02:44
legal opinion. I've heard from Mr. which I'd arrived in this afternoon in terms of the council's response in terms of
2:02:50
some of the practicalities though I did know it ultimately concluded by if I was to kind of arrive at my own judgment in
2:02:57
terms of what a policy could or could not um include that could be a matter for my post hearings um letter and we'll
2:03:06
move forward on that basis but I'm going to reflect on again what I've heard I did after the stage one hearings there's
2:03:13
a lot of material in front of me I'm not necessarily now looking for any further uh submissions uh and I'll come to view
2:03:21
as part of my uh post uh stage two uh hearing correspondence.
2:03:28
I'm now going to take uh a mid-after afternoon adjournment. It's uh just gone quarter to 4, but unfortunately because
2:03:35
of the business we've still got to get through. I'd like people back in this room at 4:00, please. Thank you.
2:17:21
Okay, it's just gone four o'clock, so I'm going to resume um this hearing session, please. Before we took the
2:17:27
midafter afternoon break, we were on policy 10. I'd heard from uh various representatives from Whitburn who'd made
2:17:36
uh extensive representations on the plan originally and I followed those through this afternoon in terms of what they're
2:17:42
seeking uh in terms by way of changes to policy 10 before I move off policy 10
2:17:49
disposal of foul water. I'm going to move on to policy 11.
2:17:55
Mr. G, you're going to have to help me Mr. green in terms of where your original representations are related to
2:18:02
this policy. We've discussed it at Felgates. Yeah, it's it's okay. So, it's just in
2:18:08
relation to NWL. Uh you know, in in relation to policy 10, I believe that
2:18:13
you know that they've been found guilty. So, until the 5-year plan for NWL is executed, any further bill should be
2:18:20
stopped. Uh and the local plan should be put on hold as to such a time.
2:18:27
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're going on then to
2:18:32
policy 11 which is the final policy under item one. This deals with the
2:18:38
protection of um water quality uh and I'd asked that my MIQ's
2:18:46
uh 916 and 917 uh whether the policy was uh justified
2:18:53
and effective. Firstly, in seeking to sort of maximize opportunities for nature-based solutions,
2:19:01
uh, biodiversity and ecology improvements, uh, and whether part two
2:19:06
of the policy should be qualified, uh, in terms of where it's appropriate and practical to do so.
2:19:24
Thank you sir. We don't believe that uh it requires qualification.
2:19:29
Um part two of the policy seeks to maximize opportunities for nature-based solutions, biodiversity and ecology
2:19:36
improvements. This approach to water quality management is consistent with the
2:19:42
objectives of the European water framework directive which has been transposed into UK law and retained
2:19:51
postrexit. So we feel it's fully consistent with a broader framework.
2:20:04
And then in followup um to that question at uh 917
2:20:11
I'd ask whether policy 11 would be an effective approach to ensuring the appropriate provision of necessary
2:20:17
infrastructure and measures to protect water quality. Uh having regard to particular paragraph 185 of the national
2:20:25
planning policy framework. Again if I can turn to the council for their views on this please.
2:20:30
We consider that policy 11 forms part of an effective approach to ensuring appropriate provision of necessary
2:20:36
infrastructure and measures to protect water quality to ensure that development
2:20:41
proposals consider the likely effects of pollution on health living conditions
2:20:46
and the natural environment. Other relevant policies uh include
2:20:52
policy one promoting healthy communities and policy three pollution.
2:20:58
Um and cross reference to MIQ 9.14 on the latter one.
2:21:04
The water should be discharged in an appropriate way. Water courses are sensitive and discharges can have
2:21:10
harmful impacts. Consequently, part one of the policy
2:21:16
seeks to set out criteria to manage the possible discharge into a water course
2:21:21
by requiring proposals to incorporate appropriate water pollution control measures. And given the importance of
2:21:28
water courses, it's appropriate to make criteria for the impact of discharge
2:21:34
and pollutants potentially entering a water course.
2:21:39
Um, national guidance states when a detailed assessment is needed, the components are likely to include how the
2:21:46
proposed development will affect measures in the river basement management plan to achieve good status
2:21:51
in water bodies to ensure local authorities discharge their duty. to have regard to riverbased management
2:21:58
plans when exercising their duties including making planning decisions. And
2:22:04
this has been reflected in um part one of the policy uh Roman italic
2:22:10
4. Um I've already dealt with the naturebased solutions point.
2:22:18
Um the level one SFRA um states development planning should
2:22:26
always be aware of the requirement to not develop within 8 mters of any water course, flood defense structure or
2:22:32
culvert or within 16 meters on a tidal river which is likely to be a regulated
2:22:38
flood risk activity under schedule 25 of the environment permitting England and Wales regulations 2016.
2:22:46
This is also set out within national guidance and part three of the policy integrates this into the local plan.
2:22:55
National policy states that suds provides benefits for water quantity, water quality, biodiversity and amenity
2:23:03
known as the four pillars of suds. And this has been integrated into the local plan as part four of the policy.
2:23:12
The North Umbrean River Basin Management Plan, which covers South Tinside, states, "Some of the most important
2:23:17
habitats and species are specially protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest
2:23:24
and habitat and habitat sites. Many of these sites are reliant on
2:23:30
having enough and suitable water quality to sustain their special habitats and
2:23:36
species. However, many may have become isolated by and some cases their ecology
2:23:42
damaged or threatened by land and water use and other uses such as invasive
2:23:49
non-native species. These pressures can act directly on the sites or within their wider catchments.
2:23:57
Part five of the policy acknowledges the need to protect dependent sites of special scientific interest and European
2:24:05
sites. Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh Mr. Latimer,
2:24:12
please. That's very interesting to hear that
2:24:19
because we have a special scientific area where we are at Whitburn and
2:24:24
recently um I contacted the environment agency to
2:24:30
inquire about the testing of the water below where I live which is the most
2:24:36
closest to the the outfall and uh they came back and said uh
2:24:41
Whitburn is not a bathing water. of the environment agency tell us not to not up
2:24:47
to them to test the sea water below our premises. Ask the council. So I asked
2:24:53
the council which I got a reply in the 5th of December. We do not have any test
2:24:58
results carried out by the council at the location provided. So it means you've never ever tested it. Now when we
2:25:06
got a discharge, you know, I'm 82 year old. When I was 5 years old, we used to
2:25:11
go and play in the rock pools, which all the lads did, and it was great. The place was alive with shellfish and sea
2:25:19
life and everything. That's what we get today. Now, you know, you're thinking
2:25:25
that's that's adequate. But also, when I look out of me window, that's what I get
2:25:31
on the lampost outside. Muscles and winkles taken from this beach between the 1st of April and 31st
2:25:38
of August may be contaminated and should not be eaten. Uh for further information, contact community services
2:25:45
uh South Tide. So, you know, this has been going on since
2:25:53
1996 when it was commissioned and the council have done nothing and you know,
2:25:58
it's just ruining all the the seashore. People write to me and say, "Where's all the sea life gone? The rock pools are
2:26:05
just dead." And you know, at one time when I was young, you would walk along
2:26:10
there, the water was so clear, you could look down the crabs and the little fish, the seaweed, it's all gone. And so it
2:26:19
doesn't live up to what you're saying. Thank you. I mean in terms of this policy policy 11 the way I was reading
2:26:26
it is that it's largely relating to kind of non-marine
2:26:32
water courses water bodies but should it be read more widely certainly uh the
2:26:39
final part five of the of the policy would also apply to I think Mr. The
2:26:47
Latim is referring to obviously we got the European protected habitats off the coast at Whitburn which will be triple
2:26:54
SIS and beneath the European. Is that where you're referring to? Yeah.
