15:09
Okay, good morning everybody. It's now half past 9, so it is time to open today's
15:16
hearing session into the examination of the South Tinside local plan. Um, my
15:22
name is David Spencer. I'm the planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent
15:27
examination of the plan. Can I just check? Can everybody hear me okay this morning? Yeah, good. We've got speakers
15:33
in the room. Um, can I please uh ensure ask people to ensure that mobile phones are switched off please or on their um
15:41
silent settings
15:47
and can I ask at this stage for the council to advise just on the general um
15:53
housekeeping arrangements for the for the venue please? Thank you sir. Good morning everybody.
16:00
We're not expecting any fire alarms. So if there is an alarm,
16:07
could you please make your way to the nearest fire exit and then to the far side of the hotel
16:13
car park? Toilets uh are in the corridor outside
16:19
this room located towards reception.
16:25
Please note there are cables taped to the floor around the room. So please be
16:30
careful when moving around. If you have a car in the hotel car park,
16:37
please ensure that you have entered your registration number in the devices at
16:43
the hotel reception. Thank you.
16:49
Thank you um for that. Now these sessions are being recorded um for those
16:54
who are unable to attend today or wish to just generally observe the proceedings. Um so when we start the
17:01
kind of the discussion in the hearings I'll invite people who are seated around the table to please use microphones so
17:06
that um that can be picked up as part of the recording. These are meetings, hearings that are held in public, but
17:13
I'm only going to be hearing from those who are seated around the table who've expressed uh their right um to be heard
17:19
on the particular uh matters that are uh before me. uh in terms of these hearing
17:26
formats, they are intended to be uh a structured but reasonably informal kind
17:32
of discussion based on agendas that I've previously um circulated that go back to my matters, issues and questions which
17:40
are based on the evidence before me and people's original representations on the plan made back uh two almost two years
17:48
ago now um January to March 2024 uh and on any further the statements
17:54
that you've provided into the uh examination process.
17:59
Can I just check is anybody here from the local press please? Thank you. Can
18:05
you just ask you to identify yourself again for me please?
18:20
Thank you. And then just a final reminder from me that if you have any queries about the examination process or
18:26
need any assistance in terms of finding material or document, I am supported by the independent program officer Annette
18:32
Feny to my left. Annette's based here in this building whilst we're sitting. So please make contact if you need
18:39
something or otherwise her details are on the examination um website if you need to uh need to get in touch.
18:47
Okay, we've got a reasonable amount of material to kind of get through today. Um, kind of slightly lost our way
18:53
yesterday, so we've got some uh time to make up at uh later on in the um the
18:58
examination process. I think what I'd just like to impress on people is this obviously is a discussion. It's a right
19:04
to be heard. That's that's people's legal right if you've made representations on the plan. I'd invite
19:10
people to be concise in what they want to put forward to me. And as I indicated at previous sessions, what I'm really
19:18
keen to understand is what change um people would want to see made to the
19:23
plan uh in order for it to be to be sound and why that should be um considered the case. If people have made
19:30
a particular point that um uh repeats or is the same as the point
19:37
you were going to make, then it doesn't need to be repeated. just simply say I agree with X whoever said that
19:43
particular um point. As I say, I've got everybody's statements and original representations um before me. With that
19:50
in mind, I'm looking in terms of time budget for today to give about an hour and a half to two hours for Felgate for
19:57
the three items that we've got which will take us through to the midm morning adjournment or shortly thereafter.
20:04
Um and then we'll see where we are. I I'm afraid I have generated some
20:10
confusion between my program and my agenda. So there may be some people here
20:17
in the audience waiting to participate in the wider housing land supply discussion. We'll see where we get to
20:24
and I'll take us a view and lay with a net probably around the midm morning of German as to who's here for that
20:30
discussion and to what degree we can accommodate some of that before lunch and then what we can pick up um after
20:37
lunch. As indicated earlier, it's a right to be heard. It's not a right to be part of a wider uh chat or
20:43
discussion. So if there are people who turn up later and I need to just go back over their points, I can do that at the
20:50
start of the afternoon um session. keen keen to make progress.
20:58
We now move into matter seven uh and it's the uh the uh first issue for this
21:04
uh for this morning's session and it is uh on the uh fellgate proposal policy
21:10
SP8 of the submitted plan. As I indicated, these sessions are being recorded. So, I think for the benefit of
21:17
myself in the room and for those who will be watching um the recordings, if I
21:22
if I could ask participants to introduce themselves um using the microphone
21:28
and if I could start first with the council's team to my right and then
21:34
we'll move round the table. So, good morning. My name is Paul
21:39
Sherevian, Kings Council, acting for the council.
21:45
My name is Matt Clifford. I'm a senior planning policy officer.
21:50
Good morning, sir. My name is Trevor Mill. I'm service lead for strategic transport at the council.
21:56
Good morning. My name is James Quigley from Cyra. I supported the council in the preparation of the transport
22:01
evidence base. Good morning. My name is James Finch
22:07
representing National Highways. I'm Vanessa Egleston from I transport
22:12
representing Labric Hall Farm who are uh the promoters of the Felgate site.
22:20
Sorry sir. Gerald Dean Kilgal local authority counselor for the Falgate and Headworth ward.
22:26
Good morning sir. Dave Green representative for the Save the Felgate Green Bill working group
22:32
and for this session will it mainly be yourself Mr. green because I know there's been other statements from other
22:39
people. So I don't know if you're going to bring in Yeah. And I know we've got some hearings from Mr. Taylor, Lawrence Taylor, but
22:44
there'll be also one person hot seat and it'll be Brian Brian Pierce and he is down as one of our representatives.
22:50
Thank you. Okay. So in terms of this discussion uh just to set some um uh parameters
22:59
obviously we had uh a full day on Felgate back in July as part of the
23:05
matter one uh hearing sessions. Um so I'm not looking to go back over any of
23:11
that discussion and if we stray into it I'm going to um step in and bring that
23:17
to a conclusion. This morning's session is really to pick up three particular
23:22
matters. They're identified through my MIQs uh and uh through the agenda. Uh and the
23:29
issues effectively are uh I think a recognition that when we had the full day discussion back in July,
23:37
there probably wasn't sufficient uh time or attention given to kind of potential health issues. Um so we'll pick that up
23:44
as part of um item two and I'd allow issued two further questions for people to respond to and provide further
23:50
information on that. Um because there is a particular theme as I read through the
23:56
representations from the Falgate community particularly around air quality. I appreciate there may be other
24:01
issues but air quality was a particular matter that have been identified.
24:06
Before we do that, uh as part of the stage one hearings, a couple of further action points have been identified uh
24:13
for further um uh work uh and evidence. The first was around uh potential uh
24:21
interventions uh and uh works at the Whiteare Pool uh
24:26
interchange. Uh I appreciate this is a burrowwide issue, but it has particular
24:32
obviously proximity and relevance to Felgate and can't overlook. Felgate is the single largest um site in the plan.
24:41
So, we're going to come and look at that additional evidence. And finally, as part of the discussion this morning on
24:46
Felgate, u there was further uh work that asked the council to do in terms of
24:52
what's going to be the likely time frame for a supplementary uh planning document
24:58
um for Felgate. And just more generally, as people may have seen from my stage one uh letter, um
25:07
I felt that if this site is to remain in the plan, uh earliest delivery would be
25:13
likely or in terms of a forecast 2030 to 31. Um and I think just to come back to
25:21
that uh before we have the wider um discussion this afternoon on housing
25:26
land supply. So thank everybody for their further statements and submissions
25:32
in relation to um the Felgate site. So please bear those kind of guidelines in
25:38
mind as we have this discussion. So I'd like to turn to my first item uh in relation to highways. It was
25:45
picked up in my masses and issues question 7.31. If people will recall from the stage one
25:51
discussion, I think when the plan was being prepared, um the uh approach
25:59
um to the White Pool um junction I think I would describe as an everything all at
26:05
once um kind of approach that would result in I think about a 40 million pound program of works um including
26:14
replacement bridges. at the stage one hearings. I think there's starting to
26:20
kind of get the evidence that maybe there is an incremental sequenced approach um to um that
26:27
junction. But I think uh Mr. Finch from National Highways said this is something
26:33
we can we can look at, but we need further information and assurance that if we go down that route, it's not going
26:40
to have a severe impact on your network. um and um just understanding whether
26:47
that then generates any sort of further changes um to the plan uh by way of kind
26:52
of main modifications. I've read the statement of common ground between national highways and the
26:58
council that section 4 clearly sets out kind of the approach that could be taken
27:05
not just at White Marool. We'll also touch upon briefly what may mean for the A19 at Lindesvan.
27:13
Um and then obviously the implications that may have around overall um
27:19
deliverability uh in terms of what could happen uh through that phased uh phased uh
27:27
approach. I appreciate from others at the table uh I appreciate Mr. Green, you've provided a statement in response
27:33
to this with a very detailed appendix I think in terms of setting out your concerns that
27:39
you know the highway network particularly if I call it the lean lane mill lane roundabout junction the A194
27:46
is is so we'll we'll we'll come back we'll come through to that but if I can
27:51
first perhaps invite the council whether it's through the council or through Mr. Quigley in terms of the additional work
27:57
that's been undertaken then just like to hear from Mr. Finch in terms of where you obviously national highways are in
28:04
um agreement on that then turn to Miss Egleston from uh Lavick Hall Farms in
28:11
terms of your view on terms of the additional work that's been undertaken and then I'll hear from Mr. Green then
28:17
councelor Kur and if there's anything that arises from that I'll come back to the council uh and Mr. Finch. So if I
28:24
can turn to the council first please.
28:35
So, as you rightly say, there's been additional work undertaken. Just to briefly recap and set the context, the
28:42
White Mar threshold testing report um
28:48
identified that the White Pool scheme could be delivered incrementally. The White Mar scheme has four component
28:55
parts. widening at east arm, widening at north arm, northbound lane gain, lane
29:01
drop from falling speed junction and widening of the circulatory carriageway including replacing the over bridges.
29:10
The study identified the threshold i.e. the level of local plan demand that would trigger the need for delivery of
29:17
each of the component parts and guided by the local plan housing trajectory the year which anticipated
29:25
this threshold would be reached and the study also ident attributed a
29:31
cost to each of the incremental improvements.
29:36
Then we have the trip generation methodology technical note um which
29:43
sought to review the trip rates used in the original testing in light of
29:48
postcoid behavior and recent policy changes to a visionled approach.
29:56
The note concluded that the original work which was conducted using the same trip
30:02
rates as the original study which was undertaken by national highways and South Tinside Council was overly robust
30:11
and that outturn trip regeneration is lo likely to be lower by 18% in the morning
30:17
peak and 20% in the evening peak. So we then moved on to applying
30:28
the vision-led approach to the SRN
30:33
mitigation trigger points. So this study revisited the threshold testing results
30:40
in the light of visionled trip rates identified in the trip generation
30:45
methodology. Note with the reduced trip rates more
30:51
development can be b built out before the same number of trips would be generated.
30:59
The study also demonstrated that the delivery of the A19
31:07
lane gain lane drop scheme is not required within the plan period.
31:13
And in terms of the acceptability of the incremental phased approach, it's
31:18
evidence-led and the council has worked in
31:24
partnership with national highways throughout the local plan process when developing its evidence base with
31:30
regards to the impact of the local plan on the strategic road network.
31:36
The position of national highways as stated verbally at the stage one public hearings
31:42
was that they agreed with the principle of the incremental approach to the delivery of the white map pool
31:48
scheme and also to the principle of applying a vision-led approach
31:55
subject to review in the detail regarding the application of visionled
32:01
trip rates. The context for this is provided by transport circular 01
32:10
2022 strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable transport.
32:18
So the principle is embedded within national policy.
32:25
National Highways have reviewed the evidence and as set out at appendix one of the
32:32
council's response to the inspector's action point 12
32:38
they've stated that they support the adoption of a vision-led approach. I
32:43
won't read out the full bearing in mind concise.
32:49
So they required four action additional action points to be reviewed by the council.
32:56
Again, I won't read out the action points, but National Highways has further reviewed the evidence following
33:03
the council's response and in correspondence dated 8th of
33:09
September 2025, National Highway summarized the proposed amendments to mitigation at the junction
33:19
from the existing IDP and what they consider um is consistent with
33:27
the council's preferred sequencing of improvements.
33:39
I think that's a good Thank you, sir.
33:44
Thank you. Now, obviously that information was provided in response to action point 12. So, it's in the
33:49
examination. Um Mr. Finch from the National Highways
33:55
perspective in terms of the additional work that's been undertaken in terms of its robustness and then be interested to
34:02
know if ultimately it it kind of generates any kind of potential further changes to the plan.
34:09
So um firstly I'd like to agree with everything that the council have said. We're in agreement and as pointed out we
34:16
signed a joint position statement back in September. uh robust modeling has been undertaken by the council sorry by
34:23
the council so we are and which we have reviewed and we are confident the scheme
34:29
has been slightly reduced the numbers were reduced as Mr. Clifford pointed out with regard to the visionled approach in
34:35
line with the current circular. Therefore, there's three stroke force schemes that need to come forward for
34:42
the local plan that have been agreed with the council. Now, we can't say
34:47
exactly when they're going to come forward because that's subject to scale and location of development as it comes forward. So, it might trigger the scheme
34:54
on the westbound approach or it might trigger the scheme on the southbound approach depending where that site is.
35:00
However, we would not expect to pick that up at this stage. That would be part of a detailed transport assessment
35:06
supporting any planning application that was to come forward. Saying that, National Highways are
35:13
confident that we have three four schemes that will show that
35:19
there is not a severe impact on the strategic road network.
35:28
And just to assist my understanding, Mr. Finch, in terms of the additional work that's been undertaken uh in relation to
35:35
White Mar, can you assist me in in terms of understanding the relationship to why
35:42
it's now the case that the Lindesvan lane gain lane drop on the A19
35:49
would now no longer be required. So in our original statement we said
35:54
that the Linda's vine lane gain lane drop was required towards the end of the plan period that was um a requirement
36:02
because of the amount of traffic obviously that was coming forward as development. However as we have now come
36:08
the original numbers were very very robust. This was always something pointed out by national highways with
36:13
regard to trip generation. It has actually now pushed the requirement for that into the next plan period for the
36:19
lane gain lane drop. However, the schemes of White Mar are required within this plan period.
37:15
Thank you. We're just having another participant join um this discussion. Um
37:22
I'll allow him to to introduce himself. Uh I understand you're on
37:28
behalf of the church commissioners. Lass thank you very um apologies for
37:34
joining through the session. Um just a bit of confusion on the agenda. Um Josh Dickinson representing um the church
37:40
commissioners.
37:49
Thank you. I think Mr. Dickinson, you were here when I was s doing the introduc introductory and follow the the
37:55
kind of the the the way we're going to do this discussion. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh just while I've got Mr. Finch in
38:03
in in the room and to understand National Highway's um position. I've read the statement of common ground so I
38:09
understand what's agreed between you and um the authority um in terms of further
38:15
responding um to the examination process. Um National Highways indicated
38:23
that there may need to be modifications to the plan um in potentially in light
38:29
of this. I mean there are various things that are going to uh we've previously discussed in relation to this this
38:36
particular uh allocation. One of the proposed changes that I have
38:41
before me is to add into the policy around um consideration to um improve
38:48
precise wording uh evades me at this moment. uh it's something along the lines of
38:54
um considering kind of uh contribution contributing to the provision of a high
39:00
quality um bus service. I'm just mindful of we're talking about a visionled approach. Uh and to some
39:08
people in the room that might seem a very sort of high level what does that mean and what could it potentially look
39:13
like? Does there need to be something specifically within the policy that says for this site
39:20
there will be a vision approach and it would look like so um for circular 01
39:26
that was mentioned earlier um we will be looking to see a um not only high
39:32
quality bus routes but walking, wheeling, cycling coming forward to reduce the numbers of um trips to uh to
39:39
and from any site, carborne trips from any site. Um we would want to make sure
39:45
that we are comfortable that um they can offer uh enough
39:53
public services, walking and cycling to reduce those numbers to make sure we're
39:58
happy with it. However, I probably see that being picked up as part of a detailed transport assessment as the
40:03
planning application comes forward. It's um very difficult at this stage to do it
40:12
specifically for the site till we have specific site details but we would just want to make sure that we challenge the
40:18
local authority to deliver a high quality bush route. Thank you. Just stay with you stay with
40:25
you Mr. Finch just two more questions and then I'm going to move move on. might be pleased to hear um the policy
40:31
itself for Felgate uh SP8 says it's going to uh one of the um requirements
40:37
is to embed sustainable and active travel options to reduce the dominance of car traffic and improve overall
40:43
impermanability. Can I just with the national highways is there any need as part of that to make
40:50
an explicit reference as part of a quote visionled approach there being a need to
40:56
embed I think as part of the joint statement
41:01
we've accepted that the council are heading towards a visionled approach when we are looking at reducing the need
41:08
to travel especially by car. Then finally through the U National
41:14
Highways statement of common ground, I think you want the White Mar pool junction um specifically identified on
41:21
the policies map because I appreciate we're talking about it in the context of Felgate, but my understanding is other
41:26
developments will also be expected to contribute to those improvements and I think that's already taking place where
41:33
developments are being approved in the burough.
41:40
So as as my statement earlier say subject to scale and location we will be
41:46
looking at um any application that affects white may pull to either have the improvements in place or contribute
41:53
towards those improvements maintaining the safe and free flow of the network wherever possible.
42:16
Thank you. Can I just put a note to the council maybe for tomorrow's session when we're looking at infrastructure and
42:22
transport white may Paul specifically identified on the policies map where the particular
42:29
where there might be a policy cross reference. It might be in a strategic transport policy.
42:34
Um I was going to propose that we we look at the strategic transport policy with that in mind.
42:41
So I'm getting feedback. Is it all right now? And um
42:46
we are looking at um modifications for failgate policy specifically.
42:52
Um and uh when we come to consider what modifications are appropriate um we will
43:00
also give consideration to including something along the lines that there will be a requirement to optimize
43:06
options for non-carbborne trips when um designing the the development.
43:15
And in that context um um we will propose that the structure of
43:22
the policy will reflect the structure of the new SP7A in terms of its requirements
43:30
by relating um the requirement for the provision of a
43:37
master plan and phasing an implementation plan which will incorporate those measures.
43:43
we might come up might come on to as the final item this afternoon uh sorry this morning yeah thank you uh Mr. Finch
43:50
that's that was helpful um if I can turn to Miss Egleston first and then back to Mr. Dickinson has any further to add
43:57
from Labick Hall Farm Durham Cathedral's perspective. Ms. Eglesson, have you
44:03
looked at the additional material that's been produced by the council uh and what
44:08
the potential implications are likely to be for White Mool.
44:14
Thank you, sir. Um yes, we've reviewed the work that's been undertaken over the
44:20
or published over the summer. Um and we're very supportive of both the vision
44:25
approach that's been adopted by the council and with the conclusions of the updated assessment that's been
44:31
undertaken. Um we we've reviewed the the outcomes in in detail
44:38
and and happy that they follow you know good practice guidance. Um we were
44:44
pleased to see uh confirmation in the updated documents that the revised
44:50
scheme for White Marool um can be delivered within the highway boundary
44:55
and I think that's a point that's confirmed within the um the updated evidence base. So we were pleased to see
45:01
that has now been clarified. That was a point that we'd raised um in the stage one hearing.
45:06
Um, we're happy in general with the proposed changes to the wording within
45:12
uh the documents and I think the only point that I just wanted to uh raise and
45:17
and clarify at this point was that I did note that in the statement of common
45:22
ground between the council and national highways at paragraph 513
45:28
um there is reference to the fact that the um that the phased implementation of
45:34
the works at White Maple would be funded by section 106 contributions. Um, and I
45:39
just wanted to point to the updated um, draft infrastructure delivery plan
45:45
table at the back of that statement which does clarify the point that um, those works uh, would be funded by a
45:52
combination of both section 106 contributions and external funding. Um, and I just wanted to clarify that point
45:58
if I if I may, sir.
46:05
Thank you for that. Um, if I can turn to Mr. Finch. I mean, obviously there's things like the road improvement
46:11
strategy. There are potential other funding sources. We're looking ahead over a long period with this plan, 15
46:17
years. Um, it's not always possible as we sit here now to forecast what the funding landscape looks like, but is
46:24
that a fair point that it's could be a combination? That's a fair point, sir. I've done a number of examinations and you know
46:30
funding will come forward from wherever funding comes forward whether it's the mayor or the council or government uh
46:37
you know grants uh but also from developers but currently national highways have no program to deliver any
46:45
improvements on the network in this location. Thank you. And I picked up from the
46:50
Lavick Hall Farm um statement on this matter. It's probably part of when we
46:58
sort of track through potential modifications, the supporting text to this policy still refers to combination
47:05
of what was I think originally envisaged at White Marpool and the Lindes Farm U lane drop lane gain. So that's probably
47:12
something that needs to be kind of tidied up and as part of the modification process. Thank you. Mr.
47:19
Dickinson, is there anything further you wish to add from what Miss Egleston has said, please? Uh, no. I'd just like to say the church
47:26
commissioners um agree with the assessment that Miss Eckleston's made um
47:31
in regards to the approach and supporting a visionled approach to these um improvement works and also stress
47:38
that uh the phase delivery of this scheme will help unlock the site earlier in the development program allowing more
47:46
development to come forward as this as the scheme grows. One of the points the church commissioners would like to raise
47:52
is that at this stage um and with the additional work that's done uh they
47:57
don't think that any further modification is needed to SP8 and that any modifications should be made to the
48:04
infrastructure delivery plan as it remains a material consideration and could be used um appropriately to secure
48:11
the funding.
48:22
Thank you. So just can clarify with the church commissioners. Is it your view the ID the infrastructure delivery plan
48:29
would need to be updated prior to main modifications or prior to
48:34
the plan being adopted? Uh prior to the plan being adopted.