2:27:00
Yeah. But you're right. We don't have any we don't have any marine life. So it's working out well.
2:27:10
Mr. Clifford. Sir, could I come back to you on that one?
2:27:20
Thank you. I will just note for the examination the council did as one of my various action points look at the
2:27:26
habitat regulations assessment. So there is an updates addendum to that document
2:27:32
in relation to this. Mr. Laval engage touching on
2:27:37
paragraph five developmental will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact on water dependent sight of
2:27:44
special scientific interest. How do we know? How can we tell it's not having an
2:27:49
adverse impact? The EA only test between May and September, right? And they tend
2:27:56
to test in my research in fair weather conditions. They don't test after
2:28:01
discharges. Uh there's been some uh shall we say
2:28:06
citizen science done and I've got results here. I'll just touch upon them. I don't particular unless you want me to
2:28:13
send you a copy. I don't particularly want to uh
2:28:19
bother you with this at this time, but we've had some
2:28:24
citizen science done and basically it tells us that there's after 3 months
2:28:30
after discharge, there's still adverse levels of E.coli
2:28:37
spores in the water. Right. And this is a guy, he's a he's a vet. And uh what he
2:28:43
says also and it hasn't been validated and I haven't had a chance to look through his research. He's telling me
2:28:48
that uh when there are discharges he has more clients coming to his surgery for
2:28:55
medication for the dogs who have sickness and diarrhea and I like to that there's a notable case it cutth through
2:29:02
Dean which forms part of South Kide when a dog actually died in North water. I
2:29:07
think they came to some sort of agreement with the owner and paid for the vet bills. But going back to that, I
2:29:13
don't think it's effective enough, sir, in as much as there's nothing no way to measure it.
2:29:20
Thank you. Did the council want to come back on policy 11 or wait? Yeah, I'll come back on it now. Um,
2:29:28
just looking at the uh just to contextualize paragraph five of
2:29:33
the policy. Yeah, just bear with me for a second.
2:29:46
Can you just pass me? So, I'm looking at the supporting text
2:29:52
here and it's paragraph 7.63.
2:30:02
The council will support the aims of the water framement directive to protect and enhance
2:30:08
the quality of the bar surface freshwater areas, rivers, wetlands, groundwater and to achieve good
2:30:14
ecological status in all water bodies including surface, ground and coastal waters and this is important prevent any
2:30:22
deterioration from the current status as echoed in the North Umbrean River Basin
2:30:28
Management Plan.
2:30:38
So it includes circus ground and coastal waters.
2:30:43
Thank you. Is there any further points people wish to make on policy 11?
2:30:49
Mr. Green just uh the point that the council made 9.6 6 the level one SF48
2:30:55
2022 states development planning should always be aware of the requirement to not develop within 8 meters of any water
2:31:02
courses flood defenses structures are culverts uh and I believe that applies
2:31:07
in SP8's case because there is already some flood defenses there s's already in
2:31:12
there and I'm just wondering how the plan relates to that I mean the plan um
2:31:20
I think we're going to end up doing the council's job here but the plan as uh as a document should be read as a whole. So
2:31:26
all the policies in the plan um policy SP8 or any other policy that relates to
2:31:33
specific allocation does not have to repeat other parts of the plan. So if
2:31:38
there's a policy requirement here in say policy 11 or somewhere else, it can it will it's it applies where it's relevant
2:31:45
to to policy SPA. Fair. Okay. I'm going to draw the water uh
2:31:52
element of this afternoon session to a close. Uh again, plenty for me to think
2:31:57
about. Um if people are here just for the water element, you may now go if you so
2:32:05
choose. I'm going to move on to the climate change part of the agenda, which is issue one.
2:32:11
Um it's quarter 4. We're going to see how far we go get, but it may be that
2:32:18
this is an area of discussion that may tip over into another session. I'm just
2:32:24
mindful I started at half nine this morning. I'm going to admit I probably
2:32:29
can't go beyond half five. Uh judge of that what you will about
2:32:35
inspector productivity. Um
2:32:40
I'm pleading on your compassion. Um, so we'll see how far we get. If that's if
2:32:45
that's I assume we I'm going to look at a net in terms of are we potentially okay in this room to about half five.
2:32:52
Does anybody have any particular time constraints or considerations I need to be aware of and would want to be kind of
2:32:58
heard first out of sequence and then allowed to go?
2:33:03
No.
2:33:29
Stay there.
2:34:37
Okay. So, we're continuing under matter seven, but I can't help but notice more people have joined us from the council's
2:34:42
team. Just for the benefit of for myself, other people in the room and for the recording, can the people who've
2:34:49
joined the council's teams perhaps just briefly identify or introduce themselves for the to the room, please?
2:34:55
Okay. Deborah Lamb, operations manager of the spatial planning team, South Tai Council.
2:35:01
Rian Lavick. I'm one of the planning policy officers at South Tai Council.
2:35:06
David Nem, CP viability, undertaking the viability testing for the council. Michael Hazy, senior carbon reduction
2:35:13
and steer for the council. Okay. So, and uh issue one in terms of
2:35:20
meeting the challenge of climate change. Obviously this is a priority for a number of authorities uh across um the
2:35:27
country and national planning policy uh seeks to achieve you know the fast
2:35:32
and um uh the fast and um significant reduction
2:35:40
in carbon emissions. There's obviously a policy framework within the plan um that seeks to um to do this. The strategic
2:35:48
policy is set out at SP um 15 and then is supported by policy five in terms of
2:35:55
reducing um carbon uh consumption and carbon emissions. I think my first
2:36:02
question under my MIQ 9.1 is how these uh what are these plans seeking in terms
2:36:09
of what the plan itself can do in terms of contributing um to climate emission
2:36:15
reductions and is it through the policies is it expecting that developments will meet um
2:36:21
current or future um building regulations which could is likely to include the
2:36:27
future home standard potentially later this year or is the policy expecting
2:36:34
something more so that for de development to exceed um building regulations?
2:36:39
Thank you. Yeah. So um
2:36:45
basically obviously the policy works to kind of battle the conflicting
2:36:51
issues of both protecting the environment of and addressing the challenges of climate change but also
2:36:59
working to meet the growth and housing infrastructure needs that the plan
2:37:04
requires. Um any developments that were compliant with building regulations
2:37:11
would be policy compliant in this case, but the council would be supportive of
2:37:16
any developments that wanted to go further in terms of climate change as well.
2:37:41
Thank you. And when the council saying it's seeking compliance with the building regulations, that's also with
2:37:46
an eye on as I indicated earlier. Things look like they're going to change this
2:37:52
year in terms of the introduc in introduction of the higher uh future
2:37:57
home standard. Yeah. So the council are aware that
2:38:03
building regulations can change quite frequently. So the policy isn't overly prescriptive because of that because it
2:38:09
doesn't want to become sort of out of date too quickly. Um but yes, it has taken into consideration the future home
2:38:16
standard and it's mentioned in the supporting text of the policy.
2:38:22
Thank you. And perhaps a question for Mr. Nem, something I get at many plan examinations.
2:38:28
um what will be the kind of cost implications of future home standards? Is that something that your work has
2:38:37
considered in terms of um construction costs?
2:38:43
Uh yes is the short answer. It has considered it. Um there's two points I want to make around this. So the the
2:38:50
first is that I don't think it it's just a cost. I don't think future home standards is simply a cost that comes
2:38:57
out of the viability appraisals. We've been quite consistent on that. So in P25,
2:39:04
which is the 2021 viability testing, we raised that. We made the comment that
2:39:11
actually in reality when building regulations change and if it's in this instance an improvement in energy
2:39:16
efficiency, which is a benefit to a purchaser, that actually has a value impact on the dwelling. So the first
2:39:23
port of call for a developer is to pass over that cost to the to the house purchaser. So it's not simply just a
2:39:31
case of adding a cost. And you don't have to just trust trust me on that. If you look at the future home standard
2:39:38
impact assessment, which was the government consultation on this from December 2023, they actually discussed
2:39:46
that that principle. um they talk about costs being passed
2:39:52
over by developers to land owners as well as house purchasers. So that's in
2:39:57
in that um publicly available document. Um I'll I'm just trying to scribble
2:40:03
around to find the reference for you to make it easy. I think it's paragraph 6.11
2:40:08
of the future home standard impact assessment from December 2023. So I
2:40:14
think that's worth having a look at. It's useful. um we've we've commented on that in passing in our viability
2:40:20
evidence, but I think that's useful for your general consideration. So that's point one. Point two is about
2:40:28
notwithstanding my concern about this just being a cost. If there is an
2:40:33
element of cost to be factored into the viability testing, what that figure should be. So, just to be clear, in our
2:40:41
2021 initial viability testing, we did make an allowance for the interim
2:40:48
standard at that time, which was £2,500 per dwelling. I must have been feeling pretty pretty kind at that time to
2:40:54
include that. So, we've got we have got a cost in there, notwithstanding my comments in that report to say I don't
2:41:00
think this is just a cost. I've factored it in for the reasons I I discussed this morning and for those of you who who
2:41:07
weren't necessarily in the session, what we have to do in viability testing is to adopt a cautious approach, which is what
2:41:13
we we've done here. So, there was an original allowance of 2500 for the interim standard. In the 2023
2:41:21
testing and the and the subsequent most recent 2025 viability testing,
2:41:27
that allowance is actually higher. It's actually £5,000 per dwelling. So, there
2:41:32
is again a cost in there. Notwithstanding my comments that I'm very skeptical about this just being a
2:41:39
cost to a developer. The sort of supplementary point to make
2:41:45
on that is if you look at the future home standard impact assessment again. So this is the December 2023 which I've
2:41:52
just referred to. Paragraph 6.16 says the cost difference between 2021
2:42:00
standards and future home standards is £4,360
2:42:06
per unit. And it also says that that cost due to economies of scale over time
2:42:11
will come down in the medium to long term. So it's saying that yes, you know,
2:42:18
in theory there's a cost of £4360 per unit. It also talks about how that
2:42:23
cost could be offset through passing that on to the purchaser, but it also says that cost will come down over time
2:42:30
anyway for economies of scale. So long and the short of it is I I think the
2:42:35
approach we've adopted is appropriate. I don't think any additional cost should be factored into the viability modeling.
2:42:43
If I can bring in um from the homebuilders federation then Mr. Martin, I think there were two sort of started from the
2:42:50
perspective of kind of clarity of policy in terms of what the council's seeking because I think that was a theme that
2:42:55
was identified through representations and then I've introduced the issue of viability on this this particular point.
2:43:02
Mr. Martin, thank you sir. Um you'll be aware sir
2:43:08
that the steer from government very much from the written ministerial statement in December 2023 is councils all when
2:43:14
they're doing a local plans ought to be following building regulations so there's a consistency across the country so our members aren't faced with 300
2:43:22
different standards in different different authorities um so there's a good reason behind that and obviously
2:43:27
it's something that the government are intending to bring through with the next iteration of the MPPF which is under
2:43:32
consultation at the moment so there's a clear direction of travel there. Um
2:43:38
where and I'm pleased that the council have said and I know it's in the hearing statement as well that if uh you're
2:43:44
compliant with building regs, you're compliant with this policy, but the policy does seem to go somewhat beyond
2:43:51
what the current building regulations are because it talks about embodied carbon, sustainable materials, use of
2:43:58
material derived from excavation and demolition. These are things that sort of sit outside of of part L. Uh, and I
2:44:07
don't think they should be included. What's more, there's no definitive
2:44:12
guidance in there as to what standard that's being benchmarked against. Um, and if they are included, I can't see
2:44:20
anywhere in the viability that they've been costed in any way. Um it which is a
2:44:27
concern because when and my members when they get to a planning application stage that creates a huge amount of
2:44:32
uncertainty is actually what they're meant to be doing to address that policy.
2:44:37
Um do you want me to go on to the future homes stuff as well? So yeah, I mean the future homes information as as an
2:44:45
organization we work with uh an or an an or another organization called uh future
2:44:51
homes hubs the future homes hub which is an organization which uh is there to aid
2:44:57
the um house building industry to get towards net zero. um they estimated the
2:45:04
costs of moving to future home standards as between I think5 and£10,000 per plot.
2:45:11
I understand Mr. Newan's point there about there may well be some sort of premium attached to a house that meets
2:45:18
future homes standards although or bit it will be a mandatory standard anyway so the differentiation may not be quite
2:45:26
as as stark. There's also some unknown as to whether the cost of future home
2:45:32
standards could be entirely recouped through the price of a house or the um
2:45:39
the the the uh the return for the land owner. Um, especially if you're dealing
2:45:44
in a market like South Tinside, which has areas where viability is really
2:45:49
squeezed, there isn't going to be much opportunity for house builders to increase prices to take into account
2:45:56
those types of costs because there's only so much price increase that a a market will bear um before houses just
2:46:03
become too too unaffordable for for the average person in that in the uh in the
2:46:08
area to be able to afford. Uh I am a little bit surprised that there is no
2:46:14
real assumption for future home standards. I know Mr. New talks about the some of the assumptions he's made
2:46:19
but I think they were for the interim part L standards not the future home
2:46:24
standards which future home standards would be on top of of that. I' I've been in a couple of other examinations
2:46:31
recently, Sheffield and Central Lancasher, and their their um viability
2:46:36
appraisals do assume an amount usually between 5 and 10,000 for uh future homes
2:46:42
standards. Um so I am a little bit surprised given that it's going to be coming in very soon and it will be in
2:46:49
over the plan period. It should be accounted for.