48:43
Thank you for that. So I move on to it's my item 1B um agenda and I turn first to
48:49
Mr. Green uh in terms of your um um submissions. I think as we just before
48:55
you talk to your your statement and I say I've got your appendic append various appendices um I think just as I
49:03
said at the stage one hearing session I've been to the area on numerous occasions. We talk in transport terms
49:09
about the morning peak and the afternoon rush hour peaks. I've been at both of those times, not just White Pool, but
49:16
all over A19. I've seen various um things with my my own eyes. And I think
49:22
I just want to to it's a it's a question I asked at the um stage one hearing
49:28
sessions um about the changes that are being sought to the plan. And I think
49:34
I'm under no illusion, Mr. Green, that your position is this site should be
49:39
removed from the plan. There's no, you're not seeking any kind of modifications that are going to kind of um finesse things or change things. It's
49:47
a it's the site needs to be removed and that's that's that's the change that needs to be. Okay. So, looking at your
49:55
your statement and your evidence, obviously, I'm hearing from people that there's a way forward to kind of
50:02
do improvements at the White Pool Junction over a a staggered or phased um
50:08
period. I think reading your your statement and that and those of others, you're still concerned about what does
50:14
this mean for the A194 traffic going through the Mill Lane roundabout. So
50:21
yeah, just Yes. So I know that the buzz word at the minute is is the uh vision
50:27
approach, but I think perhaps it should be uh labeled the vision wish list, you
50:33
know, from what from what we're hearing. Uh I mean the council took away action
50:39
point 12 sir and in a nutshell they were asked to take take the required infrastructure requirements determine
50:44
when it was required come up with the funds within a few weeks and I think
50:49
what what they've done is uh I I think now that the the uh the road
50:57
trip figures are being classed as being over robust just within a matter of weeks. I think they do it so quickly
51:04
when the evidence that's based on the local plan itself has took 8 to 10 years. I'm not show you on the on the
51:10
time scale in the evidence that was put forward at rec 90 in in the local plan the stage one hearings all of this
51:17
evidence was put forward and there's a mass of it and for for you know them to turn around and say that the actual
51:24
figures when we're told they were okay they were you know yeah they were robust but were fine or accurate now to turn
51:30
around and say that they're over robust in order to not pay for the required
51:36
infrastructure when you know it's not money I We're we're in this not for the money, not to save money. We're in this
51:41
as a community to save lives, you know, to to have a a decent level of living.
51:47
But so I can only I can only uh sort of give an example is is going into
51:54
the chemist with a prescription for four items. You can't afford it. So you purchase two of the items on your credit
52:00
card, which is four items required for white men pool. You cannot then pay the credit card. There's no funding for it.
52:06
uh and later on your condition worsens and you're told by the doctor well if you'd got the four items in the first
52:12
place everything would have been fine and I think this is a classic example of what is happening here that's saying
52:17
there's funding available there's a new metro link going to Washington you know we'll get very little from uh Kate
52:23
McInness and councelor Kia will perhaps back that up uh and you know I mean the
52:30
labricore form have actually got it down now to and they want you know you know something adjust ed within uh the
52:37
costings to say that the indicative cost of the incremental scheme at White M pool is understood to be now 5.5 to 7.5
52:44
million. Now that was one heck of a drop you know when you consider you know safety's at stake. Now we're going up to
52:52
the lead up to why May poll I mean million itself I I think that's infrastructure is required now not in 5
52:59
years time not in 10 years time. It needs to be put in place now to cope with the the current traffic. I mean
53:05
I'll give you an example. Mil Lane roundabout leads up to you know where it is leads up to White Mool that's on the
53:11
A914 and this is current uh it's 115%
53:17
over over 116% and these figures are are available to the council uh 123%
53:24
124% and it's way it's currently it's way over uh you know and and that's just one
53:31
example uh and I'd like to bring Brian would you like to come in? Can I bring Mr. PS in on this now because he's going
53:37
to give a little
53:50
new to the job. Um, born and raised in South Shield where I live for 30 years and for the past 46 I've been a proud
53:56
resident on Felgate. Um, member of the Save the Felgate working group.
54:02
My point is this and may I read it out? Is that okay? How do you want me to try and summarize it?
54:08
You can try and summarize it. That would be helpful. Mr. Pierce, if it's obviously I've got your your original
54:14
representations further statement. So yeah. Uh well the main point is that
54:20
there've been a few reports uh published through the council saying how much the
54:25
improvements to white meool and the approach roads would cost and the range between 40 million and 50 million
54:32
depending on whether it's the national highways or the sister report. Um
54:37
but I I need to pull in some of the relevant facts. uh
54:45
the b the main thrust is I believe all the parties have missed a fundamental
54:50
error of judgment made a fun error of judgment under the present traffic load we experience regular tailbacks as
54:55
mentioned by Dave on the A1 194 at middle lane roundabout and white may pool
55:01
as the prime route for access and egress to the proposed development is onto the middle lane roundabout introducing a
55:07
fourth light controlled entrance onto this roundabout can only make matters worse by reducing the flow time of the
55:14
existing three light controlled access roads from what they have now which is roughly a third of the time available to
55:21
a quarter of the time available or some weighted average because I know you can play around with the with the lights and
55:26
then adding an estimated 1200 cars during rush hour which is a car every 3 seconds some of the council national
55:33
highways and sister think things will improve on the contrary gridlock will
55:38
become a daily event bringing from commerce in the burough to its knees and causing major stress and difficulties to
55:43
emergency services and the public alike. Spending money on road winding and a new
55:50
roundabout at White Pool will do nothing to address this fundamental flaw. It is on this basis I see the council have not
55:56
been able to put forward a tangible highway improvement proposal. So highlighting the fact that SP8 is too
56:02
large a development and in the wrong place and that therefore should be rejected.
56:09
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. I that that is
56:15
yes, that is very much the statement you you you previously put in. So, I've read that and understand the point you made.
56:21
I think it's probably an opportunity to bring in others to kind of respond potentially to some of that point if
56:27
that's uh if I start with Mr. Quigley first uh and then um Miss
56:35
Eglesson. Yeah. So um obviously the assessment work that's been undertaken um is a is a
56:42
networkwide model that we've um prepared. Um it included at the middle
56:47
lane junction a working scheme that the um the developer had prepared. Um that
56:57
was that was included in the model and demonstrated that the the provisional
57:02
junction layout operated successfully. Um with the additional mitigation we've
57:08
proposed at White May Pool, it continues that the the the network works to a satisfactory level which we've agreed in
57:16
the joint position statement with um with National Highways. Um again
57:23
the scheme is a um it's an indicative scheme. It's an imprincipal scheme to de
57:28
demonstrate that the um the scale and scope of a scheme that would be required. Uh as applications come
57:36
forward, they will be required to undertake their own assessments to demonstrate the applicability of the
57:42
site access junction and the level of mitigation that is required
57:47
to facilitate the development and that will have to be agreed with the highway authorities at the at that time.
57:54
Mr. has anything further you wanted to add to that that point? Uh no sir, it's largely to agree with
58:01
what Mr. Quickley's just said, but just to explain that um the intention isn't just to put an extra arm onto an
58:06
existing junction. Um the proposed scheme that's been identified at Mil Lane is a significant enlargement of the
58:11
existing junction and the conversion of that into a signalized gyator. Um which would then serve the development and
58:17
then that would then sit alongside the proposed improvements at White Pool. And so yes, while I understand the concerns
58:23
about the existing operation of the network, then there is quite a comprehensive package of improvements that are proposed all along the Lem Lane
58:29
corridor um including at the Mill Lane access junction as well and and that that has all been fed into the analysis
58:35
and has been taken into account. Thank you. Mr. Pierce, do you want to
58:41
come back on? I don't understand how any of that will increase the flow rate when you're
58:47
reducing the time for each of the access roads.
58:55
Um in terms of the way that signalized gytories work then um actually traffic
59:02
does move simultaneously around the junction and different arms can work together at different times. So it isn't the case that each arm is getting a
59:08
reduced amount of green time. It just means that different arms of the junction will will be coordinated such that traffic can move around the
59:14
junction um in a coordinated manner and and that has been subject to detailed both standalone junction assessments uh
59:20
within the information that we submitted in our very early reps um on the site and has then been modeled as part of the
59:28
networkwide micro simulation model that has been undertaken by Cyra on behalf of uh the council and and verified by
59:34
national highways. Thank you. I understand understand the point Mr. Pierce. Um Mr. Green, is there
59:41
anything further you wish to say on this this point? It's in it's in relation to the past evidence and I know you've got already
59:47
got copies of the report so I'll not you know there's there's one report here which says by 2032 the network is
59:53
forecast to experience significant queuing particularly on the A194 white m junction. It mentions by 2037 the
1:00:01
network is forecast to experience severe queuing. Uh that's it is on on I can't send you them. It's stated the 27th of
1:00:09
the 5th 22. Uh there's also there's a this is the
1:00:15
main one and uh the Hawthorne and Leslie site was mentioned and you know there is
1:00:21
a is a national highways statement here. Uh this is dated the 8th of March 2022
1:00:28
which says upon review of the revised model we would accept that the proposed transit 15 model is robust. Consequently
1:00:34
it is now appropriate to consider the results of this assessment assessments in the 2023 with and without development
1:00:40
scenarios. The following arms of the are over capacity in either the AM or the PM peak. Uh A194 A184 White Mapool A184
1:00:50
westbound 100% over A194 motorway northbound 100% or over A185 is
1:00:57
eastbound between 90 and 100%. Now that indicates even then National Highways
1:01:04
was stating infrastructure was required. That's in my opinion. uh you know and
1:01:09
then we'll go on to uh you know the actual actual figures for the A1 94. Uh
1:01:16
I know you picked you'll have picked this up in some of in some of the appendices but I I still haven't well I I nearly
1:01:22
got a response yesterday. I was told that because the figures don't add up sir. Uh you know I worked out averages
1:01:29
and as it happens there's been nothing done on that road since April 2024. Now
1:01:35
that was there's been no traffic data. It went offline. Now bear in mind that
1:01:40
that was you know we're always suspicious now we're thinking of things. Uh that was the month after the
1:01:46
consultation on the in the period of the draft local plan in SB8 stopped you know
1:01:51
now if that's coincidence it's coincidence but why has it been off all this time? Uh and there's a lot more s
1:01:59
uh we actually had a meeting with uh Mr. Trevor Trevor Mill and the counselors
1:02:05
from the from the cafe was councelor Lamont councelor Dean and we discussed
1:02:10
everything we discussed the rat runs which is creating around the area because this is a massive problem you know it's on the on the you know
1:02:16
mountain junction you possibly haven't been to mountain but that's you know having having improvements made from
1:02:24
that meeting even though I reminded them before way before Christmas there's been no minutes there was two of the
1:02:30
democratic services taking the notes There's been no minutes passed on whatsoever, sir.
1:02:36
And in relation to, you know, the the new estate if if it's developed using
1:02:41
public transport, I don't know if you're aware, sir, Nexus has just announced that the metro parking at Felgate uh is
1:02:48
going to be 1 pound50 per day. It was free. It's going to be 1 pound50 per day. Now, today, you know, the way
1:02:55
people haven't got the money to spend now, that's £30 a month extra. Now, if you've got four people going to
1:03:01
Newcastle from that estate, they're going to use the car rather than pay, you know, the metro fairs and things
1:03:07
like that. Uh, and it it just goes on. I mean, you know, as I say, I reminded
1:03:12
them for the minutes because I wanted to know what was said because there was things associated with white bull mill
1:03:17
all of the areas. There's nothing come back and this is what we're hitting, sir. We're hitting hurdles time and time
1:03:23
again. And it's happened from from day one. Okay. I think Mr. I mean probably sort
1:03:29
of slightly going into kind of issues that were raised under the stage one but no I mean I think
1:03:34
what I want to and what I was getting through for this morning session is the particular issues around the white mayor
1:03:41
pool. Yeah. Obviously the council's put forward uh having sort of leazed with
1:03:47
the national highways incremental approach and I'm quite clear from reading your evidence and you're saying
1:03:52
when you look at the data or the data that you've provided to me for mil lane yes that that's not going to help the
1:03:59
situation in your in your view yeah take back there's something else to do with national highways it's it's that
1:04:06
data collision map which is available on the web on the on the pages I can't I'll
1:04:11
let you know what It is. It is available off national highways. Is it one of your many appendices, Mr. Green?
1:04:16
It's not law. It's one It's not It's a massive problem from National Highways. Okay. And again, we talked about this at
1:04:22
stage one in terms of various kind of things or measures that might be needed in the area in terms of I think it's one
1:04:29
of the final kind of parts of the jigsaw for White M terms of safety signage
1:04:35
improvements. Mr. Finch, whether you want to just briefly come in on this. Uh thank you, sir. Um I've got I've got
1:04:43
two three or four points if you don't mind sir one was relation to the cost of the
1:04:48
schemes. The cost of the scheme has come down considerably because with the reduced impact with the visionled
1:04:55
approach and the over bridges which was the biggest and most expensive part of the scheme have been removed from the
1:05:01
requirements within this plan period which leaves the improvements that um
1:05:08
they're providing on the southbound approach to the junction, the westbound approach and the northbound approach.
1:05:15
those schemes have been identified and then depending whether you deliver them all at one go or individually then
1:05:22
obviously but if if they're incremental then they have been um costed by the
1:05:28
council I would say quite rigorously um checked by ourselves qu we question
1:05:35
them um and we're confident with the numbers that have been put forward the
1:05:41
the vision approach has reduced the numbers but then Also that's changed is that in the past we used to look at
1:05:47
capacity of junctions. We used to say it had to be 90% was the maximum. The the
1:05:52
guidance we're given now is that we have to make sure that it's not severe the impact of the development and the work
1:05:59
that has been provided the extensive modeling undertaken by the council to show the impact. The provision of
1:06:05
improvements to mitigate the cues means that we are happy with potential
1:06:11
addition of advanced warning signs because the queue is only there. I know people think it's there. They see it
1:06:17
there every day. However, we do have evidence from the TomTom data and everything else that it's it's there for
1:06:22
a short period in the morning peak hour. And so we would like to see a variable message sign to advise that there is a
1:06:29
queue there. And that will make we will hopefully make the network operate as safe as we possibly can and the decision
1:06:35
was that as a result of these measures national highways did not feel that the proposals in the council's local plan
1:06:42
was would result in a severe impact and I think it's that point severe that is perhaps different to what we've been
1:06:48
talking about before whereas before we were just looking at it you know we're trying to make it no worse off and
1:06:53
that's not what we're we're challenged with now nowadays.
1:07:01
Um, thank you. I just wanted um to stress that um we agree with um both Mr.
1:07:07
Fairfield and Mr. Finch in their assessment on um the way that the
1:07:12
traffic modeling has been conducted under the local plan as a robust evidence base uh for the work that's
1:07:17
coming. And just to respond on the point of data um being out of date um as being
1:07:23
gathered in April 2024 um obviously for the purpose of this local plan it would
1:07:28
be suitable and it remains a robust starting point and then just to remind that as part of any further planning
1:07:34
application um further engagement will be done and we will be able to refine
1:07:40
any sort of um highways impacts based on the scheme as it evolves and it's our
1:07:45
statutory requirement to uh undertake that work in collaboration with the council and national highways to develop
1:07:53
it out. And then that would be the initial outline stage and then moving into a reserved matters application
1:07:58
where access is a um reserved matter uh full detailed design for exactly the
1:08:05
scale of development that's coming forward will be designed and will be the responsibility of the parties to deliver
1:08:10
either through the planning application as the applicant or as a financial contribution towards the national
1:08:16
highways to deliver that scheme. And in that whole process, there are plenty more opportunities for um local uh local
1:08:26
people to comment on those um schemes as they develop. Is it a brief point, Mr. Finch?
1:08:33
Very very brief. So National Highways have no intentions at this stage of delivering the scheme. It's not a
1:08:40
national highway scheme to deliver. They will work closely and they may be asked to deliver it, but at the moment it
1:08:45
could be delivered by third parties. Can I hear from councelor Kilgore next
1:08:50
please? Then we're going to move off the transport issue shortly thereafter. Thank you. Thank you sir. Um it won't surprise
1:08:57
anyone I would imagine in the room to say that I'm not convinced by the argument put forward. Um uh what we need
1:09:04
to bear in mind as well is is that whilst we're looking at this particular um draft local plan as soon as this is
1:09:11
um confirmed or not there will be um an immediate start on the preparation of
1:09:17
another plan which will um I think significantly increase the um the housing numbers that
1:09:24
have to be produced by the local authority. So it is very um short uh
1:09:30
lived and and very uh narrow in in in my view. Um what I would say is I don't um
1:09:38
kind of trust the robustness of this. I think we've got you know Mr. Green has has very um eloquently set out all of
1:09:45
the letters, all of the narrative that we have around um the detail and the the
1:09:50
significant matters. What I would say is that um listening um to to Miss Egleston
1:09:58
last time and it is a matter of public record that the value of around 40 million um was going to be funded by the
1:10:06
scheme itself. Um our mayor McInness is investing really heavily in in the
1:10:12
northeast and um we've seen the look of the Leamside line coming online. We've
1:10:18
seen um various metros not the metro that we anticipated coming online.
1:10:24
There is no promise of any further funding in this regard. The local authority as an elected member are not
1:10:30
in a position to fund a private developer to uh bring forward this
1:10:36
scheme for profit. They've already mentioned around the 25% affordable housing that they're railing um against
1:10:44
that. I um strongly disagree with this being the responsibility of the um the
1:10:52
IDP. This is very very specific to Felgate. We've got the potential of 115
1:10:59
homes going up in Heburn, the old college site. The there is no intention
1:11:04
to um have any 106 monies attributed to the infrastructure to the network there.
1:11:10
That is looking at playing pitch strategy funding. um that we're looking at a school provision, medical
1:11:17
provision, a hub. There is no likelihood in my opinion and as a local politician
1:11:24
of some 12 years now of the current state of affairs of any funding going
1:11:31
into that scheme. National Highways have already said and reiterated many times they have no intention, it's in writing,
1:11:38
they have no intention to fund the scheme. How our local authority would intend to do that. I think as well if we
1:11:43
go back to the figures about the robustness, it's over robust. It needs to be over robust because what we're
1:11:50
looking at is not just the figures of a potential 1,200 homes. It's the
1:11:56
manifestation of those. I feel very very strongly I think it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the over
1:12:04
bridges isn't required. It worked absolutely beautifully at Testos. Why
1:12:10
aren't we being afforded that particular infrastructure? And with the greatest respect to the church commissioners,
1:12:16
it's not a matter of um we'll deal with that later. No, we won't. We'll we'll
1:12:22
absolutely deal with it now. There needs to be amendments, sir, if I may, to SP8. There needs to be not just um a master
1:12:30
plan. Absolutely not. They've referred to Snaply Park um in in their submission
1:12:35
by by Saviles. Snaply Park is completely different. Um it goes on to a brand new
1:12:42
um highway, nothing at all like the the infrastructure we're looking at here.
1:12:47
They also refer to a master plan being able to govern the town the town um end
1:12:53
farm development of 400 potential homes. This is 1,200. We're not buying it.
1:12:59
We're not accepting it. That there isn't. So there isn't the money, there isn't the inf infrastructure, there
1:13:05
isn't the ability to bring this forward and therefore in conjunction with Mr.
1:13:11
Green and and my residents that the the site is not deliverable. Okay.
1:13:17
Thank you. So bringing that together, uh councelor Kilgore, you're saying to me that the
1:13:23
white may pool scheme, the evidence that I've got is not deliverable because there's a lack of funding. Although I
1:13:29
understand other schemes are financially contributing money is being through
1:13:35
section 106's for white mar pool.
1:13:43
So that's the intention yes that there'll be more than one scheme to to contribute
1:13:50
but ultimately councelor kilo as said at the start the position is the modification you're looking for me to
1:13:55
make is to take this site out of the plan. Yeah, we'll come on we'll come on to the master plan
1:14:02
very briefly please. Sorry I think with regards to nexus and public transport as well. That's a wish
1:14:08
list. We all know that the current state of play we're not in charge of that. That is not something that the local
1:14:14
authority we've been trying to get a bus service to our local hospitals um for the last 10 years. Um and it's not
1:14:20
happening because there isn't and and and you know to say that you know that the the transport element of it um it's
1:14:28
pie in the sky to suggest that people are going to use local transport when you're looking to um get to the the
1:14:34
areas that we want people to travel to for work. Thank you. Thank you. So a final point Mr. Green
1:14:42
you wish to add. Is it different to what I've heard from councelor point? It's a 15sec statement sir. Uh
1:14:52
the gates said metabolic and ba council were involved. They've got a statement of of common ground in the old version
1:14:58
of the required infrastructure. Is there a new one for the new version of the
1:15:03
infrastructure? Because I can't find it on site. That's it. Sir, I don't think there is an updated
1:15:09
statement of common ground with gates head. Um if we get to main modifications, Gates Head will be
1:15:15
consulted like any other statutory consult. So they'll get an opportunity to comment on that. Um right, I'm going
1:15:22
to bring the transport concludes section to conclusion, but I'll just finally
1:15:27
hear I think I'd like to hear from Mr. Quigley first very briefly then Miss Egleston and then I'm going to move on.
1:15:34
Thank you sir. I just had a couple of points of clarification on there. So the the scheme cost being discussed at 40
1:15:39
million that was that was the original scheme that we set off at. It's we're within 10 to 14 million for the the
1:15:45
scheme that we've uh we think facilitates the local plan. Um the assessment undertaken is a cumulative
1:15:50
assessment. So it considers all of the allocations and all the traffic that goes through White Pool from them. So
1:15:56
the intention would be that there would be various developments that would contribute to the um the cost and um and
1:16:03
also White Mool is identified in the uh northeast local transport plan the
1:16:08
mayor's document as um a location where a scheme will be investigated.
1:16:18
Finally, Miss Eglesson and then Mr. Finch, brief points, please.
1:16:24
Just just a brief point of clarification, sir. Um it's never been the case and we've never suggested that
1:16:29
Lavick uh at the site at Falgate would fund the entire scheme at White Mool and
1:16:35
certainly not when it was at the level of 40 million. Um and it isn't the case now with the reduced scheme. Um the
1:16:40
intention is that that would be paid by uh contributions from a variety of developments across the burough and as I
1:16:46
mentioned earlier and with the potential for external funding to also be sought.
1:16:52
Thank you. Finally, Mr. Finch. Uh quick comments sir. Um National Hires would seek to condition the improvements
1:17:00
required to support the development prior to occupation of any development and that will be part of the transport
1:17:05
assessment submitted with any application. Okay.
1:17:11
Move on in terms of the agenda. This is a related uh issue. We're coming on to the health impacts
1:17:18
uh and the additional uh MIQs that I published. Uh as I indicated at the
1:17:24
start, I would identify the principal issue in relation to public health that's been identified through the
1:17:30
various representations from people who are in the felgate areas on air quality.
1:17:36
There may be other issues. If I can invite the council first in terms of just the general
1:17:42
uh air quality environment for the people. Okay.
1:18:17
Thank you. We'll try and do all air quality before midm morning um adjournment. Um just for the purpose of
1:18:23
the recording, can I understand who else has now now joined from the councils?
1:18:29
Thank you. So good morning everyone. I'm Chrissy Hardy. I'm a senior advanced public health practitioner for the local authority.
1:18:37
Good morning. I'm Mary Fairfield, public health practitioner from the council.