2:46:57
Do you want to respond to that final point Mr. Ne? Ju just very very quickly again um just to
2:47:03
say that Mr. Martin is assuming that's a cost and there's no recovery of value. So that's that's what he was saying in
2:47:08
his 5 to10,000 and just to make the point that in the part L allowance the
2:47:14
interim standard um which was upped in our modeling to £5,000 per dwelling when
2:47:20
you go to what that actually means the original so so it's an uplift of a cost
2:47:28
compared to a base position and this is this is talked about in the future home standards it is in there and the base
2:47:35
position is a gas boiler property with solar panels. That's
2:47:40
that's the base assumption. And then they say, well, my understanding base and I haven't seen the evidence is
2:47:46
referred to at 5 to10 grand. The standard, sorry, the future home standard impact assessment says £4,360
2:47:55
per unit. It's the average increase above a base product that has a gas
2:48:01
boiler. Now, our £5,000 per dwelling allowance, assumed effectively an
2:48:07
airsource heat pump has been put into the property, which I would say is pretty standard now for for new build
2:48:13
housing and has been for a few years. So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is our allowance goes way above and beyond
2:48:20
the interim standard, which was 31% energy efficiency. Future home standard
2:48:26
has talked about 75 to 80% efficiency compared to this gas boiler and solar
2:48:33
panel base position. So that's all I'd say. I think it my my view very strongly is that we've covered this off and if we
2:48:40
add any more costs in I think it's there been it's an unnecessary burden on the viability.
2:48:51
Mr. Martin, very briefly. Yeah, I I I don't dispute Mr. Newm's point about uh
2:48:57
some of that uplift in the cost being recaptured. I'm just skeptical actually how much of it will be recaptured. Um
2:49:05
that's all. Thank you. And can I invite the council to come back on? I think the first point
2:49:10
that Mr. Martin raised in terms of clarity about whether the policy is going beyond current building
2:49:16
regulations um in relation to some of its requirements and whether clarity is
2:49:23
needed in terms of what the council uh will do how it will benchmark that.
2:49:30
Um yeah, so policy 5 in particular does go into a few ways that we would like to
2:49:37
see development sort of really prioritizing sustainable design and carbon reduction measures, but it does
2:49:43
also say that it's as far as possible. Um so you know where it isn't possible
2:49:48
for developers to do so we're happy to kind of listen to that and see what they
2:49:54
have to say but we are actively encouraging developers to incorporate sustainable design
2:50:06
Mr. Martin very briefly and then I hear from others. Yeah, it's just as far as
2:50:11
possible is not really very because that that leads to bas basically I guess a
2:50:16
subjective judgment from whoever the planning officer is dealing with that planning application and I'm worried
2:50:23
about a lack of consistency there in decision- making.
2:50:35
Thank you councelor Herbert next please.
2:50:40
When I looked at the questions you were presented, uh, I decided to look at the the local government association website
2:50:48
and it's got a lot of guidance on there for people to look at and it says
2:50:54
produce a guide that's intended for help planners and politicians to play their full part in tackling climate change.
2:51:02
Now the LGA I think are the experts on all things local government. So it's an
2:51:07
authoritative body passing guidance on to various people within councils
2:51:13
including the likes of myself as a counselor. So they uh have produced several
2:51:20
documents several reports uh and one is uh by the Royal Town Planning Institute.
2:51:27
It's called the climate crisis a guide for LA's local authorities in planning for climate change.
2:51:34
I I'm going to quote a few things from that report. So unlike many other planning
2:51:40
objectives, planning authorities have a legal obligation to consider climate mitigation in plan making. So it's a
2:51:45
higher standard than most planning rules. Local development plans need to show how
2:51:52
reductions within the d their direct control or influence will be achieved in line with national targets. So that's
2:51:59
national targets under the climate change act would show a graduating reduction to net zero over time. So that
2:52:06
the reductions in the local authorities climate reduction carbon reduction should follow that trajectory in my mind
2:52:12
or better. This is emphasized in national policy
2:52:18
planning framework NPF paragraphs 161 162 and footnote 61 which requires plans
2:52:26
to contribute to radical reductions radical which doesn't mean just like
2:52:31
normal in greenhouse gases and take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to
2:52:38
climate. Now, a proactive approach means you lead to me. You don't just say to
2:52:44
developers, well, if you fancy doing it, do it. We'd support you. No, there needs
2:52:49
to be something more positive than that, more proactive. There's also no doubt that carbon
2:52:55
dioxide emissions are a material consideration in planning decision- making. This was given additional clarity in
2:53:02
December 2024 on the update of the NPPF which now states that the need to mitigate and
2:53:09
adapt to climate change should also be considered in preparing and assessing planning applications taking into
2:53:16
account the full range of potential climate change impacts. The full range, not just what might come from the house
2:53:22
to house, the full range of what the planning decision results in.
2:53:29
So it recommends that local planning authorities should adopt the following principles. Ensure that there is comprehensive
2:53:36
relevant evidence based on climate mitigation and carbon implication
2:53:42
implications of development. So it's looking for the the planning department or the council to get evidence in what
2:53:50
their planning decisions might result in. So it could be the amount of carbon that's produced
2:53:58
and effects upon the uh overall bor carbon uh footprint.
2:54:05
Use this evidence to assess options and then develop policies are consistent with achieving carbon reduction targets.
2:54:11
So use that evidence then to look at various options to see which is the most
2:54:17
advantageous as regard climate change. Ensure that requirements placed upon
2:54:23
development are clear on developers are clear and precise wherever possible. So
2:54:29
saying that if you're going to have developers, you need to tell them what you want and needs to be concise.
2:54:39
Evidence should test different spatial development and policy options for their potential to contribute to carbon
2:54:45
emission reductions. This should include a range of policy areas and considerations include
2:54:50
transport. So that's implications of location and travel behavior buildings
2:54:56
both operational and embodied carb energy uh the reducing demand and
2:55:03
decarbonizing supply infrastructure the carbon implications
2:55:08
of infrastructure required necessary to support development and look at naturebased solutions and carbon
2:55:14
sequestration and storage. So
2:55:21
I I recommend a report that Cambridge Greater Cambridge Council commissioned
2:55:28
uh that was a C greater Cambridge net zero carbon evidence base. It's also
2:55:34
included on the local government website. Then they commissioned consultants to
2:55:40
provide a local plan net zero carbon evidence base report.
2:55:45
So they actually came up with policies that recommended uh the following that
2:55:50
all buildings should be net zero carbon. All dwellings should achieve a space
2:55:57
heating demand of 15 to 20 kilowatt hour per meter squared per year. New new
2:56:03
renewable energy should be generated on site at all new developments. Should support zero emission transport.
2:56:13
set requirements for planning proposals to adequately assess carbon impacts to ensure compliance with the overarching
2:56:19
strategy of reduced carbon emissions.
2:56:25
Now in that report they actually looked at different spatial positioning of developments. I looked at uh
2:56:32
intensification of in urban areas, transport uh corridors being used,
2:56:40
green belt on the edge of uh towns, non-green belt area on the edge of
2:56:45
towns, new settlements, village building and looked at how that would affect the
2:56:52
overall carbon production. Found out by far the worst was actually village
2:56:58
uh development. by far and away and the best was intensified areas within
2:57:05
built up urban areas. So this is what the really by just using the building
2:57:12
regulations and just what comes out of a building isn't enough. You got to look at what the transport effects are.
2:57:18
What's embodied in within the the uh the building itself to get the full carbon
2:57:24
uh sum if you like full carbon measures that you need.
2:57:41
So, so I just sorry I just asked that the policy would be reviewed to follow
2:57:47
this guidance. So it's clearly evident that this what is what is best practice
2:57:53
and you're talking about a council that has declared a climate emergency or one has signed up the UK 100 local
2:58:00
authorities which has made a pledge to have zero carbon in their own operations
2:58:06
by 2030 and across the burough zero carbon by 2045. Now, by allowing
2:58:12
buildings to be built, even with the the future home standard, there still will be carbon emissions. So, you're going to
2:58:19
have to retrofit those to if you're going to want down the line get to zero carbon. So, why don't you bring that
2:58:25
forward? Now, they talk about the cost £5,000 to future building standards and
2:58:31
£150,000 house, that's 3.3%. on a mortgage over 25 years. It's not a
2:58:37
great deal of expenditure to a homeowner who will reap the benefits of very much lower heating costs and a much more
2:58:44
healthier environment. Some of the policies that said even you do it don't connect to the gas grid anymore. There
2:58:51
you'll save a standing charge throughout the year because you're not connected to the gas year in year out of 200300.
2:58:59
The government going blowing trumpets about saving £150 a year. So with this
2:59:04
one simple task, one simple action would double what they actually promised home
2:59:09
owners in that place. I think we get a lot of support from from people who want to buy these houses.
2:59:18
Thank you, Mr. Green. Again, I'm struggling to think where your rep where
2:59:24
your representation, but yeah, it's just clarification on a on a point, sir. Uh
2:59:29
you refer to future home standards, you know, or better. uh but you know there's there's a response to one of the the
2:59:36
questions where you know the developer saying given the continuity uncertainty
2:59:41
regarding time scales for the implication of the prop proposed future home standard the wording the policies
2:59:47
SP15 and SN5 should not be amended to include reference to compliance with
2:59:53
this standard now that's worrying because the council saying that you know it has to be complied with and I just
2:59:58
want to clarify that it's because it should be a necessity to at least comply with the future home standard.
3:00:07
Thank you. I mean I think from what I'm hear councelor herbert the point was raised about or we let the
3:00:15
developers decide if they'll do it well none of them are going to do it. The
3:00:20
first one that breaks ranks is going to be not very popular most
3:00:25
developers I think. But if you make a level playing field across a burough where they've all got to do it, then
3:00:31
they're all in the same boat. So we get that consistency then that was been asked for.
3:00:40
I think if I can sort of summarize from councelor Hbert, I think you're seeking higher standards through this plan. Um
3:00:49
then the point about whether you future home standards will uh be mandatory.
3:00:56
I'm fairly clear from the council's position and it's from its policy is it is seeking compliance with the building
3:01:02
regulations. But if a developer or development comes forward that wants to
3:01:09
do something innovative or exceed those standards, it's going to find support
3:01:14
through this policy. But you're not necessarily requiring uh developments to do that. I think Mr. Martin has referred
3:01:21
to already uh the written ministerial statement. I
3:01:28
mean did the council as part of plan making think about um you know whether it could have set higher standards or
3:01:36
was there initial kind of evidence that would indicate that that might be um challenging at
3:01:43
this moment in time either from a viability or a a deliverability perspective.
3:01:51
Um so we have introduced the requirement for a sustainability statement from all
3:01:57
major developments which will hopefully well it will clarify how
3:02:03
sustainability has been considered through the development process. um partic and particularly on the larger
3:02:11
developments where they will have the most significant impacts towards achieving sustainable development and
3:02:17
progress towards the climate change ambitions of the council. Um so and also
3:02:24
the individual policies which relate to the larger developments also do contain their own sort of considerations for for
3:02:32
sustainable design.
3:02:38
Councelor Taylor please. Thank you sir. Um I was wanting to
3:02:44
discuss natural assets in regard to um emission reduction. Is this the point to mention that or would that be further
3:02:51
along?
3:03:05
Okay, thank you. um retention of mature trees, hedge and green belt mitigate climate change as
3:03:13
they are all carbon capturing and storing assets. In a context where national environmental targets are being
3:03:19
missed, policies that allow the loss of carbon capturing sinks are unjustified and unsound.
3:03:26
Permitting such sites that will require carbon storage asset loss and removal is a reactive and regressive approach.
3:03:34
Contrary to the proactive duty set out in the MPPF, destroying these assets for development,
3:03:40
especially where alter alternatives are scarce, worsens climate vulnerability and accelerates biodiversity loss rather
3:03:48
than reversing it. Climate policy and nature recovery frameworks are not about
3:03:53
offsetting loss. They require avoidance first, then mitigation, and only then
3:03:59
compensation. The local nature recovery strategies across Gates said, South Tinside and
3:04:04
Sunderland are intended to restore nature at scale and must guide land use
3:04:09
decisions and not be ignored. The NPPF paragraph 161 states the
3:04:15
planned system should support the transition to net zero, taking full account of all climate impacts.
3:04:22
Replacement planting is not mitigation in the short to medium term and we are in the midst of a climate emergency
3:04:28
where action today needs to happen. We've heard the office of environmental protection have issues concerning
3:04:35
reports about sewage issues. Yesterday the news reported the OA have
3:04:41
given a diamond report on our own government. Legally binding targets regards the environment act 2021 will be
3:04:49
missed for 2030. We should all be alarmed by this. Locally, we here today
3:04:55
can shape a stronger local plan. The climate emergency must be at the heart of every decision. The local plan that
3:05:02
puts forward sites that to be viable will see mature tree and hedge loss is actively undermined and net zero
3:05:08
requirements by the MPPF. How can this plan be found sound when it
3:05:15
permits a removal of existing carbon sequestering infrastructure at a time when the UK is already fall failing to
3:05:22
meet legally binding climate and environmental targets? Imposing impossible national development
3:05:29
demands on this town during a climate emergency risks irreversible harm and
3:05:34
fundamentally undermine society's responsibility to protect the place we live.
3:05:41
I propose a modification, a wording change. Change the wording on site specific
3:05:48
recommendations for developers from should retain existing mature trees to
3:05:53
must retain existing mature trees and hedge if designs feasibly allow or take
3:05:59
out if designs feasibly allow and use unless no viable design layout
3:06:05
alternatives are available. is the current recommendations have had no impact and we've seen this on lots of
3:06:13
sites such as a wholeborn field southside college he colleges lots of areas where the mature trees have been
3:06:19
felled for the designs when I think bit more of um a softer approach to designs could have
3:06:26
retained a lot more of the trees and I think that that's um really vital to help reach them targets. Thank you.
3:06:33
Thank you. I was just trying to get my my bearings. I think I hear it now and I understand there's kind of when you look at climate change it can encompass a
3:06:40
variety of issues. We've obviously got open space natural environment next week uh policy 36. So maybe something we come
3:06:47
back to as part of that that discussion as well but made a note of of that. Just
3:06:53
coming back to um the approach to reducing carbon emissions still on my
3:07:00
MIQ 9.1 u Mr. Martin,
3:07:06
thank you sir. Um, it was a point actually more to do with sorry um 9 sort
3:07:13
of 9.5 9.6. So I can wait until then. I wasn't sure where we were on on the on
3:07:19
the agenda. Sorry. That's okay. In terms of just finally under uh
3:07:27
MIQ 9.1 and policy SP15, the council for its uh hearing statement uh at the end
3:07:35
has said it wishes to kind of add in some additional text around
3:07:40
um the use of good design to specifically reduce reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling
3:07:46
systems. the kind of heat island effect. Um, is it Miss Lavick?