1:18:42
I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the operations manager of the spatial planning team. Okay. Thank you for that. Um now in
1:18:50
terms of uh the Felgate uh proposal as I identified
1:18:56
from my reading of the various original representations of which there were many on this site there were public concerns
1:19:02
about the impacts on air quality. I think principally in relation to transport generated from the site I
1:19:09
don't know if it's Mr. male in the first instance are keen to understand the general
1:19:14
air quality environment perhaps more widely within the burough and then drilling down a bit more specifically to
1:19:20
where we are now you may have seen from various representations particularly from Mr. Green uh and from is it
1:19:26
Lawrence Taylor um I think questioning about where air
1:19:31
quality is being monitored uh and whether that's uh picking up the
1:19:38
situation on the ground in relation to the Falgate sites in terms of whether there's an absence of detailed
1:19:44
monitoring. Um I'm not aware there's an air quality management area in this location but there may be elsewhere
1:19:50
within the burough but I'd invite you first Mr. now to sort of set the scene. Thank you sir. Um in terms of air
1:19:57
quality uh the council does undertake a robust uh monitoring regime uh across
1:20:02
the the borough. Uh this is done in the form of continuous monitoring and non-ontinuous monitoring which people
1:20:08
may know as diffusion tube monitoring. Um as a as a local authority we get judged on air quality through defer and
1:20:14
we are required to submit an annual status report every year. Uh this is quite a a comprehensive study that that
1:20:22
indicates what the council's doing in terms of air quality across the remit of the burough whether it be looking at sustainable transport um how we
1:20:29
interject uh collaboratively across the council in terms of working with public health colleagues, environmental health
1:20:34
colleagues. Um as it stands and and the council doesn't consider itself to have
1:20:40
an air quality issue. Um we get scored upon sort of um the the air quality
1:20:46
levels. um a reading above 40 represents a significant issue. We can record and
1:20:53
our ASR indicates there's been no exceedence of air quality across the borough. Um in terms of setting the
1:20:59
picture, we were subjected to two air quality management areas in the local authority area. One at Bald and Stanup
1:21:05
Road and also one at Lindespon which is the adjoinment of the 19 and 194 corridors. These both air quality
1:21:12
management areas have been revoked because the areas of air quality levels were of a particular low level. This was
1:21:19
a decision taken by the cabinet and has been supported by DERA. So we don't have any air quality management areas in the
1:21:25
respective areas. That hasn't stopped the council from monitoring those locations. So Ben Lane is still subject
1:21:32
to robust monitoring as is the area of Lindespan. Um I hope that sets the
1:21:38
picture. Um and I'm more than happy to come on to the specific comments around Felgate in due course. Sir,
1:21:46
thank you. I mean just in terms of the Felgate area, I think one of the points that's been put to me is that some of
1:21:51
the diffusion tube locations when you look at the air quality um report and
1:21:56
I've got I mean the latest version is now in the in front of me in terms of the examination.
1:22:01
When you kind of look at I think it's described as being in the Felgate Headworth sort of area but they're on the A19
1:22:07
in terms of where we've kind of been discussing this morning already white pool the mill lane roundabout. I mean
1:22:14
those are areas that have previously been monitored but the air quality issue
1:22:19
is such that the council no longer needs to have diffusion tubes. I I think there's
1:22:26
an important factor to raise here whereby what we try to do is align the diffusion tropes where there's
1:22:31
particular residential catchments. Obviously the area of White Mar as it stands is a predominantly traffic
1:22:37
corridor. There's no residential catchments. There is obviously the the the hotel and so forth and petrol
1:22:42
station. What we can do and what we try and do is if there is particular developments we can easily take that and
1:22:49
advise that we want a permanent site to be located and monitor going forward. I
1:22:55
think also it's important to raise that as part of the planning process that
1:23:00
in existence if an if a specific plan application was to come forward we will require air quality assessments to be
1:23:07
undertaken and that will be no different whether it be falgate whether it be any sites at Brinkburn or indeed across the
1:23:13
whole local plan period. So I'd like to think, you know, if if there is an element of concern that is a lack of
1:23:19
monitoring, we can take that back as a department and look to to implement a diffusion tube to to adhere with what
1:23:26
the the sers on the opposite side of the table if it is indeed Durham Drive orever we can we can make them suitable
1:23:33
arrangements if required. And I note policy two of the submitted plan deals with air quality and if there
1:23:40
likely to be significant air quality impacts then the approach you out Mr. Mail would then kind of be be invoked in
1:23:48
terms of looking for further monitoring and data. Okay. Thank you.
1:23:55
If we can deal with the air quality issue first turn to Mr. Green um
1:24:03
on this please. Yes, thank you. In relation to areas
1:24:09
where they could have been put, I mean the ones at the moment you've got the locations, they're not on Felgate. Felgate has not been monitored for since
1:24:16
2013. Uh so uh the the tubes are located. It's
1:24:22
on a culdeac way down the way down the back end of Headwa which has got no traffic or very little traffic. It's
1:24:28
it's a set of bungalows. The second one is in a culdeac just off the A19 which
1:24:35
it it's monitoring next to nothing. You get maybe six cars pulling in. And the main point is I queried uh because there
1:24:42
is a page 19 page 49 of the post sub50 air quality strategy report states uh
1:24:50
sorry sir uh right I've queried because we were told
1:24:57
that there was one at there was one on fell where I have a I have an email from
1:25:02
Samantha Jobson is it Jobson or Jobson Jobson uh because I queried where there
1:25:07
were because I was told there was one on Durham Drive which just goes around the estate. We were told there was one on
1:25:13
White May Pool you know and the email just apologized. Good afternoon Mr. Green apologies for the delay. I'm
1:25:19
contacting you in relation to your query concerning air quality monitoring at White Marool and Durham Drive Fgate
1:25:25
Estate. The diffusion tubes at White Mool roundabout was located outside of North Drive. North Drive is in the back
1:25:31
end of Heb. It's nowhere near White Pool. The tube was removed in 2016. The
1:25:37
lead officer responsible at the time sight in compliance with objection levels. Now the question arises there
1:25:43
sir you know if you don't get any fumes in your home with a carbon monoxide detector you take it down because you
1:25:49
know there isn't any at that time you know it has to stay because as as Mr. M says there there's no AQMA around our
1:25:56
area it's never been monitored. She goes on to say the tube located at Durham Drive chest Chester Road junction which
1:26:03
is at the top which is just short of the A1 194 entrance. Now there was one there. There must have been the tube
1:26:09
located at Durham Drive was removed at the end of 2013. This was removed due to
1:26:15
continued compliance with objection levels. I would advise the diffusion tubes are regular reviewed and locations
1:26:21
can be removed due to consistent compliance with national objective levels. And it's very it's in the last
1:26:28
in that very basic paragraph sir. I can confirm that the team will be reviewing
1:26:33
our diffusion tube monitoring network imminently and we are looking to provide additional monitoring locations in the
1:26:40
area. This will include Felgate. Why now sir? I know why. Because they're trying to put an estate of,200 houses with two
1:26:49
capacity for thousands of cars to go around in 20 mph uh road around Felgate.
1:26:55
But they should have done it then should 2013. So that's 13 years. It's never been monitored in that saying it has
1:27:01
been. I mean, Mr. Green, in terms of the evidence that's before me is been
1:27:08
referred to, I've got the air quality status report. I mean, there are various things we need to kind of apply ourselves to. It's nitrogen dioxide.
1:27:14
There are various kind of particulate matters that are monitored burrowwide. It seems to me from the evidence there's
1:27:20
nowhere in the burough that's getting close to the point where you know um
1:27:25
national kind of uh requirements kind of uh
1:27:30
uh are engaged in terms of taking particular action. Um
1:27:37
I just wonder if there's anything specific or different in the Felgate area that would make me kind of
1:27:44
seriously question that that data. You say it's never been monitored. Is that
1:27:50
that's where I'm sort of getting to the point where things been previously monitored and if there isn't an issue or a compliance issue
1:27:55
what happens sir is obviously there's there's a need to move around the diffusion tubes we don't have an an ex
1:28:01
exhaustive amount of diffusion tubes. So if there is a specific period where compliance is documented where there's
1:28:08
no specific issues and then we get requests from residents or or elected
1:28:13
members we will look to where there's been particular elements of compliance and then look to rotate the diffusion tubes. That's just as standard um what
1:28:21
we would do. Um and again it's about the logistics around the locations just
1:28:27
because a receptor may be at the the element of a culdeac. It's about the air
1:28:33
in in the environment. So that is quite close to the A19 corridor. So that will particular
1:28:39
matter from the A19 corridor. But to the layman source if it's at the end of a
1:28:44
culdeac serving six houses, it's not the traffic going past as in those six houses. It's the traffic in the wider
1:28:50
environment just to give a little bit of understanding. Sir and you referred to earlier Mr. mail that where
1:28:55
there had been um air quality management areas things have improved and some people might think well right that's the
1:29:02
A19 area you think about all the traffic at that location what in your advice to
1:29:09
me is is kind of um generating those kind of improvements
1:29:14
yeah yeah I think for for Lindespond specifically the council was able to bring forward a sizable scheme at
1:29:20
Lindespond using local growth fund we've got a good working relationship with Northeast the combine authority and
1:29:26
regional funding partners. We implemented a scheme at Lindesf around 2018 at the time where the defa team
1:29:33
were bringing forward a directive to to serve on the council. Through that implementation where we brought forward
1:29:38
a three-lane corridor, we were able to demonstrate that the through tailpipe monitoring that the evidence from DERA
1:29:45
was was to be challenged and we've now reported that where our air quality
1:29:50
management area is no longer in exance. that area has been revoked. We still monitor the location. Um, and I think on
1:29:57
record it's it's quite positive for the council to be in a position of of revoking two quality management areas
1:30:02
and I think high level as the ASR indicates we we do have no foreseeable
1:30:08
air quality issues in in the local authority area as it stands. So thank you. I mean from for for many people there's
1:30:15
the sort of perception that traffic will create fumes and air quality issues and
1:30:21
the kind of various indicators um nitrogen dioxide particulate matters
1:30:26
generally relates to kind of traffic I suppose it's is the general picture
1:30:32
that kind of traffic emissions in themselves more generally are improving
1:30:37
is there I don't know a strategy for electric buses or things like this um
1:30:43
air quality within our air quality strategy and working with with sort of public transport providers there's been some
1:30:50
interjection of investment in electric buses um not specifically to the Belgate area by no means but again as councelor
1:30:58
Kilgawa indicated that we don't actually own the public transport network within the local authority area there is the
1:31:04
intention by the mayor to take full control of public transport um in the
1:31:09
over the next 5 to 10 years. That said, you know, the interventions, we've got an air quality strategy that's quite
1:31:15
specific in terms of a detailed action plan. We've seen a large proportion of people bring forward electric vehicles.
1:31:22
So, I think on on paper, we we are quite a proactive local authority and air quality is high on the on the agenda and
1:31:30
likewise as I said earlier, an air quality assessment will be required for every local plan application coming
1:31:36
forward in the plan. Thank you. If I can hear from councelor Kilg next and then Mr. Green and then
1:31:44
Mr. Morton. Um yes sir. I think um if we don't have
1:31:49
any data, we don't know what we don't know. And I think you know to say that just because it's it's not and hasn't
1:31:56
been monitored given the onset of what we're looking at within the local plan.
1:32:01
It you know it it's prudent to do that. And I think not wanting to skip back to the transport and I and I won't um
1:32:08
offend you by doing so, sir, but we're also aware that um the data that's coming through that Mr. Green should
1:32:14
have got yesterday indicates that there's actually an increase in in traffic on that road. So,
1:32:22
it's not it's not going away is what I'm trying to say. Mr. Green, please.
1:32:29
Yes. Yes, sir. Uh you asked about other things that were concerned about. Uh I I
1:32:34
before is this other it's totally it's no no sorry sir it's to do with emissions. Oh
1:32:40
okay. Yeah. Uh it's highlighting risks from car park car brake dust emissions sir.
1:32:46
Uh and you know I access lots of reports from various universities and what I do
1:32:51
is because we haven't got the flexibility of affording you know uh any sort of support but what I did was I
1:32:58
emailed the the lead authors of the studies and one of them Dr. James Park and got back to us and he gave us lots
1:33:04
of information which you've got access to. So it's on the and basically uh exposure to particulate particulate
1:33:11
matter and of its brake dust and its tire tire particles generated by exhaust emissions from cars, vans and lries have
1:33:18
been linked to an increased risk of lung and heart disease. Now in our our area Kate Osborne where MP has highlighted
1:33:25
this is a an area where there is a high risk of lung and heart disease. However,
1:33:30
particles are also released into the air from Tay Road and break padway. These emissions are largely unregulated by
1:33:37
legislation. Now, what he went on to say, sir, there is additional reports which you you've got access to because I
1:33:44
was thinking, well, we're going on to electric vehicles uh and it's going to get better, but it's not because
1:33:49
electric vehicles are actually heavier. Yeah, you don't get the emissions, but you get more brake dust as a result of
1:33:54
it. And I think this seriously needs to be looked into because he also linked into stop start stop start stop start
1:34:00
start. Now on the A194 every morning and every evening and on falling speedby you've got stop start stop stop start
1:34:06
start stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop start start start start start start so it's creating extra air particles A194 you've got it119 you've got it lane
1:34:12
you've got it way you've got it uh Felgate Avenue you've got it headworth you've got it because the whole area is
1:34:18
brought to a standstill sir on stop start stop start stop stop start start now Felgate is home to three schools in
1:34:24
the local vicinity you've got generations you've got grandparents you've got parents you've got children
1:34:30
that walking that kids to school through that every morning and every evening sir
1:34:35
and the extra 1,200 houses you know will not help that situation there will be in excess of thousands of extra cars and
1:34:42
the figures are available for the extra what comes down the figures are available for the A194
1:34:49
uh extra traffic that have got them
1:34:56
thank you thank you Mr. G Mr. Morton, please. Thank you, sir. Um, I'd just like to
1:35:02
bring the conversation back to national planning policy um and its requirements.
1:35:08
Um, paragraph 105 of the 2023 NPPF. Um,
1:35:14
I'll just read it um for the benefit of those who don't have it. The planning system should actively manage patterns
1:35:21
of growth, focusing significant development to locations which are or can be made sustainable through limiting
1:35:28
the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of travel. This can help reduce congestion and emissions and
1:35:35
improve air quality and public health. So that that's what national policy
1:35:40
instructs us to do. Now sir, at stage one, one of your questions was, is this
1:35:46
a location that's well served by public transport? Um, both the council's
1:35:51
evidence and our evidence was that this is a a highly sustainable location.
1:35:57
There's a metro station um and uh bus services. Um and then the council's evidence again
1:36:04
at stage one was that having done a comparative exercise uh this was the
1:36:10
most sustainable location in the burough to accom accommodate large scale development against the against the
1:36:17
alternatives. So it it follows uh there's a housing need to be met in this burough. Um the
1:36:25
most sustainable location uh for large scale growth is SP8. Um it's has the
1:36:31
benefit of public transport connections. Um and then if you compare that to the alternative of putting 1,200 houses in
1:36:38
less sustainable parts of the burough um the public health and air quality benefits best served at this site. Sir,
1:36:51
thank you. Before I move off air quality, final point, councelor Kilgal,
1:36:57
just very very quickly um sir it it it would be really advantageous if we did
1:37:02
have um you know a bus network that we were in control of. It absolutely would and I think the futuristic view as we've
1:37:09
said is intended um for within 10 years but 10 years is a long time but equally
1:37:14
you don't you're not um kind of countering now where the buses get stuck in traffic that particular traffic that
1:37:20
we're referring to pre1200 homes you thank you and on sort of wider health
1:37:27
issues um policy one of the planners proposed um would require health impact
1:37:33
assessments on uh sites sites over a certain size. Um, Felgate would certainly fall into that um category.
1:37:41
So, the council presume is expecting or would ant would be seeking a health impact
1:37:47
assessment for the Felgate um uh proposal. Um are there any particular from the
1:37:54
council's perspective um health issues that I should be sort of having
1:38:01
in mind for this for this site or what the council would be seeking through that health impact assessment as part of
1:38:08
a planning application for the Falgate area. We don't consider any significant public
1:38:16
health issues as a result of Felgate. Um we are confident that policies from
1:38:24
colleagues around the table would um mitigate against any of these
1:38:30
significant health impacts that may arise. Um and in fact we believe there
1:38:35
could be some positive benefits from such a development. Um things like much
1:38:41
needed uh mix of housing, access to good quality transport.
1:38:48
um pushing of that active travel. We've spoken about buses, cycling, walking. Um
1:38:54
the opportunity for new social and community connectedness is very much
1:39:00
needed. Um there's the opportunities for new health care provision. So we do
1:39:06
believe that done right, a health impact assessment could lead um early
1:39:11
conversations about what is needed to make that a really health promoting
1:39:16
area. Um alongside the health impact assessment,
1:39:22
we very much link that to the South Tinside data observatory which takes us
1:39:27
through a series of questions around the types of people, the housing, the the
1:39:34
impact on young people, the impact on the economy and employment, the impact on health. And we think by bringing in
1:39:41
those health assessments early leading to those conversations could have a really um beneficial impact on health in
1:39:49
the area. Thank you. Before I bring up Mr. Morton,
1:39:54
is there anything further you wish to add on the health the wider health? Yeah, just just sorry. Yeah, just very
1:40:01
briefly um totally agree with what the what the officers um just said there
1:40:06
just to confirm my clients who were who were sat behind me um we will be doing a
1:40:11
health impact assessment. They've instructed consultants um and we'll be engaging with uh with
1:40:17
officers in the council on that matter. Thank you councelor Kilgore on kind of
1:40:24
talking about air quality but wider health issues please. Yeah, thank you sir. Um I very much
1:40:29
respect the officer's view on that. Um I happen to disagree. I think we talked a
1:40:34
lot yesterday around the mix of housing and the appropriateness of development in that particular area and across the
1:40:40
burough. So there isn't the mix that is required that the statistics determine
1:40:46
are required such as bungalows, older person's accommodation, um, uh, extra care facilities, etc.,
1:40:53
etc. That's not being offered there. One-bedroom accommodation is not being offered in the way that it needs to be.
1:40:59
Affordable rent, affordable housing, um, by which way of of buying. Um, so the
1:41:05
observatory does indicate it's a really, really good tool, but it doesn't indicate what the projections are. It
1:41:13
indicates what we've got now, what the facts and figures are. And I'm sorry that it it doesn't provide cohesion
1:41:19
because it separates the um affordable from the the non-affordable or
1:41:25
non-reachable to to most of us and also puts the hub at the very eb of the development. So it isn't cohesive at
1:41:33
all. and with two potential exits onto Durham Drive that does not um allow you
1:41:39
know an acceptance from a health perspective. Thank you.
1:41:45
Thank you for that. We obviously still need to have a discussion about policy one at a separate um date before we take
1:41:52
the midm morning adjournment. Is there anything in relation to wider health issues at this moment?
1:41:59
Mr. Yeah, green. Sorry. Are we going on additional public health issues after the break, sir?
1:42:07
Kind of intending to sort of deal them now if you want to. Okay. Yeah, it was just I had them
1:42:12
separate air quality and local public health. I had a different lesson plan for each. Uh so, as you know, there's
1:42:18
there's a massive there's a there's a massive, you know, community spirit on
1:42:23
Felgate, sir. Uh but that's scared because this happened about with Ron
1:42:29
Smith 10 15 years ago where he was where he was fighting the development. It's happening again now probably happen
1:42:36
again in the future sir. Uh and the concerns are and I'm not going to go into the flooding the sewage issues air
1:42:41
quality traffic issues noise pollution vibration from building sites. But what I I want you to to think about sir is
1:42:47
the effect that's uh on the mental health and well-being of the current residents sir. I mean the the the the
1:42:55
path that the gravel path that goes up, you've got the hedge parallel with it. You've got the farmer's fence. It's been
1:43:01
walked for half a century, sir. And many people can walk short distances because you've got gaps in the fence to kind of
1:43:07
just pick and choose. Uh you walk it it's gravel path and and this is all related to mental health and wellbeing.
1:43:13
Sir, it's mindfulness at its best. Residents have highlighted it. You've got the biodiversity. As you walk, you
1:43:19
can see the former. We've got pictures of the the very last picture I had of the of a young child. He does live on
1:43:24
his on the estate. I'm not sure whether his mom's here today. There's two of them and they look out the window and they're going to have that view. They're
1:43:31
going to have the town houses right there and they're overlooking res residents properties and the residents
1:43:36
are stopping in the street and they're saying what's happening because we're going to move now. Now, Felgate used to be and I mean my wife and I are 62.
1:43:44
She's 63. uh you know but but what what
1:43:50
what Felgate was it was a it was a the what you what you have is you have people moving about the state they love
1:43:56
the Felgate community you know it's got the spirit it's got a brilliant you know diverse you know bunch of residents but
1:44:04
as as I say they are scared and the person I feel sorry for because you tend they tend to be forgetting is the
1:44:10
forming family now he's he's got we have actually raised this with my MP because
1:44:16
you know I have huge concerns. Now what what will what they'll lose is they'll not only lose the fields which we were
1:44:22
talking about yesterday the carbon capture and uh you know you lose a lot of that and I know they're going to say well we'll put it all later on but
1:44:28
unless they're going to put a field on top of a field that we'll lose it. What it is is it's home to a local livery
1:44:34
stable and they're concerned that coming to and saying Dave what's happening there's one of the one of the young
1:44:39
girls who was aspiring to be an Olympian you know they have three horses up there and it'll be all lost forever you know
1:44:46
and obviously Mr. sort of slide came to the the stage one. He did. Yes. I mean and in the very I
1:44:51
mean today is a very specific anniversary uh because you know two years ago we attended with with the
1:44:57
planning officers uh the very first one of the very first discussions on Felgate
1:45:03
on SP8 and we mentioned flooding and we mention and and they seem gobsmacked by
1:45:09
it sir and Mr. as well as state and the other residents present highlighted it and you know they didn't seem to
1:45:16
recognize it when this local plan's been put together. They haven't looked at the reports. Some of the reports are Yeah.
1:45:21
I'll not go on to that. But it'll all be lost forever, sir. And that's Yeah. the mental health and well-being of the
1:45:27
residents. And I've picked that up in the um the various um statements before I bring in is it Miss Hardy for the
1:45:34
council and then we will have a break. Just for the record, I have read the
1:45:40
Lick Hall Farm statements. be discussed as matter one in terms of the the degree
1:45:45
or otherwise of public access to this site. So that I notwithstanding what
1:45:51
I've heard I understand the position. Um Miss Hardy please. Thank you sir. Um whilst I absolutely um
1:45:58
sympathize with Mr. Mr. Green's points I have to just emphasize that as a public health team we work on data and
1:46:03
evidence. Um we are guided by our joint health and well-being strategy which was written not just by the council but by
1:46:10
the local health and care social care system. And one of the um quadrants of that if you like is our drive to promote
1:46:17
safe and healthy places to live, learn and work including more appropriate housing for our residents. Um and that's
1:46:24
driven kind of our work and we're satisfied that the health impact assessment will allow us. We have to
1:46:29
weigh up the data and evidence and we're satisfied that the health impact assessment will allow us to weigh up the data and evidence for and against
1:46:36
developments when that comes through. Thank you. Thank you for that. I'm now going to
1:46:42
take um a midm morning adjournment just gone 11:00. I'd like to be back in this room at quarter 11 and we're going to
1:46:49
pick up the final item on um Felgate in relation to transport. I think Mr. Finch
1:46:55
I've heard your evidence. So if you don't need to be at the next bit that's that's fine. Thank you for that. And
1:47:01
when we come back we're going to just look very briefly at the issues around um delivery and time scales uh should
1:47:08
this uh allocation remain in in the plan. So people be if people could be
1:47:13
back in this room at quarter 11 please. Thank you.