3:07:55
Um, yeah. So, in response to some of the representations that we received during
3:08:00
the Reg 19 consultation, we did feel it was appropriate to add some further
3:08:06
wording that would help encourage the reduction of reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling systems. So we
3:08:14
have proposed a set of texts that would go in the supporting text of the policy.
3:08:25
Thank you. Mr. Martin, is it on this point? It it is sir. Yeah. Um I don't
3:08:30
necessarily quibble that wording. I would query however that things relating
3:08:36
to overheating are covered in part O of the building regulations and I would query as to whether they need to be
3:08:42
replicated in planning policy. Part O as you'll be aware does talk about uh taking into account things like solar
3:08:48
gain and things like that as a first pass to avoid overheating of of uh developments.
3:09:04
Thank you. I mean, it is put forward as part of the supporting text rather than a policy requirement. Does that overcome
3:09:11
your concern, Mr. Martin? Um, I just think it's it's unnecessary,
3:09:16
sir, but it's obviously your your your call.
3:09:31
from MIQ 9.1. Uh the second item under this agenda is
3:09:36
through policy I think it's policy five the council's referring to uh
3:09:43
sustainability um a sustainability statement uh being sought particularly on major
3:09:49
development um proposals that would address a variety of issues. Uh and then
3:09:56
it says at the bottom of the policy at part four where it's not possible to meet these standards
3:10:02
um is the council clear on what those standards are?
3:10:11
Yes. So in our response to the MIQ, we did acknowledge that the wording was a
3:10:17
little bit confusing. Um so we have proposed to delete where it says to demonstrate compelling reasons. um
3:10:25
because it isn't looking to introduce new local standards. It was merely trying to refer to the other points of
3:10:31
the policy that had already been laid out.
3:10:40
I just wonder if part of the issue is the word standards is in itself can kind
3:10:45
of may inadvertently mean other things. We've kind of referred to the future home standards.
3:10:52
There could be other other things and whether they are actually technically standards or
3:10:57
uh other whether it's an an objective to whether
3:11:03
uh a further modification in relation just to the word the use standards whether there's an alternative to try
3:11:09
and provide some um clarity for this policy. Yeah, I think it was something that we had discussed potentially changing it to
3:11:16
say requirements instead that would hopefully then remove that confusion. So I think that is something we'd be happy
3:11:22
to propose as a modification as well.
3:11:29
Thank you. I know there are concerns about sustainability statement and what it's um going to achieve. Mr. Martin,
3:11:38
thank you sir. Um just to say I agree that the use of the word standards is a
3:11:43
bit difficult because it it would indicate there is some sort of document that you're supposed to refer to. So I
3:11:50
think objectives would be something uh we would support on that for for clarity. Albeit I would return to my
3:11:56
point that there isn't it seems to be a rather subjective matter as to whether you pass those
3:12:02
criteria or not. uh rather than saying you have to do X you know it's it it
3:12:09
becomes then I guess discretion of the planning the development management planning officer and my worry is about
3:12:15
the consistency there but I've already raised that point in in terms of sustainable sustainability statement
3:12:23
at the moment the policy requires all major developments to have a sustainability statement I do wonder
3:12:30
whether that's appropriate given that a major development could be a section 73.
3:12:36
It could be a change of use. It could be a piece of infrastructure where a
3:12:41
sustainability statement may not necessarily be appropriate. So I wonder whether the wording on that needs to be
3:12:47
clarified. my submission uh through the hearing statement is actually is the
3:12:53
local plan at all the best place for that and shouldn't it be in the local validation list where the council can be
3:12:59
more specific about which instances it requires a sustainability statement. Um,
3:13:05
I'm a little bit confused that if it's building regulations that we're working to, what a sustainability statement
3:13:12
would actually be telling us because that's mandatory anyway.
3:13:18
Thank you. If I can come back to the council in terms of what it's seeking to achieve through the u the sustainability
3:13:24
statement process, please.
3:13:30
Yeah. So we would be using it as a tool for our um development management officers mainly to be able to see
3:13:37
exactly how the developers um and their proposals are responding to climate
3:13:43
change. We would expect it to be proportional to a scale of development that is proposed. So you know some of
3:13:49
the examples like you said we aren't expecting unnecessary wording to be included.
3:13:56
Um, it's basically we're hoping to ensure that sustainability is being actively
3:14:03
considered throughout the design process and isn't just being left as a last minute sort of add-on. Um, and that we
3:14:10
do believe it could deliver significant impacts towards achieving sustainable development in the burough
3:14:16
and the requirements for the sustainability statement are laid out within the policy as well.
3:14:25
Thank you. And does the council have a view on the alternative that's been put to me as part of this hearing that the
3:14:31
council could address this through the local validation list through your local list requirements.
3:14:52
So it already is part of our local validation requirements, but this would just improve the the quality of them
3:14:59
hopefully.
3:15:06
Thank you. And hear from us, councelor Herbert next, please.
3:15:11
I'm not sure what this statement is going to actually achieve. If you're not benchmarking it against standards, what
3:15:17
you want them to do, they could say, "Oh, well, we could do anything really.
3:15:23
We can have a pond in the front garden." So, really, it needs to have some sort of process to validate it. It can
3:15:31
actually bring about significant impacts on climate change as they're hoping to
3:15:38
do. But that's just a a wish, not not actual trying to achieve something.
3:15:49
Thank you. Is there anything further council wish to add in relation to the sustainability statement issue under my MIQ 9.2?
3:15:57
No, we've covered to some extent my MIQ 9.3. I'd raised the issue around the
3:16:03
future home standard um and how it been considered as part of the viability
3:16:09
work. Uh and I've had various exchanges Um on that is there anything further
3:16:17
people wish to add at this point? Mr. Martin I don't know if this is the right point but I know you've raised uh the issue
3:16:24
about electric vehicle charging. I don't think it's necessary to have a policy on
3:16:30
that given again it's covered by part S of the building regulations and that's what the council should be working to
3:16:49
yes I had raised that myQ 9.6 six u policy five. So we'll come on to that
3:16:57
shortly. Is there anything further on my MIQ 9.3? No. Shake of the head. Um I asked that
3:17:04
MIQ 9.4 it's my um item D on item
3:17:12
two around renewable energy projects and the green belt. I think this has been
3:17:18
stimulated by a particular proposal that people had in mind when they're probably
3:17:23
making representations whether it would be necessary for plan soundness within policy SP15
3:17:29
to include um any additional uh policy content in terms of the uh very special
3:17:36
circumstances uh in relation to uh renewable energy proposals uh would they to come forward
3:17:43
and I thought follow that with my question whe that's just going sail too close to what's already in national
3:17:49
planning. Just repeat what's in national planning policy. It's unnecessary.
3:17:56
The supporting text refers to it anyway. Um and um confirms that
3:18:18
Thank you. And then I see the council's put forward at uh paragraph 9.4 I think
3:18:26
modification um in terms of the supporting text. So I'll look at that in
3:18:32
terms of whether I think it's necessary for soundness, whether it's a clarification that the council or the
3:18:38
plan could do anyway without necessarily being consulted on.
3:18:50
In terms of we've touched upon this briefly, but in terms of alternative approaches, I heard earlier from
3:18:56
councelor Herbert in terms of uh the Green Party submission. And I
3:19:01
think the plan should go further uh and more um rigorously in terms of setting
3:19:08
higher u carbon uh reduction um targets
3:19:14
uh and the council set out its response. I've referred to previously the um the
3:19:20
written ministerial statement um which provides a degree of caution
3:19:25
around doing that. It doesn't necessarily mean it's not it's not permissible, but there are certain high
3:19:32
thresholds to kind of go through uh in terms of setting that policy.