2:01:53
Okay, it's just gone quarter 11, so I'm going to resume this hearing session, please. was still on the first item in
2:02:00
relation to the uh proposal for the sustainable growth area at Felgate and
2:02:06
it's the third item on my agenda around delivery um time scales. This goes back
2:02:12
to my mass issues and questions 730. So at the stage one hearing sess
2:02:18
sessions we were looking at where the sites remain in the plan how it's likely
2:02:24
to come forward and kind of overall delivery um time frame uh and whether
2:02:30
the approach that's put in the policy in terms of requiring or setting out uh a
2:02:35
supplementary planning um document for the site uh would uh hinder or aid
2:02:42
delivery in terms of sustainable outcomes of the site. and whether there were alternative
2:02:48
approaches that could yield similar results. I think it's al already been
2:02:54
referenced this morning the approach that the council's taking at the town end farm um site. I'm mindful the
2:03:02
council has already embarked on work on a supplementary planning document. Uh it
2:03:08
was raised under the very first item on the first day in terms of consultation.
2:03:14
Um but I've put there the question uh and I'd asked the council as part of one of the many action points from um stage
2:03:22
one where it kind of saw the timetable um going in terms of a supplementary
2:03:28
planning document and I appreciate I'll probably hear from others who've still got reservations around what that might
2:03:35
mean for overall delivery but I can invite the council in the first instance to see whether any further modifications
2:03:43
questions would be necessary um for this for this policy. I've not I want to make
2:03:49
it clear I've not invited any as part of those questions but I just want to understand
2:03:55
whether any would be necessary or whether we sort of continue with the supplementary planning document approach
2:04:02
or whether there is an alternative. Yes. So as set out in the council's
2:04:08
response to to 7.3 um we've you know we have started we did start the the the
2:04:14
pro the the steps to sort of start working on an
2:04:20
SPD for fellgate and that was basically to ensure that you know how we this
2:04:25
development is delivering high quality design. It establishes the key design principles for um the site as it is the
2:04:31
largest site in the local plan and we wanted to make sure that um it would be a high quality development going
2:04:38
forward. Um we did provide the response um to action point 13 which provided an
2:04:44
indicative update to the timetable for SPD um which sort of identified um that
2:04:50
we would be looking to adopt an SPD after the local plan was eventually adopted. Um but I'll set out MIQ
2:04:59
response as well. We have noted that there were concerns raised during the um stage one hearings about that potential
2:05:05
delays that the adoption of the SPD may result in terms of actually delivering
2:05:10
on the site. Um I think the council maintains that the allocation should continue to deliver
2:05:17
the the principles that we want the SPD to um that was to be set out in the SPD.
2:05:23
However, we do believe that this could be secured um do modifications to SP8 um
2:05:29
and require a master plan rather than the SPD like as mentioned earlier taking a an approach similar to that set out in
2:05:37
SP7A. And we've set out in paragraph um 7115
2:05:42
to 7116 some of the um scope of the modifications that could be required in
2:05:48
order to um update policy um SP8. I think policy SP8 in itself is a fairly
2:05:55
robust policy. There is quite a lot of detail in there already and um taking it into account the other policies in the
2:06:02
plan. Um I don't think the modifications to that policy would be significant. I
2:06:08
think it'd be more in terms of bringing forward some of the information set out in the um felgate opportunities paper to
2:06:15
lay out the sort of key principles um that we want to see set out in SP8.
2:06:21
Thank you. just be clear from the council's position. So there potentially would be further policy content drawn
2:06:29
from the opportunities paper. Would that sit alongside the policy in terms of um
2:06:34
supporting text? Yes, it would. And um sorry that was that was a is it in
2:06:41
policy or in supporting text? Are you saying it would be both? Yeah. Can I I'll I'll explain the
2:06:47
structure of that. I just want to clear up something if I may.
2:06:55
I just wanted to make sure I was right about something. We will include a diagram probably within the supporting
2:07:01
text to to show what those principles are. Um and take the approach which we've
2:07:08
taken towards SP7A uh and it's an approach which has found favor um in other local plans as well in
2:07:16
which I've been involved. uh where there is a requirement to submit a master plan
2:07:22
which would also include a phasing and implementation plan for those who are not here who are not familiar with that
2:07:28
process. Um it it provides a very sound structure
2:07:34
upon which to um encourage the developer or developers
2:07:44
um to accord with those principles. It also provides a basis upon which uh
2:07:50
one can assess when infrastructure is going to be required, how much housing can come forward in advance of that. Um
2:07:59
and that in turn leads to a structured approach to contributions
2:08:05
and the uh negotiation and subsequent agreement of section 106 obligations to
2:08:12
support the development. So that's essentially what we're proposing here.
2:08:18
Um uh with the principles being identified in the plan,
2:08:23
it also gives flexibility which is important um to account for any
2:08:29
changing circumstances and also provides the ability for um um
2:08:39
uh multiple housing products to come forward. to increase
2:08:45
um the um the rate at which housing comes forward through those different
2:08:52
products um and gives the local planning authority the kind of control it needs
2:08:58
to ensure that development is both orderly and sustainable.
2:09:03
So that's essentially what we're trying to do. There won't be a need therefore
2:09:09
um to have regard to an SPD if those principles are set out clearly in the
2:09:14
plan. And um it in any event um one criticism
2:09:21
of the policy is currently drafted is that it requires compliance with an SPD which is in itself um a dubious
2:09:30
requirement because an SPD doesn't have statutory status.
2:09:37
So what we're proposing here um will be an approach which guarantees a soundness
2:09:45
of the allocation and of the plan generally because it is a major allocation
2:09:52
and in terms of securing kind of the outcomes that would be expected to the
2:09:58
site in terms of overall sustainable development, high quality development, high quality design in terms of these
2:10:05
this approach of a master plan phasing an implementation plan as you say Mr. Shadow Raven well understood
2:10:11
kind of requirements for major sites is the council looking for those to be as part of an initial
2:10:18
outline or presumably as part of the applica first application for the whole
2:10:24
site. So, so, so it will be structured in such a way um that there will be a
2:10:30
requirement for the submission and approval of the master plan which will
2:10:36
incorporate a phasing and implementation plan. That means probably it will be followed
2:10:44
by or accompanied with uh reserve matters application under the umbrella
2:10:49
of an outline. But uh that process could also admit detailed planning
2:10:55
applications for various parts of the site provided they comply with the approved master plan.
2:11:10
And one of the um roles as I saw it from reading the policy in relation to the um
2:11:17
the submitted approach around this the uh SPD was to have um regard to kind of design
2:11:24
code principles. I mean design coding is uh the way forward uh in terms of
2:11:32
securing quality outcomes. Is that something that's would sit alongside the master plan
2:11:39
uh in terms of looking for a design code for this development?
2:11:48
Yeah. So as I mentioned um we do think that the other policies in the plan will help to assist in the determination of
2:11:55
this application um particularly uh policy 47 which has been informed and is
2:12:00
based on um national design guidance um and I know we we'll come to talk to that policy um in next week's session but the
2:12:08
principles within that policy um very much sort of align with national design guidance at this
2:13:02
say that the current SPD does provide some use very useful
2:13:07
guidance on the question of design. And so it would be possible um
2:13:15
to make a reference to the current SPD
2:13:22
or the information contained within it uh as providing uh a guide. So that
2:13:28
should be take which could be taken into account in coming up with the design.
2:13:36
Uh I won't sort of pursue it too much further now. I think just to advise the
2:13:42
council I'm sort of keen not to lose sight of the design coding issue and
2:13:47
securing design quality high quality design outcomes however that's done um whether that's
2:13:54
uh something that's in the policy itself or the sufficient information
2:14:00
slightly reluctant about design codes in local plans at this moment in time um in
2:14:06
terms of what that might mean but I once think I think think a bit more about as
2:14:12
I say not losing that that potential requirement
2:14:18
and um we agree with that. We're not not intending to insert a design code within
2:14:23
the plan itself but but um to provide a reference to
2:14:28
material that already already exists.
2:14:35
Thank you. Perhaps if I can hear from uh I think it's probably Labric Hall Farms,
2:14:40
Mr. Morton, and then I'll come to councelor Kilgar. Thank you, sir. Um I think I can keep
2:14:47
this brief on behalf of my client. Um we're in full support of everything Mr.
2:14:52
Chadavian's just been through there in terms of um process. Um our client wants
2:14:59
to deliver high quality development on this site. Um so you know if you wanted
2:15:04
a secure high quality design um through through policy we're we're fine with
2:15:10
that. Um and I think that that master plan approach would ensure consistency
2:15:16
within the plan town farm um has been discussed. So um be a consistency of
2:15:22
approach there. Um our our concern um was mainly around
2:15:28
um the wording of of SPA part 3 that applications could only be approved
2:15:34
where they adhereed to the to the SPD and the potential for delay um and risk
2:15:40
to the to the trajectory. Um and we're in full support that the the master plan
2:15:45
approach would achieve the same outcomes without um the same risks.
2:15:52
Perhaps a question to both the council and to to um Mr. Morton, possibly Mr.
2:15:59
Dickinson. The supplementary planning document
2:16:04
would have provided a kind of a stepping stone. We're talking here at kind of strategic levels, strategic policy. um
2:16:13
it has quite an element of detail for strategic policy. But nonetheless, for a
2:16:19
lot of people, it will seem, you know, quite um uh um what's the word? Um
2:16:30
no, my brain is my brain is failing me. It will seem you relatively remote and
2:16:35
and kind of distant and what will this mean for us? And obviously the supplementary planning document route would have provided well here's some
2:16:42
further um detail and understanding around you know how the site could potentially come forward. Will the
2:16:49
master plan route
2:16:54
enable that kind of similar uh process for because I'm I'm
2:17:00
undoubtedly going to hear concern that communities thought there was going to be a supplementary planning document further detail and then we'd start to
2:17:07
understand a bit more about how this development would work on the ground. Will the m if there's an alternative master planning route thinking about
2:17:14
community engagement etc. is there's still that kind of process of um
2:17:25
assisting communities before sort of first kind of detailed application.
2:17:34
Uh thank you um chair. Um just picking up um on the points you were making
2:17:39
there and just wanted to also state our agreement with the council's position
2:17:44
and agree that um a master plan approach would be the preferable approach and would remain robust. Um I think the
2:17:51
important point here is that was the one that was raised earlier that an SPD is not a statutory document. um and that
2:18:00
when if a master plan was produced alongside the planning application, this
2:18:05
provides a lot more certainty um and opportunity to shape the development as opposed to the route of an SPD.
2:18:16
Thank you. The diagram which we propose to introduce into the policy or sorry into
2:18:22
the supporting text supporting the policy uh will provide quite a lot of
2:18:27
detail schematic detail about how we see uh the site being developed.
2:18:35
The important point is this that no detailed proposals will come forward
2:18:41
until such time as the master plan has been approved and that master plan will
2:18:46
be the subject of extensive consultation in the normal way.
2:18:52
Once it's approved then the detail will follow.
2:18:59
Thank you. Turn to councelor Kilgal please. Um thank you sir. Um I would ask
2:19:05
that you um continue along the lines of an SPD. Um I completely object um to the
2:19:15
provision of only a master plan. Um it's a dilution of the detail in in my
2:19:20
opinion. Um we've seen and I spoke earlier around Townend Farm which is only 400 homes potentially. This is
2:19:28
1,200. Everyone talks about this as a significant strategic site. Um there's
2:19:34
absolutely no way that this should be managed on master plan alone. However detailed that might be. Um I think it's
2:19:42
owed certainly um the respect of an SPD albeit not a legally binding document
2:19:49
and I think whilst you know it might be a developer's dream um the devil is in
2:19:54
the detail and and I really would um strongly oppose that would come down um
2:20:00
to officer's discretion. we've already seen um a huge shift from stage one to
2:20:06
stage two in the data with regards to traffic you know health etc etc so I
2:20:13
have absolutely no confidence um that a master plan would suffice for this
2:20:18
potential site again I'll refer you back sir to the snaply park master plan it's
2:20:24
a completely different plan that is referred to the access you know ingress egress is completely different it is not
2:20:31
in any way um like um the Felgate proposal and I would strongly sir ask
2:20:38
please that um should you be minded to leave this in which of course we don't want um that there is an SPD to
2:20:45
accompany that and I think it's weakening um the whole guise of this we started off with the requirement of an
2:20:52
SP1 or an SPD to go and look at it we've already invested um resource in that and
2:20:58
I suggest we continue with that sir Please. Thank you. I mean, I think the modifications that are being put to me,
2:21:06
um, the one that's, um, I'm hearing this morning is obviously the master plan
2:21:12
phasing and implementation plan route and I'll take a view on whether I think
2:21:18
that's necessary for plan um, soundness. The alternative and I think the point that's been legitimately made is
2:21:24
obviously if there was if I felt well no or plan was submitted on the basis of a supplementary planning document and that
2:21:30
still remains a valid route. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out, um
2:21:36
it is not uh the normal practice to have policy that requires development to be
2:21:43
in accordance or have to adhere to a supplementaryary planning document because it's not part of the statutory
2:21:49
development plan. But it's something you have regard to. So the alternative main modification if I felt we're still
2:21:54
looking at supplementary planning document would probably be still a modification to criterion three of the
2:22:01
policy to introduce that have regard to rather than adherance.
2:22:07
But I'm going to I'm going to look look at what uh what comes before me and weigh up the options.
2:22:13
Yeah. And can I can I just make this observation too? Um, it's likely that
2:22:18
the master plan as approved will provide substantially more detail
2:22:24
than the SPD because it has to set a firm foundation
2:22:30
for reserve matters applications. Now the implication of that is that
2:22:36
you're bound to be shown where the likely roads are going to go, points of
2:22:42
access, community facilities likely to go
2:22:50
and how sustainable transport options are going to be maximized.
2:22:58
So the community will have a more robust foundation upon which to make their
2:23:04
observations. Thank you, Mr. Green, please. And then
2:23:11
I'll work my way around the table for the probably final final point. Uh it's just something you you just
2:23:17
mentioned. Uh would there be it's just to answer the question, would there still be community engagement with this because we had the you know the
2:23:23
consultation on SP8 if I'm on the right lines here. was the only question that was asked and also if this master plan
2:23:31
I'm gathering that it'll rely on reports that have already been provided by the
2:23:37
council to do with the Felgate development which we've highlighted
2:23:42
throughout you know there's a lot of the inconsistencies but also uh it was just on the viability
2:23:51
of it all you know uh what just I'm just concerned that
2:23:56
you know it's the lava are in it for profit. Uh and will they cut corners as
2:24:01
a result of you know devising their own master plan and then taking it to the council if that makes sense.
2:24:09
Thank you to assist you there Mr. Green as I heard from the council there will be consultation on a master plan. So
2:24:15
there will be that um engagement. Um I don't know the detail about we we're not
2:24:20
at the stage of the kind of the detail around that in terms of obviously I'm dealing with the evidence and the
2:24:25
material that's necessary for plan making to inform this local plan. Um and
2:24:32
I would anticipate there will be further data material that informs both the
2:24:37
master plan and initial applications in required by various policies that we're
2:24:44
looking at as part of this this plan. Okay. Um, Mr. Morton, then Mr.
2:24:49
Dickinson, and then I'm going to move on to the final bit of this, please. Thank you, sir. Um, I appreciate this
2:24:56
points probably beyond your control and your remit for this examination. Um, but the
2:25:03
concern from our client is will an SPD be prepared? Um and furthermore,
2:25:11
um whether it has to be adopted or endorsed, but presumably it's going to
2:25:17
need full council sign off. Um and we only need to remind ourselves um how
2:25:23
difficult that can be. The fact that um you know, we're we're sat here today following Secretary of State
2:25:28
intervention. What happens if a SPD isn't prepared or adopted? um you know the planning
2:25:35
process um could stall that could then threaten the trajectory um and the
2:25:41
implementation of the plan as a whole. Okay, Mr. Dickinson,
2:25:49
thank you. I just wanted to come back um obviously endorsing the points that Mr. Morton made there. Um firstly on
2:25:57
consultation obviously a planning application will be publicly consulted on um and there will be an extended
2:26:04
window for whenever information is submitted for the public to comment on um and make comments to the planning
2:26:11
officer. Um there was a question on what this the information um will be used to provide a master plan. If it's provided
2:26:18
with a planning application, it will have to be provided in accordance with all of the information and reports that
2:26:23
are produced for that planning application, which includes things like parameter plans, which will include
2:26:29
background information like the necessary technical documents that will sit beneath it that will go well beyond
2:26:34
what would be available for an SPD where an SPD can only advise on what the
2:26:39
policy says, the strategic policy. And then finally I think the other point I just wanted to make that the master
2:26:46
plan should not be read in isolation but within the planning application that comes forward at outline stage you will
2:26:52
have um parameter plans you will have a master plan that dictates the kind of identified infrastructure key
2:26:59
opportunities phasing and implementation. You will also have a section 106 that sits there as well that
2:27:06
will be informed by the master plan and that will obviously identify funding timing and triggers for a number of
2:27:12
these key infrastructure things that need to come forward prior to any occupation of any dwelling.
2:27:22
Thank you. I'm going to come on to the final point and maybe councelor Kaga you can weave it into this kind of final
2:27:29
point or Okay. Um I think I think from our perspective
2:27:35
an SPD is required um to set the baseline. Um the master plan is would be
2:27:40
in addition to that um in compliance with that. Um so whilst I I fully agree
2:27:46
with the master plan of course that's that's the the route that SP8 has taken the detail is already there around the
2:27:53
um the location of the um potential hub the potential you know uh threetory
2:28:00
buildings etc etc so we've already got that detail sir what I think there needs
2:28:05
to be a stricter adherence to a background baseline policy and and and I
2:28:11
come from this having sat on uh planning in committee for 10 years. So I'm I'm not coming as as a newbie. Um I know how
2:28:18
these things work. Q. So just finally then on policy SP8 um
2:28:28
the conclusion of stage one hearings and reflecting on the evidence I heard um I took the view that
2:28:35
um the site SP8 uh first delivery um should be profiled or estimated
2:28:42
projected whatever the right words are uh to come forward in 203031
2:28:48
at the earliest which I think was about a year behind what the council had originally kind of forecast um probably
2:28:54
emphasized the word forecast. Uh I think that's been reflected now in the
2:29:00
council's um strategic housing land availability um assessment and would
2:29:05
feed through into the final housing um trajectory.
2:29:11
There's probably an opportunity before we have that wider discussion on housing land supply um
2:29:19
in relation just specifically to this site whether there are any sort of residual reservations about anticipating
2:29:27
first delivery on this site in 203031 given what again what I've heard this
2:29:34
morning about potentially an alternative route through a master plan phasing
2:29:39
implementation plan. Um, does that overcome my initial
2:29:45
findings from stage one or does it still remain sensible and sort of prudent has
2:29:52
still anticipate first delivery uh in 203031?
2:29:57
I think I've heard or read from um the um submissions from those with an
2:30:03
interest in the site. It doesn't affect overall delivery within the plan period. it can be recovered and as I say it is a
2:30:11
forecast so things may happen sooner rather than later but um I thought just on the agenda give
2:30:18
that opportunity if there were any residual reservations no
2:30:24
okay I'll move forward on that that basis councelor Kilgar thank you sir I've just been reading and
2:30:31
I had read around the neighborly park um application and it it does um talk very
2:30:37
much about the master plan and it talks um it says um however last year two
2:30:42
developers I mean this is a you know an age document uh Belway Homes Limited and County Durham Land LLP put in two
2:30:49
complimentary applications for a certain number of houses sidestepped the fact
2:30:55
that the council was developing a master plan as required by policy five of the
2:31:00
county plan so we I am looking for um obviously the the site to be removed
2:31:07
however We're looking for a strict robustness around this that the community can feel
2:31:14
confident with. And I think given having read that and that's the site referred to by the developer that um it's it it
2:31:23
also states that the developers refused to work with the local authority. So
2:31:29
there's always that risk and I think this needs to be belt and braces if it's not removed. Thank you.
2:31:37
Thank you. I'm sure whatever the council's going to consider will be belt
2:31:44
and braces. Well, it will. I mean, I don't know the circumstances there, but it seems to me that if they're sidest stepping
2:31:50
something, then the policy foundation is inadequate to deal with it. We're going to ensure that that's not the case.
2:31:56
Thank you. Very briefly, because I think you you raised this site, Mr. Morton, you
2:32:02
Yeah. Um my recollection of uh Snipley Park was that it was a developer master
2:32:07
plan, not the council and that was submitted with the planning application. So um I haven't seen the reference that
2:32:14
Miss Kilgar was referring to but um yeah, Snipley was a developer master plan as uh the council advocating here.
2:32:29
Just just to add to the point around certainty that um if it's belt and braces and there's a requirement if you
2:32:35
are minded to include a minor modification that removes reference to the SPD and includes um a reference to
2:32:42
the requirement for a master plan um as part of the first application then it would have to be applied um we would
2:32:48
have to deal with it. We couldn't sidestep it and not include it within the planning application because it would be in policy.
2:32:54
Thank you. Well, I'm fairly certain from everything I'm sort of hearing, if there is a a modification that is put forward
2:33:00
to me, it will be a main modification, very very much a main modification and
2:33:05
it will be subject to further consultation before I issue a report.
2:33:11
So, just make everyone aware of that. Okay. Thank you everybody for your contributions on uh the first item under
2:33:18
matter 7 for Felgate. Um we've as indicated at the start of this morning's
2:33:25
session had a slight issue around program versus agendas. Can I just
2:33:30
understand in the room have I got people here who are anticipating to speak on
2:33:36
matter seven I think it's issue two on housing land supply more generally.
2:33:44
I do indeed. So yep Mr. Mr. w as well there at the back. Um, so what I'm going
2:33:51
to do is probably take
2:33:56
Okay, thank you. So everybody, so what I'm going to propose is we take um it's
2:34:01
coming up to 10 to 12. We take a 10-minute break, allow uh Annette to kind of reset the room so people who are
2:34:07
coming for the housing land supply can join the table. I won't deal with item one on the agenda. probably wait till
2:34:14
after lunch if the Balden uh people are joining us at that point and we'll start from item two on the agenda and work our
2:34:21
way through if anybody else joins us after lunch. I may need to have to temporarily just go back and have that
2:34:27
discussion but try and make best use of time and we'll crack on. So I'll adjourn now and I'll be back in this room for
2:34:34
matter seven item two on housing land supply at 12:00. Thank you.
2:45:28
Okay. Well, good afternoon everybody. It's now just gone midday uh on the third day of the examination hearings
2:45:34
into the um South Tinside local plan. I think was indicated just before we take
2:45:40
took a short break. We're now resuming for matter seven uh issue two under the
2:45:46
umbrella of sufficient supply uh of homes. We're going to be looking at a number of policies within the plan.
2:45:53
Principally is policy SP 16 and 14 and then the overall kind of
2:46:00
housing um trajectory in terms of when uh housing development is likely um to
2:46:06
come forward. um during the plan period and how that should be uh measured.
2:46:13
Um I think everybody who's been or is around the table has been at a previous
2:46:18
session. Uh I think Mr. Cabbrief for banks you came to one of the stage one
2:46:24
hearing sessions so you're familiar with with how these these um these events work. Um it' probably be helpful um to
2:46:34
me for everybody watching uh this uh this session uh if we just quickly go
2:46:39
around the table for people to introduce themselves. We all know to use the microphones when making uh contributions
2:46:45
to the discussion. But if I can start first on my right with who'll be assisting today from the council's team,
2:46:53
please. Yes. Good afternoon. No, is it afternoon? Yeah, just Good afternoon, sir. My name is Paul Sherearvian, Kings
2:47:00
Council, acting for the council. Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy
2:47:05
officer at South Tai Council. Josh Dickinson from Deote representing
2:47:12
the church commissioners. Uh Neil Westro from Litfields representing a van homes.
2:47:18
Good afternoon. Chris Martin from the homebuilders federation representative body for the house builders in England
2:47:24
and Wales. Dominic W from Pegasus Group representing Bellway Homes.
2:47:31
Good afternoon, sir. James Cbury representing the Banks Group.
2:47:37
Good afternoon, Neil Morton from Savos representing Lavric Hall Farm Limited. Hi, Kevin from ALG Planning representing
2:47:44
Story Homes Limited. Good afternoon, sir. Councelor Gerald Dean Kilgaw representing Felgate and
2:47:50
Headworth. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Dave Green represent the city of the Felgate Green
2:47:55
Belt Working Group. Good afternoon. Um, councelor Shirley Ford, Southside Green Party.
2:48:03
Thank you for that. Now, in terms of uh this discussion, we're looking at um a
2:48:09
number of matters in terms of whether the plan will provide for a sufficient supply of homes.
2:48:15
Um I've tried through the agenda process to kind of bring to people's attention where there has been some um updated
2:48:21
evidence that's been made available during the examination process. Key around that I think for parts of this
2:48:29
yes this afternoon's discussion will be the council has updated its strategic
2:48:34
housing land availability assessment to 2025. um as planners amongst us, we'll slip
2:48:41
into the uh uh the acronym of schlar. Um so apologies for those who not familiar
2:48:48
with um uh our our technical language. Uh and the council has also produced a
2:48:55
um housing trajectory update topic paper. Uh they've been on the examination website now for some time.
2:49:01
uh so people may have had an opportunity uh to see those and the relevance of
2:49:06
some of that material to this discussion. The first item will be following um an agenda that I've
2:49:13
previously published and circulated. Um and I'll be directing some questions
2:49:19
in the first instance of the council and then seeking to bring other people in. In terms of the agenda, we're going to
2:49:25
move over item one because uh representatives from East Balden are not here at the moment and probably maybe
2:49:32
due to um my agenda issue. So, we'll pick up that after lunch. Um but we are
2:49:38
going to start with item two uh of the agenda uh in terms of the um
2:49:46
effectiveness of policy SP16 which is the strategic policy setting out the housing requirement for the plan. I've
2:49:54
previously indicated as part of my stage one hearings post hearings letter that
2:50:01
uh I've not been persuaded that there's an alternative to the submitted housing requirements. So still working on the
2:50:07
basis of 309 dwellings peranom based on the relevant standard methodology figure at the time
2:50:15
of plan submission preparation. So that's not an area I necessarily want
2:50:21
to revisit as part of this discussion. But what is important is how the plan is
2:50:26
going to deliver against that requirement having regard to a number of factors not least national planning
2:50:31
policy. We're just seeking overall to kind of significantly boost the supply of home homes and to ensure as part of a
2:50:38
planled system that there is a deliverable supply of housing from my perspective critically on plan adoption.
2:50:47
So we'll start on that not so small matter with policy SP16 as the council's
2:50:53
strategic uh policy and I've asked at my MIQ I think 721 whether that's going to
2:51:00
be an effective uh approach in terms of um ensuring a deliverable supply going
2:51:06
forward. Thank you. Yeah. So policy SP16
2:51:12
demonstrates how the council will deliver the burough's housing requirement. It sets a clear requirement
2:51:17
for the overall housing requirement as well as the sort of breakdown for the neighborhood plan areas and provides a
2:51:24
requirement a specific requirement for those areas. The policy also sets out how the council plans to to meet this
2:51:31
requirement through allocations, windfall sites, small sites.
2:51:36
Additionally, local plan policy 58 sets the framework to which these policies will be monitored post plan adoption. So
2:51:45
the council will obviously continue to monitor a five-year housing supply and if it's apparent that we we can't
2:51:51
demonstrate a fiveyear supply of deliverable sites, then the remedial action set out in table five, which is
2:51:57
in appendix three of the plan, the that remedial remedial action will be implemented. Um obviously under the new
2:52:05
plan making system, the council will be required to pretty much start writing a new plan immediately. So that will kind
2:52:12
of serve essentially as a very early plan um review.
2:52:22
Thank you. Now yes, I appreciate obviously things are changing and they have changed since the plan was um
2:52:28
drafted back in the end of 2023 and consulted on in early 2024.
2:52:34
I appreciate at the time of plan submission there were reservations about really the effectiveness of this um
2:52:40
policy uh SP16 uh on a number of levels in terms of whether it was allocating sufficient
2:52:47
sites uh and particularly what would happen in the event that the council was not able
2:52:53
to demonstrate a five-year um deliverable um supply.
2:52:59
We'll come on obviously to what the housing trajectory um may may look like,
2:53:04
but I think there were reservations particularly around part nine of the policy around what is meant by the kind
2:53:09
of contingency measures. I'll allow people to kind of speak to that if that's still a point of concern.
2:53:16
But I'd be interested to hear submissions particularly from the development sector
2:53:21
from the point that the council's raised that perhaps things have been eclipsed
2:53:26
now by by events and that um the requirement to prepare a plan under the
2:53:32
new system which is which is coming uh will serve as a you know effectively
2:53:40
quite a strong plan review mechanism in in any event. Mr. Martin first please.
2:53:50
Thank you uh sir. Um our concerns with
2:53:55
policy SP16 and its effectiveness really relate to the fact that you have a plan
2:54:02
here where the requirement versus the supply is very narrow. It's a very small
2:54:07
buffer of sites. It wouldn't take much for a site to drop out or site
2:54:12
capacities and visited by the council not to be quite right for them to then end up in a situation where the require
2:54:19
the supply doesn't meet the requirement. And given that uh there's no uh
2:54:25
intention from the council to put forward any sort of safeguarded land or anything like that,
2:54:31
we you may end up and it's not improbable to have a situation with a plan that doesn't meet its requirements.
2:54:37
And under that circumstance, I can't see many other levers that the council can pull to boost supply. This is something
2:54:45
that's been flagged continually all through the plan making process of this plan that there is an inadequate amount
2:54:51
of sites allocated. I understand what the council have said in their hearing statement. They don't think there are
2:54:57
any of the sites that they can identify to be allocated. But there were several sites in regulation 18 that were then
2:55:04
later kicked out of the plan which my members would say are deliverable and developable and a lot of them were
2:55:10
kicked out I would I would ask I would put forward for rather speious reasons.
2:55:15
Um, so it's something that has been flagged early on in the process and it's a bit disappointing that we're now in a
2:55:21
in a in this process where we're talking about supply and I know we're going to go on to it later about step
2:55:26
trajectories. Uh, that this isn't this is a problem that was foreseen very early on in the process and the council
2:55:32
didn't act on it. Um, compounding that the council have on
2:55:39
over a number of years now not uh delivered the amount of housing that's required. that just adds further fuel to
2:55:46
the fact that there can't be little confidence that even when this plan is adopted that they can deliver the number
2:55:52
of homes that are required. Um I know the council suggested some contingency measures. I would suggest that the
2:55:58
monitoring framework is is rather inadequate in this respect. I believe it just comes down to almost review housing
2:56:05
allocations and plan policies. Well, there needs to be something with teeth in there. I would say that was a lot
2:56:10
more stringent. Um and then we move on to the fact that things have moved on as
2:56:15
you said sir and we are in a situation now where once this plan is adopted
2:56:20
should it go forward for adoption the council will need to then do another plan um but this plan should be standing
2:56:28
on its own two feet I don't think it's an excuse for a poor plan a plan that could potentially under under supply
2:56:34
houses it needs to be sound on its own merits um so from our point of view What we
2:56:42
would like to see is is more sites introduced potentially safeguarded sites for the uh for the um what may may
2:56:49
happen in terms of not having an adequate supply and we would suggest that there is some sort of review
2:56:55
mechanism put in the plan notwithstanding what paragraph 236 says of the MPPF to give it teeth to ensure
2:57:02
the council does follow through with it because again we're dealing here with a council who uh it's no fault of the
2:57:08
officers but their members were manifestly not wanting to submit this plan for examination and it requires
2:57:14
secretary of state intervention. Therefore, uh as a HBF, we've got little confidence that a a plan will swiftly
2:57:20
follow this one. Thank you. Thank you. I'll I'll hear from others
2:57:26
and I may come back to Mr. Martin in terms of some things I want to to follow up on from what you've said, but others
2:57:32
may have similar views. I think it was Mr. Aton next and then Mr. Morton.
2:57:39
Thank you, sir. U Mr. M has made a few of the points. I try not to repeat repeat repeat them all. Um but I think
2:57:45
it's our client has repeatedly made the point throughout the process that the policy will not be effective. Um
2:57:53
if the plan is adopted, it looks to be agreed that an early review of the plan will be required u with further
2:57:59
allocations being required in the green belt to meet the non-significant increase in housing need.
2:58:05
However, this review will take a long period of time and be much lower when compared with addressing the norm matter
2:58:11
as part of this current process. The policies drafted appear to
2:58:17
acknowledge that this real prospect of needing to release additional green field green belt
2:58:26
test is failed. And it's unclear how this would be achieved or delivered without safeguarded land or its consistency with
2:58:34
paragraph 140 of the MPPF. The recent letter from the Secretary of
2:58:39
State for Housing and Planning confirms that the planning spectra again has the option to recommend as part of this
2:58:44
examination that a green belt review is under can be undertaken to see if additional sites can be identified to
2:58:50
meet development needs. And I repeat, I think that the solution is to make policy
2:58:56
SP160 more effective. is to release more land from the green belt now and allocate additional sites
2:59:02
and safeguarded land.
2:59:15
Thank you Mr. Morton please. Thank you sir. I think I think the
2:59:21
points have been made. Um, I just wanted to underline that point that um to steal
2:59:27
Mr. Eton's uh phrase of the week, the council's already squeezed the pips in local plan number one in terms of um
2:59:36
deliverable and developable capacity outside of the green belt. Um local plan number two is going to require
2:59:44
additional green belt land. The council have acknowledged that. Um I'm sorry to
2:59:49
repeat this point again, but my concern is will local plan number two actually
2:59:55
be prepared um given the significant amount of um extra green belt land
3:00:00
that's going to be needed. Um so I don't think that easy answer of local plan
3:00:06
number two will sort out any deficiencies on on local plan number one. um it needs to stand on its own
3:00:11
feet uh two feet as um as my colleagues uh mentioned um and so I won't repeat it
3:00:17
but you be aware we we've put forward the case for safeguarded land at Felgate at stage one
3:00:28
thank you if I can just pick up some issues first with the uh I
3:00:35
widely sort of describe as a development sector probably more to Mr. Martin in the first instance in response to some
3:00:41
of the points you've raised uh in terms of you know potential levers that are available if there is an issue just
3:00:48
firstly in terms of whether there's an issue it's a minimum housing requirement um come back to the council's evidence
3:00:56
their their view is it this plan will meet that minimum requirement with a small headroom um even on the
3:01:04
latest um figures there may be disputes about that but it's It's you there's a
3:01:09
view as to whether it's technically meets the minimum requirement and therefore for soundness do you need to
3:01:15
release allocate more sites of the minimum you are meeting um that
3:01:20
requirement I don't have a a response or review to me on that
3:01:26
I would say yes sir because you need that flexibility in supply um I don't
3:01:31
think I've ever come across a local plan that ends up with all the sites delivering exactly what they said on
3:01:38
exactly the time scale that's put in a trajectory. There usually is problems with one or two sites. It might not get
3:01:44
delivered. There might be a delay. The form of development might change which might mean the site capacities are
3:01:50
different. It's just a sensible thing to do to have an adequate contingency in there. I don't think having I think my
3:01:57
calculation was 188 unit buffer. I don't think that's adequate at all. uh that
3:02:03
really wouldn't take very much for the council not to be meeting its minimum requirement. Um and it goes back to
3:02:10
having a an effective policy and a positively prepared policy.
3:02:17
Thank you. And in terms of some of the measures that have been identified in terms of potential modifications to
3:02:24
policy, uh I think as you've referred to early plan review, I think that's been a well
3:02:30
recognized and rehearsed kind of mechanism that's been um identified for
3:02:36
other plans. Would that be within a specific time frame or is it just a requirement for an early early review?
3:02:45
Thank you, sir. Um well given what uh the MPPF says I think it would be an immediate plan review uh and they'd have
3:02:52
to immediately start that process. And as Mr. Erin said it notwithstanding the uh the government's um vision to have
3:03:00
plans prepared within a 30-month time scale under the new plan making system. I'm still somewhat skeptical about that.
3:03:06
So the sooner a new plan is brought forward the better. It's just that um
3:03:11
over the years I've been to a number of uh plan examinations under a number of guises and we talk about plan review and
3:03:19
uh some sort of policies put in there it's very wishy-washy and a plan review never happens and I'm just my concern is
3:03:27
irrespective of what the MPPF says and given the history of the council what the council have done here I'm really
3:03:33
skeptical about whether they're going to sort of pull the socks up and get on with the new plan which they need to be doing.
3:03:40
Thank you, Mr. Martin. This may end up bit of a conversation between us, but I promise I will bring in others. In terms
3:03:47
of the, you know, the council, as you say, you know, pulling its socks up or getting on with the plan review. Presumably, there are uh risks
3:03:55
if they don't get on with that process. And presumably there is an incentive and
3:04:00
uh a strong kind of uh imperative for a local authority to get on with a a plan
3:04:07
review under the new system. And it doesn't need you don't doesn't need to be kind of replicated or
3:04:13
articulated in the policy. I'm just wondering if if putting in something about plan review would be sailing too close to what's in
3:04:21
the MPPF. Um I wouldn't say so sir. Um I know that
3:04:26
there's uh the government sort of talking a tough line in terms of uh
3:04:31
intervention for um authorities that drag their heels. For instance, I guess there's uh Stockport which you may
3:04:37
beware aware of sir where the secretary of state wrote to the council and told them basically to get on with their their plan. There's always the threat of
3:04:44
the intervention and potentially the Secretary of State writing the plan for the authority, but you don't see that in
3:04:50
action very often. You might see a stern letter from the Secretary of State. Um, so from our point of view, HBF's point
3:04:57
of view, we still have misgivings about how quickly the council might be able to put a plan forward as there's a 30-month
3:05:04
time scale as as as you're aware. But to get to that gateway one situation, the
3:05:10
council could delay that feasibly for quite some time before they get to that gateway one, then the 30-month period
3:05:18
starts ticking.
3:05:23
Thank you. I mean it's perhaps driving more at Mr. Martin just you know the penalties for authorities particularly
3:05:29
with the change in policy around green belt if they don't get on with a a revised a new local plan.
3:05:37
So yes um I appreciate that but I guess we're in a plan making system aren't we sir so the preference would be to have
3:05:44
an up-to-ate plan rather than relying on a lack of 5year supply or failing housing delivery test.
3:05:51
Thank you Mr. the shadow for the council, please.
3:05:56
I have to say I find this speculation on whether or not the council will fulfill its obligations under the new
3:06:03
planning system to be slightly objectionable. And it should not inform
3:06:10
any decisions made for the purposes of this plan. The question is whether or
3:06:16
not the requirement is appropriate and whether or not it will be met.
3:06:21
Speculation beyond that is not appropriate in my submission.
3:06:32
Thank you. Um Mr. Eton, please.
3:06:38
Sorry, just a quick point to pick up on. Um it probably could be probably later in the agenda about the step trajectory
3:06:44
because the housing supply could have an impact on some of the leaders, but I probably a point for later in the
3:06:50
agenda. Thank you. I mean, so I'm just
3:06:55
reflecting Mr. Shadow. I understand the point. I mean, I think I'm just testing and I'm trying to
3:07:01
understand the effectiveness if there was a modification is being put to me in
3:07:07
terms of a change to policy SP16 that invoked an
3:07:12
early plan review. I'll come on to the point that's also been made about green belt review.
3:07:17
I perfectly I perfectly understand the logic of that. But it strayed beyond that. And the
3:07:24
question is whether or not there should be a review policy, review requirement. I think our simple response to that is
3:07:30
things have moved on. We're under an obligation, I think it's October, isn't it? Yeah. To get things moving. Um so
3:07:38
the idea of having a review mechanism here is is is really redundant.
3:07:45
Thank you. The other sort of lever that's been um
3:07:51
referred to me is that as part of this plan making process,
3:07:57
additional sites are released or safeguarded land is identified uh in
3:08:02
terms of being necessary um for soundness um
3:08:08
to provide that flexibility uh in the overall supply.
3:08:13
Um can I hear from those who are advocating
3:08:18
that what the kind of practical implications of that would be? So
3:08:23
presumably that would be a an instruction from me as a finding to ask
3:08:29
the council to find additional land supply.
3:08:40
Yeah. Yeah, I mean the regulation 18 version of the plan had additional sites which were considered to be meet the
3:08:46
criteria and the spatial distrib distribution strategy. So there's a big evidence base there already of suitable
3:08:52
sites which have been draft allocations. Um and again it's probably point for
3:08:59
later but the fiveyear supply at adoption includes quite a significant
3:09:04
contribution from green belt sites that are supposed to be allocated. So the
3:09:10
council accept that additional sites being allocated can make a a strong positive contribution early on in the
3:09:16
plan period. I respect that's more of a point for the five years to apply. Um but the sites there that are available
3:09:21
that can be delivered and there's the background evidence um shows that
3:09:30
obviously we all want the outcome to be a a sound and quality um plan. I mean
3:09:37
just on a practical level in terms of finding additional supply you refer
3:09:42
there to there's obviously been further previous rounds of plan making or be it some
3:09:48
time ago I mean is it as straight for excuse me and I'll I'll come to the council on this point I mean is it as
3:09:54
straightforward excuse me as going back to that earlier round of plan making uh the sites that
3:10:01
are there or will it require additional work um additional assessment um
3:10:10
and potentially how long could that take it would I think it would need additional work but I guess in terms of time scales um it's the quickest way of
3:10:17
boosting housing supply and meeting need which is there now for housing delivery which needs to be delivered now so in
3:10:23
the context of the time scales of this plan making process to date uh and any
3:10:29
potential review later down the line it is the quickest and most effective way
3:10:34
of addressing a a known shortfall um and a
3:10:40
known requirement to deliver more sites in the green belt. Um we all know what's coming with the new local plan and a new
3:10:46
housing methodology that's got a task in itself to deal with that. So for that to also have to pick up on any deficiency
3:10:54
from this current local plan is just adding more to that process and more delays no doubt. So yes, it will take a
3:10:59
bit of time, but in the overall scheme of things, it's the quickest way of addressing the shortfall.
3:11:22
Thank you. And you mentioned previously, Mr. And I think it's reflected in a recent um ministerial letter to the
3:11:29
planning inspectorate I think revoking the previous written ministerial statements in terms of inspectors being
3:11:36
able to recommend green belt reviews. So is that something you would
3:11:43
are advocating should be reflected or embedded in policy SP16?
3:11:51
I guess again it probably comes back to Liz to the point where there's a question about supply and deliverability. I guess it's more of a
3:11:57
question of in respect to the policy um I guess the question about whe the policy can
3:12:02
adequately address the known issue now it's more does the plan itself need more sites to address the need rather than it
3:12:10
being have I got reading the policy there seems to be a recognition that it's a real chance that there will be a
3:12:16
shortfall and the green belt is just a significant constraint to adapt later down the line um and it's the reason why
3:12:23
there's been such underd delivery over the last so many years. So I think it's more of a matter of addressing the
3:12:28
matter um in making a plan rather than word into a policy to look at it later down
3:12:35
the line. Thank you. If I can work my way along
3:12:40
the back row and we'll come to my left side of the table. I'll just perhaps seek a view from the council in terms of
3:12:48
finding additional supply if that was the way forward and the kind of the practicalities as the the council might
3:12:54
see it in terms of that as an option. Um Mr. Sabbury next please.
3:13:01
We would support the views that have already been set out and ultimately there was a large evidence base which underpinned those previous iterations of
3:13:08
the plan. So that would or could be the starting point. appreciate that would have to be updated but that is quite
3:13:14
common place in local plan examinations that there is a need for additional sites and opportunity to do that. So we
3:13:21
think that is the quickest way to address the potential lack of supply rather than relying on a plan review
3:13:27
which none of us really know what that's going to entail or the time scales that sit within that.
3:13:34
Uh Mr. Wolf please. Thank you sir. um may come as no
3:13:40
surprise but just to say that I do share the views presented by Mr. Erton in terms of where safeguarded land could be
3:13:45
found um in terms of earlier versions of the local plan and it was just to draw your attention certain comments I made
3:13:51
at stage one of the examination in terms of some inconsistencies that we found in assessing well in choosing to allocate
3:13:59
and not allocate some land. Um certainly our position is that if that is re-reviewed that um certainly some
3:14:06
safeguarded land could be found.