3:19:42
Councelor Herbert, was there anything further you wanted to add in relation to it was my MIQ 9.5
3:20:04
Right. Also produced by the local government association is a
3:20:10
document produced by the Royal Town Plit and the town and county planning
3:20:17
association and it talks about this written parliamentary statement
3:20:24
and a bit of detail. So it's quite a bit of stuff written about it.
3:20:35
So they say that the the legal duty to on planning and climate schedule 7 in
3:20:43
bracket 15C of the leveling up and regeneration act 2023 amends a planning
3:20:49
and compulsory purchase act 2004 provides that the local plan must be
3:20:54
designed to secure that the use and development of land in the local planning authority area contribute to
3:21:00
the mitigation resolve and adaption of climate change.
3:21:07
The planning and energy act 2008 which provides powers for local authorities to
3:21:13
require a proportion of the energy need to new development to be sourced in the locality of the development through
3:21:20
renewable or low carbon generation. It also sets out powers for local planning authorities to set energy efficient
3:21:26
standards that exceed the energy requirements of the building regulations.
3:21:31
There's talks about schedule 7 also of the leveling up and regeneration
3:21:37
act 2023 which amends section 19 of the planning
3:21:43
compulsive purchase act contains a duty on plan making to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
3:21:49
Now it talks about a core case that was brought uh regarding the written statement
3:21:56
uh which said the appellance says it sought to unfully restrict the powers given to local authorities by the
3:22:03
planning and energy act. However, the court of appeal dismissed the claim and maintained that the written statement
3:22:11
represents a sound interpretation of legislation by setting the parameters under which the government expects the
3:22:17
legislation to be applied. Namely, that local planning act is able
3:22:22
to set local standards up to the level of the draft future standard
3:22:30
and at the time of writers, you know, was a was a subject of a challenge at the Supreme Court. I don't know if that's been decided yet.
3:22:38
The Leveling Up and Regeneration Act through amending section 19 of the
3:22:44
Planning Composed Purchase Act places a duty on local authorities to ensure the development plan is designed to secure
3:22:50
that use and development of land in the local planning authority area contribute to the mitigation adaption of climate
3:22:57
change. This duty on plan making should be interpreted as ensuring the plan aligns
3:23:03
with the carbon budget set through the climate legislation. So it's saying it must follow that trajectory set out in
3:23:10
the climate change act. Says there are important policy levers
3:23:16
in the MPPF that justify net zero uh building policies including paragraph
3:23:22
161 which states that the planning system should support transition to net zero by 2050 and contribute to radical
3:23:30
reductions as I said before on greenhouse gas emissions. Now the court of appeals has acknowledged that the
3:23:36
written statement must therefore be understood only as material consideration for plan making which does
3:23:42
not override the legal obligation on planning authorities to address climate change. It cannot be interpreted as an
3:23:48
absolute direction on the way the global policies must be expressed if evidence
3:23:53
demonstrates and justifies a better approach. I think the climate crisis we're in now actually demonstrates we
3:24:01
must be taking better approaches to achieve zero carbon
3:24:06
and it talks about legal opinion that was obtained from Alex Shatch and
3:24:12
landmark cham of landmark chambers to explain how the judgment impacts on the preparation of policies to in developing
3:24:19
plan documents that seek to impose standards that exceed the requirements of the building regulations and or the
3:24:26
draft future home standard. In this opinion, he stated that in summary, my
3:24:31
advice is that notwithstanding the firm wording in the national policy, there's nothing in law that prevents local
3:24:36
authorities from going beyond current or planning planned building regulations,
3:24:42
development plan documents or adopting different energy efficiency metrics to those set out in the national policy. So
3:24:49
I say they can actually adopt their own policies and the com court of appeal hopefully
3:24:55
confirmed as much later on.
3:25:02
This interpretation of the of the minister's written statement is
3:25:07
consistent with recent examination of the salt cross area action plan in west office Oxfordshire and the Winchester
3:25:15
district local plan where the inspectors found that the net zero carbon development policies although not
3:25:20
aligned with the written statement could be found
3:25:25
sound in the context of policy and legislative requirements to support the transition to net zero In line with the
3:25:32
climate change act 2008, planning authorities should therefore
3:25:38
continue to develop policy based on robust carbon literate evidence.
3:25:43
If this evidence justifies a diversion from the policy referred to in the written statement, there is space for
3:25:49
local authorities to do this if their position is justified by the evidence. In addition, the 2023 statement has been
3:25:59
interpreted by the court as being an interim policy intended to bridge the gap before the future home standard
3:26:04
comes into force. Good practice for plan making. Despite
3:26:12
the challenging policy context outlined above, there is still policy opportunities for local planning
3:26:17
authorities to set high standards for new buildings reduce their operation
3:26:22
operational carbon emissions. These sit broadly under three categories. Those are not local. It set to set targets for
3:26:29
energy based metrics to achieve net zero emissions set absolutely absolute energy
3:26:35
metrics expressed as energy use intensity and space heating and demand for new
3:26:41
buildings. So they can actually set these standards
3:26:46
and you don't that witness statement doesn't prevent them from doing so. and who says where circumstances would
3:26:53
support that or the circumstances here. We've got a a council has pledged
3:26:59
pledged to reach zero carbon across the burough by 20 2045
3:27:06
and there are bringing in policies that are not going to achieve that pledge. So
3:27:11
I think that's not very good. Thank you. Thank you. I think that I think follows
3:27:17
on councelor herbert from what you're saying earlier in terms of seeking the modification for the the plan to contain
3:27:23
um more uh an alternative approach to um to um
3:27:29
seeking net net zero um developments. I hear briefly from Mr. Martin I think on
3:27:35
this point please. Thank you sir. Um the house building
3:27:40
industry generally is trying to move towards net zero. Um the reason why
3:27:46
we're going with the written ministerial statement is it provides a consistency and a clear path towards net zero
3:27:53
through um the government's aim to get there by 2050. Um my worry is that you
3:28:00
end up if each local planning authority can set their own standards, you end up just with a patchwork of different
3:28:06
standards, people going at different paces and it really affects delivery of
3:28:11
housing because it makes it much more expensive to deliver housing because you might end up having to build a certain
3:28:17
standard somewhere and then a completely different standard elsewhere. it the the
3:28:22
prime ministerial statement is important for that consistency point and uh as
3:28:28
things ramp up towards a net zero. So I don't disagree with councelor Herbert's point that it's important that the local
3:28:35
plan addresses climate change but it needs to be done in a coordinated a rational sort of way. uh and that's why
3:28:43
we would strongly urge um to adhere to the written ministerial statement and what the minister said that it's also
3:28:49
worth highlighting again uh that is going to become stronger more likely through the MPPPF that's out for
3:28:56
consultation now where the government is very clear you should be sticking to national standards I know limited weight
3:29:02
could be given to that document at this time but it does show a clear direction of travel and a clear intention from the
3:29:07
government on that thank you um
3:29:13
mindful of time but is it a brief point councelor Herbert just to say that things are evolving
3:29:19
nice and slowly and nice pace but recently there's been a national
3:29:24
briefing by several experts across several areas scientists defense people
3:29:31
telling us that time is running out rapidly to do things and if you drag
3:29:37
your feet in the long term all of us are going to pay dearly. So homeowners are
3:29:44
going to find their pain dearly as well because the catastrophic effects on
3:29:49
society, economy, people's lives, food, weather, you name it. It's going to have
3:29:56
drastic effects. And their warning is to us to act quickly. And here's a chance for local authority with other local
3:30:02
authorities are doing this to do the follow their example and do the right thing.