3:14:13
Thank you. Indicated a moment ago invite the
3:14:18
council. Um it's put to me um positively that there's an existing
3:14:25
evidence base. Previous sites have been considered. If I was concerned about the
3:14:30
margin of headroom between what's been identified in supply against the requirements, I felt it was necessary
3:14:37
for soundness to add further contingency uh into the plan. At this stage,
3:14:45
some sites can be, you know, quickly identified uh consulted on
3:14:51
um come back to further hearings for me to
3:14:57
consider. the track representations before going out to main modifications.
3:15:04
So, so the answer has to be on the premise that you actually find there is a need to
3:15:11
identify further sites. Is that right? Yes. If I
3:15:16
Okay. Yeah. Can I just preface what I'm going to say now by the fact that a lot of what's
3:15:24
been voiced here has already been voiced at stage one. Um we've been through the
3:15:29
justification for the spatial strategy for the requirement
3:15:35
um and why certain sites were rejected etc. That's all been dealt with.
3:15:40
Um what is now being suggested is that there is going to be or likely to be a
3:15:45
shortfall. There is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. the headroom um if you put it that way
3:15:52
would need itself to be justified before you can even start looking at other sites and what that requirement
3:15:58
additional requirement should be. There's no evidence to support that. You can't just go out and start allocating
3:16:04
sites in the green belt without very special circumstances being demonstrated. So that figure would have
3:16:11
to be robustly demonstrated. There is nothing here to suggest what that figure
3:16:16
should be. That's the first point. And it's not in my respectful submission for
3:16:21
this examination to go away and create one without that evidence.
3:16:29
Second point I would say is this. When one looks at the trajectory and I
3:16:35
know we're going to come on to discuss that it's a matter of reality that the major allocations are going to
3:16:42
start delivering after year five.
3:16:48
If one puts that into the context of what the statutory obligation and policy
3:16:53
obligation on this local authority is to start an immediate review, you can see
3:16:59
that that will in essence deal with that issue
3:17:09
in terms of the practicality. Even if you were to identify a figure
3:17:15
which would need to be robust and justified in order to release
3:17:20
further green belt land at this stage.
3:17:28
You would need to allow for
3:17:33
a fairly substantial delay before we get to
3:17:39
the modifications the end of the modifications period because of the implications for the
3:17:46
further work that would need to be done to substantiate the choice of sites to meet the
3:17:53
additional requirement. So that would mean green belt further
3:17:58
green belt review
3:18:04
further essay work in order to justify
3:18:11
the allocations chosen and they wouldn't just they wouldn't just present themselves out of the air.
3:18:17
They would have to be compared and in doing that one would have to have
3:18:23
regard to any potential future spatial strategy that would need to be adopted
3:18:28
for the purposes of the immediate review because one wouldn't want to prejudice
3:18:34
the options available to the council at that stage.
3:18:40
Bearing in mind particularly that there will be a need to meet a much higher
3:18:45
requirement which in itself may dictate a spatial strategy that would not be reflected
3:18:53
well or be compatible with further choices to be made by allocating other
3:18:59
sites within the green belt at this stage. So one has to exercise a degree of
3:19:06
reality and a degree of caution here have in regard to what is likely to
3:19:11
occur beyond the adoption of this plan.
3:19:20
I think that's about all I need to say actually.
3:19:25
Thank you. Before I invite people to my left, I'll give anybody a opportunity to
3:19:31
respond to that. I mean in particular the point in terms of is there an evidenced
3:19:37
shortfall against the housing requirement or do people want to leave that till we go through some of the kind
3:19:44
of components of supply. I think we'll come back to that one. The
3:19:51
point I would raise is all a plan review is going to do post adoption is boost supply in years 6 to 10. It's not going
3:19:57
to boost supplies in year 1 to five. So the only way to address the potential immediate shortfall. It's quite quite
3:20:04
interesting one where we used to see in local plans where delivery in the latter years of the plan is an issue. That's
3:20:09
really where a review mechanism works. In this scenario, the issue is an immediate issue and it's that lag
3:20:14
between before these large sites, these sites which require offsetting compensatory land can come forward.
3:20:21
There's that immediate need for sites. So it's a different dynamic to what I would expect to see a plan review being
3:20:26
used for.
3:20:36
Thank you. Can I hear next from people who've patiently been waiting to my my
3:20:42
left? Is it councelor Kilgore? Should we go in that that order then Mr. Green then councelor Ford?
3:20:48
Thank you sir. Um I I've got to say and I have I've voiced this previously. I
3:20:53
did raise concern around the selection of the sites. um previously um as in
3:20:59
Felgate seemed to um provide far greater value as in retaining that than some
3:21:06
other sites by way of that detailed um investigation. So I do still have those
3:21:13
concerns. Um I would um agree with Mr. Shadowavian in that we are looking at
3:21:18
this particular plan. However, what I would um note is that sir, if if um
3:21:24
Felgate should be removed from the plan, there would be um a a need for additional sites of course. Um but that
3:21:32
would be you rendering the plan um you know um not sound. Um what I would say
3:21:39
with regards to the safeguarded land at Falgate um that is being suggested and has been withdrawn. I support the
3:21:45
withdrawal of that. Um, Felgate has not only been impacted by this particular
3:21:52
proposal but also by the removal of green belt for the AMP which has been
3:21:58
really significant. So this is um a huge um additional taking from the green belt
3:22:05
on Felgate the safeguarded land. It also does not allow even currently for the BNG requirements to be met and certainly
3:22:13
not on site. I think we really are going over uh ground that was covered at stage one. Um
3:22:20
not really I'm struggling to see how this is relevant to policy SP16.
3:22:25
Can I mention about the other the other sites sir? I think um the the ones I I
3:22:30
do think I I don't hold weight in that um there hasn't already been
3:22:37
investigations because there has. So it at at reggg 19 they were dropped or taken forward and they were at a at a
3:22:44
state of readiness of investigation at that particular point. Um and just going back to the infrastructure as well and I
3:22:52
think the decisions and the and the discussions around you know not being confident around full council taking
3:22:58
them forward that is the democratic process that we're in that that's we represent our our community.
3:23:05
Mr. Green please. Yeah, thank thanks. It's just concerning
3:23:11
particularly in relation to Felgate that uh well well first of all that the developers are making the assumption
3:23:17
that exceptional circumstances have been proven unless I'm mistaken they haven't yet to release green belt land. Uh and
3:23:25
I'm just concerned you know that in relation to they're asking for the the remainder of the land on the green belt
3:23:31
to be safeguarded for development but then that goes against all the principles of the green belt because
3:23:36
it'll then create you know that it'll do it'll create urban sprawl where we'll then be connected with the I am uh to
3:23:44
Sunland and to Gates and it totally does away with the green belt principles.
3:23:51
Thank you. Councelor Ford, please.
3:23:56
Thank you. I I'll be brief. I was just going to agree with um points made by uh Mr. Shadarian about where we are right
3:24:04
now with this plan and there is no shortfall. The the housing requirements are clearly um being met and there is
3:24:12
some headroom. Um the um the history of how we got here um is simply that um
3:24:21
that was part of the democratic process. Um there has you know been uh points
3:24:27
raised by myself at the at that point about the fact of why are we um
3:24:33
submitting this plan when we immediately need to start a plan in the new um regime. So, you know, the the um the
3:24:42
fact that we've already um had the um removal of of sites um from uh previous
3:24:50
iterations into the reggg 19 um stage. Um there's no justification for uh
3:24:57
assuming that those sites are acceptable to be brought back in immediately. There's just been another green belt
3:25:04
review that was um uh aiming to um keep defensible boundaries of the green belt.
3:25:11
We are very constrained um burough with um being bounded by the river and the sea and um you know the green there is
3:25:20
no other land. There's green belt but there's no other land beyond that where which you have in other authorities. um
3:25:27
we would be um uh looking at you know future we're going to look at other
3:25:33
issues around densities and things. So there are I I I I would dispute the fact that the um the main urban areas has
3:25:41
been um um squeezed till till the pips um come up whatever the phrase was um
3:25:47
you know there there are always um uh other sites that that need to be investigated in in the next iteration of
3:25:54
the plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin, please.
3:26:02
Thank you, sir. Just for avoidance of doubt, we wouldn't be advocating the removal of failgate. I think that would
3:26:08
have the opposite effect of what we think, which is a further need to to boost house building. Um, from listening
3:26:16
to uh what has been said around the table, you'd be mistaken for thinking that the everything's sort of hunky dory
3:26:23
with the with the supply and this plan. I would highlight the fact that the council asking for a step trajectory.
3:26:30
That to me is a bit of a warning light that all is not well with supply. If they're having to do that, that's great.
3:26:37
Thank you. Thank you. Well, we'll come we'll come on to that probably um this afternoon after the lunch um adjournment.
3:26:45
Um are there any further points people wish to raise in relation to policy SP16 my
3:26:53
question that was posed about its effectiveness? I think I'm quite clear from various submissions what people
3:26:59
would seek me do by way of modification and clear on the council's kind of
3:27:04
resistance um to those those submissions
3:27:10
in which case can I move on then please probably before we'll start the discussion then probably break break for
3:27:16
lunch uh part of uh the council's um housing land supply um it's not unique
3:27:23
to South Tinside um but it's it's often a a component of the housing land supply
3:27:30
is it windfall provision the council itself has a policy policy 13 on
3:27:35
windfall and backland um sites and my questions are various questions I put to
3:27:42
everybody including the council in terms of the effectiveness I think clarity of that policy in terms
3:27:48
it's what it's seeking to achieve and then ultimately
3:27:53
whether there's the I think in the language of national planning policy whether there is the compelling
3:27:59
evidence to make an allowance windfall um going forward. So like council first
3:28:06
please. Yeah. So the intention with policy 13
3:28:12
was to support a range of site types and sizes to come forward to be able to come
3:28:17
forward under that policy. Um, we recognize there's a bit of wording in there that could potentially stop that.
3:28:24
So, we've proposed a modification under question 7.23 which would remove that
3:28:31
small infill little bit of wording just to ensure that the policy allows a range
3:28:37
of site sizes to come forward. Um, in terms of the windfall allowance
3:28:45
that we've allowed for in the housing trajectory, um, that's kind of set out
3:28:50
in the efficient use of land paper and that sort of sets out the the reasoning behind that. But just very briefly, the
3:28:58
local development framework, the the adopter plan for the burough allocated sites to meet the burough's housing need
3:29:03
up to 2026. Um but windfall sites have still continued to come forward and make
3:29:08
a significant contribution to the burough's housing delivery. Um and we've seen that windfall sites have continued
3:29:16
to come forward. So just a couple of examples is the Simon side arms and shaft avenue. So those are sites that
3:29:23
have never sort of been in the schlaw process until the point that they've come in as planning applications. So
3:29:30
they're sort of completely unknown sites to the council. Um and yes, sites like that continue to come forward.
3:29:37
Um sorry, as I say, the kind of methodology behind the windfall allowance is set out in the efficient
3:29:43
land use paper, but we the council considers that's a proportionate and
3:29:48
reasonable allowance.
3:29:54
Thank you. And in terms of the allowance that's being made, it's it's 37 dwellings peranom.
3:30:01
And in terms of we'll come on to the trajectory just to confirm with the council you're not making an allowance
3:30:06
for windfall in the first two or three years post sort of plan adoption to kind
3:30:12
of recognize there will still be supply commitments coming through.
3:30:17
Yeah that's correct. So the windfall allowance allows for 37 dwellings perom which is kind of based on 27 on large
3:30:25
sites and 10 on small sites and that kicks in from year six from um the March
3:30:32
2025 schlar and I've obviously heard at various
3:30:38
stages including this afternoon already the kind of the the margin between supply and and requirement. So
3:30:44
presumably the council wants a positive kind of policy where there is sustainable windfall um to come forward.
3:30:52
I think people have seen the council's proposed modification. It's not just um
3:30:57
a small infill site. So that's removed from the policy. There are other things that policy 13 seeks or requires from uh
3:31:06
as part of windfall development. And one of the aspects is that criterion one
3:31:12
uh5 that development would make a positive contribution. And I think there was
3:31:17
certainly representations on the plan as to what how that would be judged and
3:31:23
whether that's a potential inhibitor of further sustainable
3:31:29
windfall. I think it was my MIQ um 724.
3:31:35
Yeah. So the the intention with that wording was just to ensure that proposals assessed
3:31:42
and sort of to to ensure that schemes contribute constructively to meeting the
3:31:47
local housing needs and support the delivery of well-designed and sustainable communities and they sort of
3:31:52
fit in with the overall local plan spatial strategy.
3:32:02
Thank you. And just finally on the policy itself, policy 13 I don't want to lose sight of I think through the
3:32:08
statement of common ground with national highways has been a an agreement that there'll be a further
3:32:14
modification to the policy I think to reflect their concern or their view on cumulative
3:32:20
kind of impacts. So just making a note that that's not lost in the the ether
3:32:28
in terms of then looking at windfall. As I say, a lot of plans will make an
3:32:33
allowance for windfall. There does have to be compelling evidence to do so as required by national planning policy at
3:32:39
paragraph 71 of the version of the MPPF. We're working to um
3:32:46
council's obviously set out its evidence uh for what the rate it wants to um
3:32:53
include within the plan. Can I hear from those who feel that that's potentially not going to be an effective approach or
3:33:00
that we need to apply a bit more caution around the windfall allowance that's
3:33:05
being made through combination of how effectively how effective policy 13 will
3:33:11
be plus the council's evidence to date and what I'm hearing about you know sites are nonetheless coming forward
3:33:18
irrespective of the schlar process and what the council sought to do in terms of allocating anything that's suitable
3:33:25
able and available through the schlar. Mr. Martin,
3:33:30
thank you sir. Um it's really just to say welcome the the amendment that's
3:33:36
been suggested by the council to take that wording of small infill. I think that clarifies it somewhat.
3:33:44
My view is it probably needs further clarification because now as read it just says the site is previously
3:33:50
developed or is a site within the main urban area. Do we need previously developed
3:33:57
reference in there given that the council will be needing as positive a windfall policy as possible? Uh and just
3:34:04
for clarity, it could be brownfield sites, it could be green field sites. in reality, they're going to need
3:34:10
opportunities on on either site, if they're sustainable, to come come forward. Um, I I was suggesting that
3:34:18
simply it just needs to be replaced with sites within the urban area that would make a positive contribution.
3:34:29
Thank you. Come back to the council. Was the council seeking a distinction in policy that it would be previously
3:34:35
developed land anywhere or small
3:34:41
uh or a site within the main urban area or is it both? Yes.
3:34:46
Yeah. So, as it's worded sort of if that modification was to be taken forward,
3:34:51
the intention would be that the it kind of opens up the policy to be previously
3:34:56
de developed or land within the main urban area. And then we also have obviously the that last kind of positive
3:35:03
contribution little bit that we just discussed that's also an or not an and. So it kind of yeah it allows for
3:35:12
either or. So the first part of the policy could apply to previously developed land
3:35:18
anywhere anywhere. Okay. So on that basis I think
3:35:25
Mr. Martin do you still advocate an amendment? No, that just makes it a little bit clearer from my point of view. Thank you.
3:35:38
Thank you. Are there any further points in relation to windfall provision? Mr.
3:35:43
Burton. It was just a minor point about the main urban area and I it's a coincidence but
3:35:50
paragraph 2.5 of the trough local plan. It says the areas of Baldens, Cleon and
3:35:57
Whitburn Village are separated from the main urban areas. So I think that might be just separate part of the boat if you
3:36:04
kind of I just flagged up a bit of kind of um conflict with what is the main urban area.
3:36:13
I was relatively clear from the council that the main urban area includes
3:36:19
um South Shields, Jarro, Heburn, the Baldens, Cleon, and presumably it's
3:36:24
identified as such on the on the policies map. That's correct. Yeah. And there's a map
3:36:32
in the in our hearing statements, which I believe is also in the plan somewhere, but it's figure two in the in our um
3:36:39
matter seven hearing statement that kind of identifies the main urban area. We could probably
3:36:46
delete the word the main and put a main urban area. Makes it clear we're
3:36:52
referring to all of them.
3:37:05
Okay, thank you for that. It's coming up to 10 to one. Um, we've still got a
3:37:12
reasonable amount to discuss around housing land supply. Before I take the break, appreciate Mr. Butler, you've
3:37:18
joined us. The I was saying at the start there was unfortunately there's been a bit of confusion between the program and
3:37:24
agendas. So what I've done is started the discussion further along the agenda.
3:37:30
So we haven't discussed item one at all yet. So I will come back to that
3:37:36
after the lunchtime adjournment. Yes, thank you sir. And my colleagues from East Balden forum will be here for
3:37:42
that. So I was just going to to to make what I hope is a helpful point about East Balden and the main urban area. Uh
3:37:49
the neighborhood plan for East Balden includes a settlement boundary which effectively is the uh the village of
3:37:56
East Balden. So any windfall sites uh within the urban area of East Balden if
3:38:02
you want to describe it as that would have that uh um support.
3:38:14
Thank you. Okay. So, what I'm suggesting now is we'll take a lunchtime uh
3:38:19
adjournment. It's just come up to 5 to one. Uh and I'd like to resume back in this room at 2:00 and we'll be on item
3:38:27
four of the agenda in terms of the approach to housing density. Thank you.
4:45:38
Good afternoon everybody. It's just gone 2 o'clock. So, it's time for me to uh resume this hearing session into matter
4:45:44
7 issue two of the uh examination of the South Tin side uh local plan. Um just to
4:45:52
remind everybody in the room, I'm David Spencer. from the planning inspector appointed by the secretary of state to carry out the independent examination.
4:45:59
Could I just remind people again just to ensure that phones are on their silent settings please or switched off? Uh I
4:46:08
don't think we do a fire test or alarm this afternoon. So I think the previous
4:46:14
standing advice uh applies. So the alarm does go. We'll need to exit the building. I think we go out to the car
4:46:19
park uh and we'll assemble there. Um before we took the the adjournment
4:46:26
for lunch, we'd made some progress into um the agenda for uh matter 7 issue two,
4:46:33
but we hadn't covered agenda item one. Um apologies to those from East Boulder.
4:46:40
I think there was confusion I' generated some confusion between uh the program
4:46:45
and the uh agenda. So we haven't discussed item one yet. So
4:46:51
what I'm proposing to do is we will deal with that first as I know you've made specific representations on that and
4:46:59
then if there's anything further you wish to pick up in terms of either items two or three on the agenda which we've
4:47:05
already discussed I'm very happy to hear from that hear from you on those those two points. Um I think everybody around
4:47:13
the room has introduced themselves. Obviously, these sessions are being recorded as per normal, but can I just
4:47:20
invite um the two uh representatives from East Balden to just introduce
4:47:25
themselves again for the recording? I'm Dave Hutchinson from East Balden
4:47:31
Neighborhood Forum. Uh good afternoon, Mvin Butler from Clayton East Balden Labor Party.
4:47:39
Thank you. So we return to item one on the agenda uh and it's the issue of the
4:47:45
housing requirement. We've looked at certain parts of policy SP16
4:47:50
but part one of the requirements in national planning policy is for strategic policies in local plans to set
4:47:57
housing requirements for neighborhood plan areas. And I think and turn to the council in terms of the response to uh
4:48:05
one of my MIQs on this. There are two neighborhood plan areas within South Tinesside and if I can just understand
4:48:12
from the council the approach you've taken in terms of setting a housing requirement for these neighborhood plan
4:48:17
areas please. Yeah. So policy SP16 sets the housing requirement for both East Balden and
4:48:24
Whitburn neighborhood plan areas. Um while there's no set method for
4:48:30
setting housing requirements, the general policym process can be that's already been undertaken by local
4:48:36
authorities can be taken into account and used to direct development
4:48:41
and it can kind of take into account the relevant policies and evidence such as the strategic housing land availability
4:48:48
assessment. Um and that's kind of how in the context of policy SP16 we've arrived
4:48:53
at those requirements for the two neighborhood plan areas. So the sustainability appraisal, the SHA and
4:49:00
the site selection topic paper all informed the spatial distribution of the proposed allocations which in turn
4:49:07
informed the specific requirements for the neighborhood plan areas.
4:49:14
So in essence, what's presented in policy SP16 as neighborhood requirements
4:49:20
for these two communities is the sites that are allocated um under
4:49:27
policy SP7. Yeah, that's correct. So it's essentially a capacity based
4:49:32
requirement. Thank you. And that wouldn't rule out or
4:49:39
preclude if sustainable windfall came forward in these these villages in
4:49:44
addition to that figure. Yeah. So same as the sort of overall housing requirement, it's it's an
4:49:50
indicative minimum requirement and we touched on this as part of the
4:49:58
discussion on day one this week. uh East Balden there's a particular uh
4:50:06
dimension to the housing land supply uh in terms of not only is there the proposed allocation um which we
4:50:13
discussed at stage one and I've got the views from the forum and others on that
4:50:19
is this issue of uh the site at Cleon Lane I think was discussed on day one
4:50:26
the council is accounting for this site within its housing trajectory
4:50:32
on the basis that it was a site that had a resolution to grant planning permission, but the section 106 legal
4:50:39
agreement had not been signed. Yeah, that's correct. So, at the time
4:50:45
that the plan was prepared that, as you say, the site had a resolution to grant, but obviously the situation with that
4:50:50
site has changed quite a bit over the the course and we're expecting obviously it to change again during this week or
4:50:57
next week. Okay. because obviously it's a site subject to a current appeal um at the
4:51:04
moment. I mean the reason I raise it I mean it is a a site it's it's not in apologies double negatives it's not
4:51:10
insignificant at 202 dwellings so it's a large if it wasn't allocated it's a large windfall site um
4:51:21
I think there's people around the table who are have raised issues around this in terms of how it could be sort of
4:51:28
presented within the plan and we discussed or touched upon in the first
4:51:34
uh uh session whether given its background and where it is it would be necessary for
4:51:40
soundness to ident positively identify it in policy SP4 as an allocation within
4:51:46
the main urban area as a site that technically as we sit here now doesn't have planning permission
4:51:54
until such time as it does it needs to stay in it does and I think it's it's a question
4:52:00
of where it's accounted for I appreciate the council has factored it in so it's just it's forecasting and projecting
4:52:07
something for it. But I ordinarily and thinking back to the discussion we
4:52:13
had under SP4, the council was saying for sites that got planning permission
4:52:19
that were in SP4 that were not yet under construction that they would remain as allocations. And I just wonder whether
4:52:26
the Cleon site would meet that threshold as well. I'll put it to the council if
4:52:32
if I'm thinking of a main modification
4:52:43
which then leads us on to and will have a bearing on this discussion.
4:52:49
If Clean Lane was to be positively al identified in policy SP4, would the
4:52:56
housing requirement figure in SP16 need to increase to 465?
4:53:03
Yeah, we would agree that policy SP16 would have to be modified.
4:53:12
Thank you. I'll bring in others on this this particular point and the treatment of how the plan sets a housing
4:53:18
requirement for uh neighborhood plan areas. So invite Mr. Hutchinson first for the forum then I hear from Mr.
4:53:24
Butler and I'll bring in Mr. Westwick for a homes. Thank you.
4:53:31
Thank you sir. I think in terms of a discussion about the the neighborhood plan and the housing requirement, it's
4:53:38
important to remind everybody that in the uh the maid neighborhood plan which
4:53:44
was agreed in 2021, we had um commissioned a survey by ACOM
4:53:51
which looked at the housing need within the forum area and that indicated a
4:53:56
figure of 146 dwellings up until 2031.
4:54:03
Now, obviously, we've moved beyond that in terms of you the council's housing
4:54:09
target, but I think that's an important fact to mention that that was the requirement for East Balden uh as a
4:54:16
neighborhood plan area. You've mentioned the um the Cleven Lane site which was a
4:54:22
brownfield site which was offering 202 dwellings and uh as has been said there
4:54:30
may be a decision on that within the next couple of weeks hopefully so we'll know exactly what's happening there. um
4:54:37
that site is al is is um a brownfield site and is within the neighborhood plan
4:54:43
settlement boundary. So we weren't objecting to that as such. But already
4:54:49
that 202 houses takes East Balden over the identified housing need in the
4:54:54
neighborhood plan of 146. So I think it's important to emphasize that point.
4:55:00
The East Balden uh neighborhood plan area has around 1,800
4:55:05
houses at the current time and we believe that given the constraints of in the local infrastructure and the road
4:55:12
network um with the housing alongside it, we are still of the opinion that the
4:55:17
figure identified in the neighborhood plan 146 is proportionate and sound. So
4:55:23
that really sets the background that we're we're talking about here. Um the forums objected to the overall
4:55:30
strategy of the plan's housing requirement figure and pattern and the scale of development proposed for the
4:55:35
village and in particular the proposed allocation for site G82 at North Farm
4:55:42
which is 263 homes. Um the housing requirement figure proposed in policy
4:55:49
SP16 simply matches the indicative capacity figure for site GA2 which as we've said
4:55:56
is already over the uh the housing need identified in the neighborhood plan. Um
4:56:02
you've talked about acknowledging the 202 homes at Cleon Lane. So that would
4:56:08
be helpful if that was included in the figure. um along with the nine homes at
4:56:14
the former Mayflower Glass site which has been approved. Uh but as far as we're aware, no development
4:56:22
is within sight at the moment on that.
4:56:28
There's been no completions come through from that site yet. Yeah. Um so if all of these sites are
4:56:35
agreed that would represent um a for 26%
4:56:41
increase in the size of the village which uh is constrained severely by its Victorian infrastructure and it the
4:56:48
local services which are at capacity. Um the council states in their answer to
4:56:56
question 719 that the policy establishes clear housing requirements for East
4:57:01
Balden providing clarity to the neighborhood forum in the community which it does. We disagree with the view
4:57:08
though and believe that the true extent of development which is 470 homes should be made clear and referred to within
4:57:15
policy SP16 which I think is what you're saying now should be the case.
4:57:21
Um that's key to everybody involved understanding the impact on the village.
4:57:28
Uh 470 houses a significant number when considering the constraints locally
4:57:34
within the village. Um,
4:57:40
paragraph 16 66 of the NPF states that strategic policies should also set a
4:57:47
housing requirement for designated neighborhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and
4:57:53
scale of development and any relevant allocations. So, what you've said has
4:57:58
been consistent with that. Um, all I was going to say to to finish up
4:58:05
was that the Mayflower Glass Light and Clean Lane are both brownfield sites in line with policy SP 3.3 and should be
4:58:13
included in policy X SP16. So, we would welcome that inclusion if that's what's
4:58:19
going to be agreed. Thank you.
4:58:26
Thank you for that. um in terms of the alternative
4:58:32
excuse me the alternative figure that's now being provided so the Mayflower Mayflower glass site is that nine
4:58:39
dwellings so it's not a major scheme so that would potentially be sort of
4:58:44
accounted for if permission was ever to lapse is a small small site windfall
4:58:52
yeah potentially that could be caught up in in that way Okay.
4:58:59
Thank you, Mr. Butler, please. Yes. Thank you, sir. Um I think the uh
4:59:04
the community has long held the view that uh this part of the policy and it
4:59:10
was in uh the the previous plan as well in terms of the way the council was treating the neighborhood plan housing
4:59:16
requirement didn't reflect uh the the the the position uh that they found
4:59:23
because the neighborhood plan had been through the community consultation. uh it included um uh the Clean Lane site
4:59:31
within the settlement boundary. So the community knew that there was uh a strong chance that that would be as a
4:59:37
brownfield site developed for housing and also felt that that could meet uh
4:59:43
the need of of the village as as identified in in the neighborhood plan. So we always argued that um uh the
4:59:51
housing requirement figure shouldn't be com simply on uh any allocation that
4:59:57
came forward as part of the local plan process. It should include that site. So, um I'm pleased to hear what is being
5:00:04
said by the councils today because I think it would then give certainty to the community that they were facing um
5:00:11
uh two large sites uh that would bring uh 465 uh dwellings uh to the village o over a
5:00:19
period and we're going to come on to discuss housing trajectory later and I think it's important from from the
5:00:26
community's point of view that if we are faced with the Cleveland lane site and if you far minded to allocate site at L
5:00:34
Farm J2. Uh that the phasing of that development would ease the pressure on
5:00:40
the infrastructure within the village. Uh that's been said. Um so from that
5:00:46
point of view, if it is to be a modification uh to to make uh SP uh 16
5:00:53
relating to East Balden neighborhood plan a figure of 465, that that would be acceptable. Um you mentioned whether uh
5:01:02
we wanted to make any other comments on SP16. I think the main issues are around your your question 7.35.
5:01:10
Um so I don't know whether we should deal with that now. Um and if not um
5:01:16
then we could come back to it under under your item 8 in terms of the housing trajectory.
5:01:22
Thank you. I mean obviously raised again at at 7:35 this specific issue about how
5:01:29
um the Cleon Lane site has been accounted for. I think as a sort
5:01:35
clarification from the council, I think it's always been there somewhere within the trajectory uh as a site that was um
5:01:44
counted for as as helping to meet the housing requirement during the plan period. And it's it's a question of
5:01:50
where that's reflected um within the plan. I think the modification of kind of been
5:01:58
intimating to the council would be to sort of positively identify in policy SP4.
5:02:05
Um Mr. Westwick please. So you please know I don't really have
5:02:10
much more to add to this. I think I've I've made the point a number of times and I think uh we agree um on the basis
5:02:16
of the appeal decision doesn't land um the next day or so uh it should be identified in SP4.
5:02:24
Mr. I think my points being someone somewhat
5:02:29
answered already by the council's opening statement. Um at the stage one hearings in matter three, the council
5:02:34
confirmed that the villages were comparable in terms of the sustainability to accommodate growth um and development.
5:02:41
Um but the amount of housing that would be directed to the village of Whitburn is is limited when compared to the scale
5:02:46
of the settlement and inconsistent with the scale of development allocated at the other villages. Um and this was
5:02:52
confirmed by the council with the Baldens accounting for 7.5% Cleon 7.4%
5:03:00
and Whitburn 2%. Um but I think your opening question to
5:03:06
the to the council confirm that the figures in SP16 are at least and they
5:03:12
don't necessarily restrict additional demand above those figures stated in the policy. So that that's reassuring as
5:03:18
well. Thank you for that. Presumably in those
5:03:25
uh proportions of growth, this Cleon Lane site was always there. It's it's in
5:03:31
terms of being factored in. It doesn't whether it's under SP4 it would have been accounted for as a planning
5:03:36
permission. It's still reflected in the distribution of growth. In terms of the figures that Mr. or you saying that is
5:03:42
that the alloc is that the spread of allocations? My understanding would be the 7.5 7.4% is based on 263. So I
5:03:51
assume that would go up if it's increased to 465.
5:03:59
Were there any further points that uh East Balden wanted to make in relation to items two and three on the agenda
5:04:07
before I come back to I'm going to pick up again at item four.
5:04:12
don't recall so from reading your your representations but just want to make
5:04:18
sure. Thank you. Thank you for that. So we come back to where we um had the
5:04:23
wider discussion um before lunch. So we're on item four and it's policy 14
5:04:28
which sits again alongside policy SP16 in terms of whether that policy uh is
5:04:35
effective uh and consistent with national policy uh in terms of the approach to housing
5:04:42
um density uh within the burough what the plans uh again seeking um to achieve. So
5:04:50
perhaps if invite the council uh I think it was my
5:05:00
MI excuse me MIQ727.
5:05:06
Yeah. So the purpose of um policy 14
5:05:12
was to ensure that there's an efficient use of land through appropriate residential densities that reflect the
5:05:18
role and character of the different areas across the burough. The supporting text does set out indicative densities
5:05:24
that are informed by proximities to metro stations, local and district town
5:05:29
and district centers. Um but they are obviously not within the policy. They're indicative densities that are kind of
5:05:36
used just to guide development. Um, in line with paragraph 125b of the
5:05:44
MPPF, the policy provides a clear direction to optimize densities where appropriate and in the most sustainable
5:05:50
locations across the burough.
5:06:02
Thank you. Just looking at the supporting text and whether it needs to be clearer that they are indicative densities that will be applied there
5:06:10
just to add the word indicative. Y
5:06:15
um Mr. Martin please then on policy 14. Sorry I think you saw my thunder there a
5:06:21
bit. I was going to suggest that because my point was that at the moment there's a bit of a disconnect between the policy
5:06:27
wording which seems quite flexible and a supporting text. would welcome the inclusion of the word indicative.
5:06:33
Okay, thank you. And in terms of the overall um approach to density, uh we had a bit
5:06:40
of discussion about this at the stage one um hearings, but in terms of again
5:06:47
this issue about you know is is the sort of the optimum um
5:06:53
being achieved or could be achieved within um the main urban area in terms of the density of developments. The
5:06:59
council obviously got its evidence in the um density report of 2024 and I see
5:07:05
the council's going to make a slight change to the supporting text to policy 14 but various representations I think
5:07:13
have said whether there are sites within the burough that have achieved particularly high densities. I think the
5:07:19
two sites that were referred to were the le Hawthorne le the Hawthorne Leslie site uh and the the Hobburn uh site
5:07:28
close to the town center whether if you included looking at those sites as um an
5:07:35
indication that you more could be achieved or higher densities could be achieved within the the urban builtup
5:07:42
area. Yeah. Yeah. So the reason those two sites were excluded from the study is they are genuine anomalies to the
5:07:49
development patterns across the burough and we just thought that if if we included them then they would skew
5:07:55
obviously skew the average densities upwards and they just wouldn't be reflective of densities that are
5:08:00
generally achieved across the burough. Um the indicative densities that we've included in the supporting texts already
5:08:08
account for an average of 60 dwellings per hectare in Jerro and South Shields and obviously that is quite a high
5:08:13
density anyway. So I think that is quite reflective of the development patterns
5:08:19
in those areas without sort of including those two outliers.
5:08:26
Thank you. I'm just have to take a break for just need to just think get some
5:08:32
fresh air. Sorry about this. I'm just going have to take a break for about five minutes. So people are just just bear with me. I'll be back shortly.
5:11:39
Thank you. I think we're all here. Apologies about that. I don't know if I just got too warm or
5:11:44
whatever it was. So, thank you for bearing with me. So, we were looking at
5:11:51
um the agenda uh on item
5:11:56
uh 14 around density and I think the council was just explaining to me about the appropriateness of including the uh
5:12:04
Hthorn Leslie sites and the uh the Hobburn site and whether that would be
5:12:10
um skewing kind of the figures to include those.
5:12:15
Yes. So sorry just to kind of recap the the council considered that those two
5:12:21
sites are genuine outliers compared to de de development patterns that we see
5:12:27
across the burough even in those main urban areas. Um, so yeah, essentially that was the
5:12:32
decision that they the including those would uplift the the indicative
5:12:38
densities to a level that just wouldn't be reflective of densities that we do generally see delivered.
5:12:46
Thank you. Is it on the density point, Mr. Martin? It's just to say that um sir that I
5:12:54
think that indicative densities do need to be used with a little bit of caution and it was something that we raised in
5:13:00
stage one and it's to do with the fact that it's based on the council's density study which inevitably is a backwards
5:13:06
looking study looking at what has been developed previously. We're obviously in this very different policy environment
5:13:12
now. So you have the likes of on-site BNG. If this plan's approved, you'd have M42, M43 dwellings, which might be a bit
5:13:20
larger in size. There'll be increasing requirements from no doubt from highways in terms of LTM120 active travel
5:13:27
measures or that sort of squeezes net to gross ratios. So I'd always urge a sort
5:13:35
of slight bit of caution when relying on that to set indicative densities which is why I'm personally quite pleased that
5:13:41
the the policy itself is sufficiently flexible to allow for sight specific circumstances and character and location
5:13:47
of the area in the market for instance. Thank you. Thank you. If I can bring in others. So
5:13:53
councelor Ford and then councelor Kilgore. Thank you. Um I I believe that actually
5:14:01
the the reason given for excluding the those two large sites um uh saying that
5:14:08
they're um anomalous um is um that they
5:14:13
saying that the the sites have a much higher density um so uh in order to be
5:14:18
viable sites for for for the developers more dwellings on site were required and that meant those sites have a much
5:14:25
higher proportion of flats and apartments, but there's clearly a high demand for flats and apartments in the
5:14:31
main urban areas because we've had significant increase in conversions of buildings, both residential and com
5:14:38
commercial, um, into flats and also into HMOs. Um, there've been an increasing
5:14:43
number of flats and apartments being built in the main urban areas for older people. For example, the Riverside
5:14:48
apartments, 48 flats for over 55s, Seymour Court, 49 apartments for over
5:14:54
60s. both of those in South Shields, but more of these are clearly required to
5:14:59
meet the future needs of our um population as more of us older. Um and I
5:15:06
believe that the um the the density study um even without including those
5:15:12
two sites shows that the minimum density standards in the plan or indicative are
5:15:17
lower than the densities which were achieved in the period between from the
5:15:22
last study in 2018. So saying asserting that the um uh that
5:15:31
the densities uh uh mentioned here now
5:15:36
are um are reflective of general that that's not the case. If you look at the
5:15:42
previous six years um and if you did include the two larger sites the average
5:15:48
density achieved would be even higher. This discrepancy even greater. So I appreciate that there's flexibility in
5:15:55
in the in the um uh density uh indicators but um there there really is
5:16:02
a risk as as your question um uh indicates that the capacity of the main
5:16:08
urban areas is being underestimated. the market can support and viably is viably
5:16:13
delivering higher densities um in in parts of South Tinside and that's that
5:16:19
um is should be reflected um you know to make to make the plan um justified.
5:16:28
Thank you uh councelor Kore. Thank you sir. I I just wanted to make
5:16:34
the point with regards to SP8 and and the densities um there that um when we
5:16:40
had a planning application some years ago which is why I I came to council actually um the the area was considered
5:16:46
semi-ural um and the densities on the perimeter of the housing um suggested for Felgate is
5:16:55
is disproportionate to that um in that the tighter and higher densities are on
5:17:01
the perimeter um and the lower density properties are facing the enjoyment of what would be
5:17:07
left as of of the green belt. Um so I would really bring into question there
5:17:12
the density levels um around the perimeter of SP8 please.
5:17:21
There any further points people wish to raise in relation to policy 14?
5:17:28
No. In which case I'm going to move on to item five and it's small site delivery. It was my MIQ 7.34.
5:17:36
Uh the national planning policy framework I think at paragraph 69 um seeks that 10% of the ex the housing
5:17:42
requirement is delivered on sites of one hectare or less. I think the council's answered this question but if I can
5:17:48
invite it to confirm its position please.
5:17:53
Yeah. So the um h housing trajectory and overall housing supply accounts for um
5:18:01
10 small windfall sites which we kind of touched on earlier from year six onwards
5:18:07
which reflects the recommendations in the efficient use of land paper. There's 17 allocations in the plan which are on
5:18:12
sites smaller than one hectare and they account for a total of 374 dwellings and
5:18:17
the plan also factors in 25 dwellings from the the brownfield register which is a total of 449
5:18:25
dwellings um which would account for more than 10% of the residual housing requirement.
5:18:33
Thank you. Any further points on the smaller
5:18:39
sites requirement, Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. As an organization, we
5:18:45
not only represent sort of the larger volume house, we also represent an awful lot of the smaller and and mediumsiz
5:18:52
house builders. And it's really just to emphasize um the importance that smaller
5:18:57
sites and and I think this will become relevant when we talk about the step trajectory, the importance of smaller
5:19:02
sites coming forward and being allocated because smaller developers find the funding extremely difficult uh and they
5:19:10
need to get the funding to build the houses. they often need the planning certainty and and something with
5:19:15
planning status which is why the allocations are important and I' point to the uh emerging MPPF and again I know
5:19:23
limited weight but it shows direction of travel from the government and that's very much been tweaked that wording to say allocate because it's it's important
5:19:31
uh so we would be very much encouraging the council if there are small sites to allocate them rather than relying them
5:19:38
on them being windfall or or even on a brownfield bridge the allocation is important element
5:19:45
you um I'm full policy SP4 allocates some very small sites as part of the
5:19:51
overall overall mix. Okay, then move on to item six which is
5:19:57
around updating the housing trajectory. Now the plan at figure two
5:20:03
uh sets out the uh housing trajectory which I understand was as of November
5:20:09
2023. I just wanted to understand as before we get into the kind of the substance of a
5:20:15
trajectory just to understand from the council kind of going forward is the evidence or information available that
5:20:22
would allow the trajectory to be updated as of the
5:20:27
1st of April 2025. Yeah, we do have that evidence and
5:20:32
that's obviously been fed into the housing trajectory update paper. So we've got the evidence on completions
5:20:38
and updated commitments. Thank you. Alongside the updated um
5:20:44
schlar behind that as well. Okay. Thank you. And people should have seen at the
5:20:50
uh back of uh the council I think it was appended to the council statement and I think it's part of the
5:20:57
uh schlar and possibly the topic paper as well. The kind of the the updated profile of when sites are likely to come
5:21:03
forward. I think where that's leading me to as a
5:21:09
sort of a bare minimum. I'd be looking for a main modification to update the housing trajectory in whatever form uh
5:21:16
given the the elapse of time since the plan was submitted. But I'm
5:21:22
of a firm view. It's tied to a specific date of a monitoring year. So it would be where wherever we can kind of record
5:21:30
completions up until 31st of March 2025 and permissions as of 1st of April 2025
5:21:38
not sort of blur things with sort of further partial updates so we can sort of uh bank that that kind of uh that
5:21:46
point in time. just going through the overall trajectory and the um the uh approach to
5:21:55
the overall supply uh identified a number of components
5:22:00
there under item six. So uh in terms of um completions and commitments, what's
5:22:09
the latest picture uh in respect of those two factors please?
5:22:15
So the completions have been updated in that updated um trajectory graph. There have
5:22:22
been 191 net completions in 23 24 and 139 net completions in 2425 and that's
5:22:30
obviously made up of a number of uh completions, small site completions and
5:22:35
demolitions in each case. um commitments which have been monitored through planning applications have been updated
5:22:42
and there's currently 1,56 dwellings with plan and permission.
5:22:52
And when you provide that figure, Miss Cooper, the 156 is that as of 1st of
5:22:58
April 2025? Yes, that's correct.
5:23:07
I I think I know the answer but I'll I'll hear it from the council. In terms of recent delivery rates um what's
5:23:14
required in terms of potential buffer on uh supply uh based on past performance
5:23:21
and bringing that further forward within a potentially within a plan period is the authority of five or a 20% buffer
5:23:28
authority 20% based on the the result of the housing delivery test. Excuse
5:23:41
me. In terms of the overall trajectory um and where it is in terms of measuring
5:23:47
whether there would be a deliverable um supply uh things don't stand still since
5:23:55
the um the plan was um put out for publication in in early 2024.
5:24:03
Obviously the council submitted the evidence of where it thinks that or where that trajectory um now is. Are
5:24:09
there any notwithstanding my sort of two specific findings in relation to the falgate site and townm farm site? Are
5:24:17
there any other further changes to the trajectory of kind of component sites
5:24:22
that the council wishes to refer to? One of the various sort of outstanding actions was again with the
5:24:29
church commissioners regarding I think it was the Cleonen
5:24:34
or the East Balden site in terms of when that's likely to come forward.
5:24:47
So sorry with G2 land at North Farm there's been no change there. um G4 the
5:24:54
cleaning site so the land at West Hall Farm um the trajectory was updated to
5:24:59
reflect a quicker buildout rate at that site. Um
5:25:04
but this is all there's the table at the back of the housing trajectory update paper which kind of picks up the changes
5:25:11
with each of the allocated sites. So has there been an opportunity through
5:25:17
the schlar process if any of the individual component sites do need to be kind of rep-profiled bearing in mind it
5:25:23
is a forecast it is a projection has the the schlar process
5:25:28
enabled that to happen and is that reflected in the evidence that's now before me?
5:25:34
Yes that's correct. So the schlar looked at all of the sites comprehensively and and sort of sense checked the projected
5:25:40
delivery of each of the sites. Obviously, as we've discussed, some of them now have permission. Um, and so,
5:25:47
yeah, the SH's updated that quite comprehensively, push back sites where we've kind of felt that the delays in
5:25:52
the plan have meant that those sites are not going to deliver as quickly as we'd anticipated and that's all fed into the
5:25:58
trajectory update paper.
5:26:05
Thank you, Mr. Dickinson. Um yeah, no, completely agree with the
5:26:11
council's um recollection there. And just to add that as part of the stage one hearing sessions, we entered into a
5:26:18
statement of common ground with the council confirming the trajectories of all of our sites that are allocated in
5:26:24
the local plan. Thank you. sort of mindful as we've been
5:26:29
sort of going along and discussing various sites. I've kind of been asking about deliver delivery and just uh
5:26:36
seeing where anything has potentially changed and whether the trajectory is is still robust. Um Mr. Butler, there was a
5:26:44
reference I think earlier to kind of the issue in potentially embolden
5:26:50
Yes sites. Yes. So thank you. It's in regard to progress on both sites owned by the
5:26:56
church commissioners GA2 and GA4. Since stage one, we've seen the council of the
5:27:01
church commissioners produce a new statement of common ground and and within that uh obviously we pushed for
5:27:09
and there is now reference in the key considerations to mitigation in relation
5:27:14
to uh to harms of the green belt. Um so in terms of uh the assessment of the
5:27:20
trajectories um we're still wanting to to be reassured that uh that will come
5:27:27
into play you know once a planning application is submitted if both sites are allocated but of course there are
5:27:34
other important issues related to the potential trajectory the ones that you identified sir relating to improvements
5:27:40
to junctions and notwithstanding what the council said at stage one uh we're
5:27:45
still concerned erned about uh that and and whether a 2028 start on both sides
5:27:52
could be achieved.