3:30:07
Yeah. Here. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to move on. Um in terms of the um agenda, it's still
3:30:15
on the issue of climate change. U Mr. Martin referred earlier to building regulations and electrical vehicle
3:30:22
charging points. My reading of policy five is this wasn't something that was necessarily picked up by the policy
3:30:29
uh as submitted. Obviously, building regulations um have uh picked up this issue. Um so
3:30:38
therefore invite the council is any change further change needed to policy
3:30:43
five in relation to electric vehicle charging points now that all is it all new housing needs
3:30:50
to provide provide them anyway. Yeah. So, we would agree that obviously
3:30:58
part S, which became valid in June 2022, does mean that EV charging points
3:31:05
um are now required um and that this point isn't necessary for policy 5 to be
3:31:11
deemed sound.
3:31:17
So, recharge points standard in every house. It's uh it's been part of the building regulations for is it about two
3:31:24
or three years now. Yeah. I'm going to move on see how far we can
3:31:30
get. We may may not get beyond this next question. Uh policy five also refers to development meeting the highest national
3:31:36
standard for water efficiency. Um there are obviously optional tech technical
3:31:41
standards around the amount of water um consumed. And my question to the council
3:31:47
at MIQ 9.7 is when it refers to that highest national standard is that the
3:31:54
excuse me the optional standard of 110 lers per person per day and is there the
3:32:00
evidence particularly is South Tide a water stressed area that justifies the
3:32:05
introduction of that optional standard? Yeah, just to to confirm that serve time
3:32:11
side is not an area of water stress and not recognized by the environment agency as being so um the the policy basically
3:32:19
does sort of set up well it is intended that the water efficiency standards that
3:32:24
are meant by the policy are the building regulations. Um so it would be the um
3:32:30
optional um 110 um LPPPD that would be supported if the one if a develop
3:32:37
proposal wanted to um to move to the the highest national standards.
3:32:50
Thank you. Just to clarify with the council when I look at part one of the policy. So this is something you are
3:32:57
um you are seeking through. I mean it says where applicable it will be incorporated as part of the sustainable
3:33:03
design and construction practices. So it's not it's not a case that development would meet the policy if it
3:33:10
was providing building regulations. It's got to go further and if it doesn't it's
3:33:15
going to be in conflict with policy. No, I think the intention is very much
3:33:22
as our approach is to climate change in general in terms of the carbon reduction where if it's in line with building
3:33:27
standards then it would be considered to be in line with the policy. Um I think that statement also links to the the
3:33:35
sustainability um statement where states that water management is one of the um
3:33:41
factors that should be included within the sustainability statement. sort of does give that option for should a
3:33:46
development want to have that optional standard it can be demonstrated through that um but I think we have sort of set
3:33:52
out within our um MIQ response as well that linking back to the stage one hearings and the discussions that we've
3:33:59
heard earlier today in terms of sewage network and management that an optional standard of the the higher
3:34:05
level may be beneficial in terms of impacts on the network capacity across the burough
3:34:13
Thank you, Mr. Martin, please. Thank you, sir. Um, I'm a little bit
3:34:20
confused about this. So, my understanding is part G of the building regulations, the the national standard
3:34:26
is 125 L per person per day. The optional standard is 110 L per person
3:34:34
per day. If you if a local planning authority wants to move to that enhanced
3:34:40
standard, the PPG is very clear on what you need to be able to what you what you have to demonstrate as a local plan
3:34:47
examination in order to move to that standard and that is evidence of need
3:34:52
and that is whether the aerializing area of water stress which has already been
3:34:58
confirmed it doesn't whether there's any water resource management plans produced by water companies which would indicate
3:35:04
a need to move to that 110 liter per person per day standard which there isn't or there's a river basin
3:35:12
management plan again which would flag the need for that that uh more stringent standard which there isn't. So there is
3:35:19
no evidence there that there is a requirement to move to that optional standard. Uh I can't see any evidence in
3:35:26
the council's evidence base that would address the PPG criteria. Furthermore, there's also requirement to take into
3:35:32
account the viability of doing this. And I can't see in the viability assessment that that's been taken into account
3:35:38
either. I think the viability assessment assumes just in line with building
3:35:43
regulations at 125 L per person per day. Thank you. So can I just clarify with the pol the
3:35:50
council when looking at policy five criterion one development of various
3:35:55
various kind of types shall where applicable incorporate sustainable design and construction practices
3:36:01
including we go through them water efficiency that meets the highest national standard. So just being clear
3:36:08
with the council you are seeking 110 lers per person per day from new developments.
3:36:14
No, it's the 125 liters per day. That's what we is the baseline. If the if a
3:36:21
development proposal wanted to go further than that, then that would be supportive of of that.
3:36:36
But is part one of the policy meant to be read as kind of encouraging those
3:36:41
things rather than it shall include or incorporate those things where applicable.
3:36:52
I think because we said we're not in a water stressed area the the requirement
3:36:58
to to go to that um higher level as I said in MPG is not set out. So therefore
3:37:04
we've sort of left it flexible in terms of how that's applied.
3:37:10
I think my way forward on this is I appreciate the council may want a flexible approach, but can I push it
3:37:16
back to the council that this is an area that may need clarification in terms of what what it's seeking. If
3:37:23
this the starting point is is building rags 125 liters per day, obviously it doesn't
3:37:29
need to be a policy requirement around that. I think if it's in a case of we'll support and encourage developments that
3:37:35
go further. I think there needs to be something clearer within that policy if that's the intention. And then
3:37:44
are there anything further on the optional um water standards?
3:37:50
No. Okay. Well, I'm afraid it's come to just gone 20 5. I'm at a point now where
3:37:58
I think my ability to sensibly absorb more information and evidence is kind of
3:38:04
reached its limit. Um so I'm going to draw today's discussion to its
3:38:10
conclusion. We still have issues to discuss under this item and I'll leaz
3:38:15
with uh Annette the program officer. Now, I'm obviously in this building uh
3:38:22
tomorrow and Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
3:38:27
Um I think looking at the program, it's probably unlikely that we'll find time
3:38:33
tomorrow to pick up some of these issues. So, I'm looking probably at
3:38:38
Tuesday next week or failing that as part of
3:38:44
Wednesday. Does anybody who's still got something to say on this matter
3:38:50
nine discussion know of any kind of availability or issues I need to be
3:38:55
aware of for participation next week.
3:39:06
Okay. Well, I'll sort something through the program office and we'll let people know where we can kind of conclude this
3:39:11
um discussion. Thank you. Okay, I'll draw today's session um to its conclusion. Uh thank
3:39:18
you everybody for your contributions. We'll be reconvening back in this room at half past 9 tomorrow for a sub
3:39:25
further session on fellgates in the morning and housing land supply in the
3:39:30
afternoon. Thank you. Thank you.