5:28:06
Thank you. I mean obviously I'm mindful I've got the updated statements of common ground on these sites. Mr.
5:28:12
Dickinson is here on the church commissioners whether any further you wish to add. Uh no I I think we covered everything in
5:28:19
the stage one hearings that we needed to speak. I don't think this is the right forum to discuss those. Thank you.
5:28:27
Thank you. And I think the council confirmed at uh the hearing session uh
5:28:32
only on Tuesday that there's been no kind of new significant additional source of supply that needs to be
5:28:39
factored into the um trajectory. Um
5:28:45
before I come on to other aspects then councelor Kilgore. So I'm sorry it's just a question for
5:28:52
for Miss Cooper if I may. Um it was understood that the bunker now I can't
5:28:57
um locate the reference to it that was the site that was dropped um before this plan progressed. My understanding was
5:29:05
and it could be wrongly that they were looking to bring that forward as well that been a change in the in the
5:29:11
understanding around that site. There's I've got no sort of information
5:29:17
on on the site. It hasn't been put forward to us.
5:29:27
Thank you. And in terms of other components of um looking at the uh the
5:29:34
overall supply through the plan uh to meet the housing requirements. The
5:29:40
council says it applies a lapse rate of 10% on sites that have planning permission that are not yet started. And
5:29:46
I think the figure of 38 is presented in the evidence. Probably help me if I understand where that
5:29:53
figure comes from, how that's been arrived at, please.
5:29:58
Yes. So the 10% lapse rate has been applied to commitments that we've
5:30:06
identified in the trajectory, but obviously what commitments that haven't yet started on site. Um,
5:30:15
and yeah, I think there's about 380 outstanding
5:30:20
dwellings on sites that haven't yet started.
5:30:26
Thank you. And in terms of then pro profiling that, so the council sort of
5:30:32
spread that lapse rate across the the period of the trajectory. So you just apply kind of a discount of three or
5:30:40
four dwellings every year. Um yeah, so it's just sort of spread
5:30:45
over the the trajectory and kind of just equally distributed across the the plan period.
5:30:52
Comments in relation to the council's approach to lapse rates. Um
5:30:58
I've seen alternative figures in other areas. Is that based on kind of monitoring,
5:31:06
Miss Cooper, in terms of what the council has seen or sort of just a a cautious estimate?
5:31:13
Um, it's sort of it's it's a little bit of both. So, yeah, it is based on monitoring, but also we we thought the
5:31:20
10% is a cautious and reasonable approach.
5:31:27
You and then I think we discussed again earlier this week. So the council is making an allowance where there are
5:31:32
demolitions and losses. So it's factoring in um that as well. Um there
5:31:39
are other sources. So there's the Brownfield register. Does that add much more in terms of supply?
5:31:47
Um the Brownfield register is currently profiled to contribute 25 dwellings over
5:31:53
the plan period. So not not a huge amount.
5:31:59
And then ultimately when the council has revisited the position as a first of April uh in terms of the overall kind of
5:32:07
supply over the plan period so deliverable and developable
5:32:13
presumably there's now a revised figure and a different headroom um than was
5:32:19
presented at I think it's table
5:32:27
uh table two of the plan. Yeah. So that updated table is kind of
5:32:33
taking into account all the fluctuations in commitments, completions, windfalls, brownfield register and the updated
5:32:40
residual requirement is 3,151 dwellings.
5:32:49
Thank you. And the updated supply that the council
5:33:03
The updated supply is 3,339 dwellings, so
5:33:09
188 over the residual requirement.
5:33:16
Thank you. Before we then move on um to my MIQ uh sorry item agenda seven, are
5:33:23
there any observations or comments people wish to make around the evidence
5:33:28
I've heard and the council's revised position uh of what it thinks the residual
5:33:34
requirement is that's left to find and what the supply
5:33:40
available is to deliver that over the plan period with the the um
5:33:46
the allowance of a further sort of 188 over the minimum requirement. Mr. Aton,
5:33:53
thank you. Um when we submitted our statement um towards the end of last
5:33:58
year, we had noted that several of the developable sites in the schlard 2024
5:34:05
had their anticipated supply dates moved backwards by year when compared with the previous schlard from 2023. probably
5:34:12
made on early in the week and we said it was highly likely there would be further slippage in this trajectory previous
5:34:18
projection but a review of the more recent 2025 SHL shows that a further 14
5:34:25
sites um approximately a third of the sites included in the deliverable 5year supply
5:34:31
have been pushed back a further year compared with the previous L in 2024. So clear evidence of slippage. Um again
5:34:40
earlier in response to mass six on Tuesday we we highlighted the open optimistic um capacities for the SP4
5:34:47
sites in the main urban area alongside viability and deliverability challenges.
5:34:55
And this is alongside concerns we raise with the SP5 and SP6 sites with the sport England objection.
5:35:02
And again it goes back to the point considering the marginal headroom. It only takes one or two sites not to come
5:35:07
forward to result in under provision and that sounds like that marginal headroom continues to be marginal.
5:35:18
Thank you for that. Uh I did ask council earlier whe what had changed and
5:35:23
presumably as part of the schlar process. um do I mean do you go back and
5:35:29
kind of re-engage with site promoters and developers to sort of just check and
5:35:35
calibrate that previous sort of estimates of when sites come forward remain and presumably
5:35:42
they're giving you the intelligence things may have changed and that that can be picked up.
5:35:47
Yeah, that's correct. And in in this case, the majority of sites in the 5year
5:35:53
supply are now permitted. Um or they're the green belt sites that we discussed
5:35:59
at stage one. So obviously a few of the trajectories have been amended to reflect discussions that we had at stage
5:36:05
one. Um but yeah, you're correct that we kind of go through all of the sites every year and update the trajectories
5:36:12
based on the evidence that we've got.
5:36:21
Thank you. I mean, it seems to me as a sort of an obvious modification, obviously, table two would need to be
5:36:26
updated to reflect um the current situation. We touched on this earlier um and I
5:36:34
don't know if anybody's got anything further to say. I think it's Mr. has conf uh sort of uh reiterated
5:36:41
there was uh a degree of um uh
5:36:47
a degree of supply uh above uh the housing requirement. The council's
5:36:52
evidence or 87s reaffirms that position albe it will be a slightly different um
5:36:58
figure. Um I'm assuming uh look at the opposite
5:37:03
side of the table to me that previously um submitted positions about the kind of
5:37:08
the mar marginality of that still apply um and it's therefore back to the
5:37:15
various things that were discussed earlier in terms of how the plan could uh could remedy um that. Are there any
5:37:22
further general um comments about how the identified supply from the council
5:37:30
has been profiled? I think Mr. Hutchinson.
5:37:38
Thank you, sir. Um in the introductory paragraphs to this session, uh you
5:37:45
mentioned the housing trajectory update topic paper. um and say that that's a
5:37:51
particular relevance to agenda item 8. We do have comments on uh MIQ 7.35.
5:38:00
Um but we note that under question nine item
5:38:06
one you also asked whether a step trajectory would be necessary for plan soundness. So we can either give our
5:38:12
comments on 7.35 under item eight or under item nine
5:38:17
um which are who would be appropriate in your your mind.
5:38:32
I think I will deal with it now if it's coming back to 7.3 and there might be another opportunity to then come back or
5:38:39
revisit anything under um uh item nine on my agenda. So under item 7.35
5:38:47
um I was asking about how the um the trajectories accounted for the un
5:38:53
unimplemented uh supply that had the benefit of planning permission on be it back then at um 1st of April um 2023 and in
5:39:02
particular how sites that had resolution to grant planning permission were accounted for and I think by and large
5:39:07
they're in the committed supply and how Clean fitted into that um
5:39:17
I don't know if you have a further point there Mr. purchasing in terms of is it specifically about the Clean Lane site
5:39:23
and how that's where that's pitched within sort of the next sort of
5:39:28
It is primarily I mean essentially the point that we wanted to make is that um that we do support the principle of a
5:39:35
step trajectory for those sites. Um and I think the
5:39:40
latest update to the housing trajectory um topic paper does propose that
5:39:46
seven-year trajectory. So we just wanted to emphasize that that's an approach that we would support
5:39:52
for the sites in East Balden.
5:40:04
Thank you. appreciate as we sit here now obviously the the specific planning
5:40:09
status of that site is uh yet to be determined but in terms of the council's
5:40:15
trajectory Miss Cooper I think you're anticipating first delivery um in the next financial year 26 27
5:40:25
um whether that remains uh appropriate
5:40:30
if Mr. West wants to come in on this point first. Sir, I think it does. Um, it all depends when the appeal decision lands. H, but
5:40:37
in terms of the site, the the client's and ready to go. Sorry. Sorry, sir. Microphone's a bit far away. Yes, I
5:40:43
think that I think that point is the date is appropriate still. Um, the client has been ready to go on the site
5:40:48
for some time. So, um, subject to the appeal decision coming back favorably. They'll be, uh, on and developing
5:40:54
quickly. And it's been described to me as a previously developed site. I think I've
5:40:59
been in the vicinity of it. Is it a site that's kind of been cleared or prepared?
5:41:05
Um, most of the build most of the buildings have now been demolished. Um, there are there is some remediation work
5:41:10
to be done, but that's that's that's all been planned and is ready to start.
5:41:17
Thank you.
5:41:24
So, we'll move on to item nine on the agenda. Um and it's about how the
5:41:30
housing requirement is achieved over the plan period. Um with an an eye on what
5:41:36
the deliverable supply looks like as I think they indicated at earlier sessions. Planning practice guidance uh
5:41:43
in terms of deliverable supplies says for plan makers year one is to be taken as the first year of plan adoption. So I
5:41:51
think my advice previously has been to work on the basis of with the beer deliverable supply as of the 1st of
5:41:57
April 2026. Um sitting as where we are um here
5:42:03
today. Um I appreciate the council has looked at this including through the
5:42:08
housing trajectory topic paper. um wonder if the council could just
5:42:13
briefly outline how things look uh against the current
5:42:19
trajectory and whether you'd have a five-year um deliverable supply on plan adoption.
5:42:25
Um assuming a annual average
5:42:32
um delivery similar to the housing or setting a a requirement that
5:42:38
so setting a a target that reflects these 309 dwellings per year on a
5:42:45
consistent basis through the plan period. Yeah. So both the schlaw and the housing
5:42:52
trajectory update paper set out the 5-year supply position as it stands. Um
5:42:58
if we were to take the 5year supply position based on a standard trajectory 309 per year taken into account the
5:43:05
shortfall that's been accumulated over the plan period the 20% buffer. Um from
5:43:12
adoption the council would be able to demonstrate a 4.4 four year supply.
5:43:25
It's probably in the topic paper, but can the council uh if my maths was quicker in terms of the degree of
5:43:32
shortfall, what sort of numbers are you look would we be looking at? aboutund and
5:43:43
yeah it'll be a half year supply about another 150 to 160 shortfall over the over that period
5:44:06
Thank you. Now, one of the alternatives that can be countenanced and it's set out in the
5:44:13
planning practice guidance. Oh, sorry, Mr. Do you want to come in on that?
5:44:19
Sorry, just on the shortfall question um of the 4.4 what that would equate to.
5:44:24
You had the buffer as well and the and the previous und delivery. So I think it comes out more about more 260 261 the
5:44:30
figure.
5:44:41
Thank you. Um as I was saying the the alternative way to look at things which
5:44:47
the planning practice guidance countenance is whether the circumstances exist in South Tides to contemplate a
5:44:54
stepped trajectory i.e. the um the the housing requirement
5:45:00
is phased uh and put into a uh later on in the plan period for a variety of
5:45:06
reasons. I think the council for its topic paper has applied itself to
5:45:12
consider that scenario. Um can the council explain what some of
5:45:17
the factors are that would support a step trajectory being introduced
5:45:23
potentially as a main modification? Yeah. So, we looked at the the issue of
5:45:29
a step trajectory as you say through the trajectory update paper. Um, given that
5:45:35
we're two years into the plan period, there's been sort of delays in the plan making process. Um, the council
5:45:41
considers that the step trajectory would would help ensure a fiveyear supply on adoption. The plan relies on a large
5:45:48
strategic site sites that require plane pitch mitigation and obviously sites that are currently in the green belt and
5:45:54
that's impeded delivery in the early years of the plan period. So the two years that we've already seen through
5:46:00
the plan period um and the kind of next three to four years. Um the supply has
5:46:07
been significantly constrained and that's produced an accumulated shortfall of 288 dwellings since the start of the
5:46:14
plan period in 2023. So again, that impedes the council's
5:46:19
ability to demonstrate a 5year supply now and at the point of adoption. The council don't consider it would be
5:46:26
possible or reasonable to address this shortfall solely through allocating additional sites. Obviously, any
5:46:33
potential additional sites that we did allocate would be green belt sites and it would come with the same constraints
5:46:39
and the same sort of process that the sites that we have in there currently have got. So we don't envisage that that
5:46:45
would particularly boost the 5-year supply enough.
5:46:50
Um and as as the trajectory paper sets out, a stepped approach would enable the plan to maintain a delivery deliverable
5:46:57
supply of housing sites in the early years of the plan and throughout the plan period without unnecessarily
5:47:04
stifling development. The plan would still be planning for its full requirement, but it would just ensure
5:47:10
that the plan has full weight as soon as possible and the policies within the plan can be afforded full weight as soon
5:47:17
as possible.
5:47:24
Thank you. And in terms of the 200, excuse me, and 88 um dwelling shortfall
5:47:30
that's accumulated since the 1st of April 2023, does that include
5:47:35
uh any sort of buffer that's been as a buffer been applied or would that be on top of that 288?
5:47:41
Yeah. Yeah. So the the 288 is just the the sort of basic shortfall and then the buffer would be applied on top of that.
5:47:59
Thank you. Obviously amending to a step trajectory would be a main um
5:48:04
modification. uh people have read the council's topic paper or if you haven't you've heard the
5:48:09
council's um position on why it would consider the change needs to be made. Um
5:48:18
kind of hear from those who maybe take an alternative view as to whether a modification
5:48:24
for a step trajectory is needed for plan soundness. Um can I start with Mr. Martin first please?
5:48:31
Thank you sir. Um you'll be unsurprised to know that we wouldn't support a step
5:48:37
trajectory. Um often in the past when you come across step trajectories it's
5:48:42
because a certain bit of infrastructure for instance might need to be in place before you can start delivering homes.
5:48:48
In this instance it's purely a contrived device to get to 5year housing land supply upon adoption. And the fact that
5:48:54
that has to be done clearly shows a deficient plan. And it's just frustrating from the HBF and our members
5:49:01
point of view that we're in this position now so late in an examination and we're trying to do a bit of a
5:49:07
bodgege repair job here by putting a step trajectory in when it was clear from the outset that more sites needed
5:49:14
to be introduced. Now, I understand the PPG allows for inspectors to consider a
5:49:21
step trajectory, but just because it's allowed, it doesn't mean it should be done and especially if it's just a a
5:49:29
means for them to pass uh what otherwise would be a policy test that they would fail. Um, I think it's important to note
5:49:36
that the PPG does also say that under where it talks about step trajectory
5:49:42
that strategic policy makers should ensure there is not a continued delay in meeting identified development needs. In
5:49:49
this case, the council is already not meeting its needs. It doesn't have a 5year supply at the moment. It's failing
5:49:55
its housing delivery test. So to artificially lower the bar will do nothing to meet current and future
5:50:03
needs. need doesn't just disappear, it compounds over time and so for therefore
5:50:08
putting in a step trajectory would just run completely counter to that and it would just mean uh they're storing up
5:50:15
trouble and kicking the can down the road and it is a conflict I believe with what the MPPF says about significantly
5:50:22
boosting the supply of homes. Therefore, a step trajectory should really be the last resort and in that respect the PPG
5:50:29
does talk about looking at other means. It looks talks about priority sites. It talks about small sites portfolio. It
5:50:37
talks about adding in flexibility to housing policies. I don't know if the council have considered these but they
5:50:43
should definitely be considered before going to a step trajectory. Um it's it's
5:50:49
worth noting that the step trajectory that is being proposed as well if I understand is for it to be 180 dwellings
5:50:57
per peranom uh up to is it 2028 2027 2027 2028
5:51:04
um that is if you look at the current LHN which is 615 dwellings a very small
5:51:10
proportion of need um Matthew Penny Cook wrote to pin on
5:51:17
the 9th of October he mentions you can put a step trajectory in where it's justified but he does go on to state
5:51:24
that the government do not want to see the adoption of poor plans and my worry is if the step trajectory is allowed
5:51:31
given the historic issues the council have had with delivery of housing that that will just lead to a poor quality
5:51:38
plan uh given it barely caters for its needs already I don't think putting a trajectory in helps it just exacerbates
5:51:44
that situation I would say sir if you were going to go down this route as well
5:51:50
you will I suggest need to look at how that stretchy is put in because at the
5:51:56
moment you've got it leaping from 180 to 363 dwellings peranom I mean that's not
5:52:01
a step that's almost climbing Everest I think it's it's a large leap for one year to take I would suggest that if
5:52:08
there is going to be a trajectory it's introduced more gradually and it's brought forward to try and mitigate the
5:52:15
fact that the council's not meeting its need uh and there needs to be again suitably robust mechanisms in there as
5:52:21
well. Um and yeah, as I said, I think it's just it's it's a shame it's got to
5:52:27
a point where we've got that this far down the line and having to use this as a device just to make sure the plan's
5:52:33
sound. My preference would actually be and it has happened in other cases to go
5:52:39
ahead and adopt a plan without a fiveyear supply and um deal with it that
5:52:45
way. It's not ideal and as I said earlier uh this morning we're in a planled system and that's what we should
5:52:51
be but it's the council really in a difficult position here and I feel that's the least worst option. Thank
5:52:58
you. A plan adopted without a 5-year deliverable supply
5:53:05
that's that's been found sound. I think the Matthew Pennyuk letter
5:53:12
references some instances where that's happened. Okay. Could we just on that point we can quote
5:53:19
Matthew Pennyuk's letter to Pins that says pragmatic decisions to proceed
5:53:24
towards adoption in instances where a 5-year housing land supply cannot be evidence at the point of adoption but
5:53:31
where the plan significantly boosts supply and still meets housing need over the plan period. should be found with
5:53:38
sound. That's in that same letter that was just referenced.
5:53:43
So is it the submission from the HBF and
5:53:49
uh the church commissioners that the alternative would be to find a plan sound on the basis of the council's
5:53:55
evidence of 4.4 years but keep the trajectory um as is.
5:54:02
Yes sir, it would be because I think that would allow given things like the government policy in relation to things
5:54:08
like gray belt. I think it would stand the better chance then of the council getting to a 5-year supply than rather
5:54:13
than just artificially lowering the bar for them. It would be the commissioner's position
5:54:20
to have an adopted plan whether the trajectory was stepped or not um with
5:54:25
the idea of there being an immediate review. Thank you. I think I'll just um stick
5:54:33
with the the um the H what I've just heard from the HBF. I think in terms of
5:54:40
I think Mr. Martin said it's a sort of a shame that we're that we're in this kind of situation. I mean it has been a a
5:54:48
relatively long period since you know the council envisaged submitting the plan uh at an
5:54:55
earlier point maybe getting to plan adoption um slightly earlier. We're in a
5:55:01
green belt authority where the main options um to really significantly increase uh
5:55:08
housing land delivery are probably going to likely likely to require green belt release. Is that not just the epitome of
5:55:16
a situation where a step trajectory is justified where there will be you
5:55:23
know hard decisions hard choices have been made that will see increased housing delivery but it's going to take
5:55:30
a bit of time through a plan system. My view on that sir is I would have to
5:55:37
disagree with you because you're in a situation here where the council have over many many years not met the housing
5:55:45
need don't have a 5year supply failing housing delivery test to wait for the plan making system to sort of catch up
5:55:52
with that that you know there's people in housing need in Southside now so are you supposed to be telling them actually
5:55:58
just wait a few years and you might get a house in Southside it's it's not acceptable and I feel it's the least
5:56:05
worst option uh going towards an adoption without a 5year supply because at least it's there's then a chance for
5:56:12
the house builders to try and rectify that for the council and give them a a
5:56:17
clearer path to get the supply boosted.
5:56:23
Thank you. if I hear from others and the council wants to come back on any of the points or
5:56:30
the the step trajectory reflects a reality. Um and it goes back to a point um we
5:56:37
were discussing this morning about increasing provision in the early years
5:56:42
and what that would mean I increasing the buffer which would have a similar effect of
5:56:48
actually increasing supply um and the time scales that will take and the implications for getting the
5:56:54
plan adopted and in order to get this the this housing delivered in an orderly
5:57:00
way bearing in mind we are a substantially green belt author authority is to have an adopted plan to
5:57:07
cover that period between now and the review and it makes a lot of sense therefore to
5:57:13
adopt that trajectory. At the end of the day, apart from the
5:57:19
possibility of there being some gray belt which might give rise to the
5:57:25
presumption in the event we don't adopt a step trajectory, that's about it. was still in the position of having to look
5:57:31
at green belt establishing very special circumstances
5:57:36
a much higher bar than exceptional circumstances in each case. Uh and that's not an easy thing to deal with um
5:57:44
when one is looking at um housing supply as the as the main issue although of
5:57:50
course it could be the deciding issue but there are other issues which come to the four as well um in terms of what
5:57:57
sites ought to be developed having regard to the harms which would be caused to the objectives and purposes of
5:58:03
the green belt. So all of these matters come to the four. It's not as straightforward as that. And whilst I
5:58:08
accept and whilst we all would accept that there is a great housing shortage
5:58:15
not just here but elsewhere as well um the best way to deal with that in a methodical and orderly manner is to go
5:58:23
the way in which we're suggesting for the purposes of this examination which is to adopt the the stepped trajectory
5:58:30
approach.
5:58:35
I'll hear from others. Um I think Mr. Erton's um gone wild and thrown his um
5:58:43
name plate on the ground in discuss but but other allowance come in.
5:58:50
Thank you sir. Um again some of the points already being picked up upon. Um
5:58:56
I guess in the the fact of the historic record of Monday delivery um as
5:59:02
evidenced in the failed housing delivery test over the last few years. Alkaline is very concerned over the
5:59:09
suggestion of reducing the requirement um and introducing the step directory which will nothing to in incentivize the
5:59:16
council to accelerate delivery over the early years of the the plan period which
5:59:22
is in direct conflict with the need to boost the supply of homes. The letter of
5:59:27
intervention from the secretary of state was mentioned and the first thing that mentions in the
5:59:33
letter is not to adopt a plan. It makes reference to the need to boost housing supply and deliver homes in this in this
5:59:38
in this parliament. So that was the main focus of the letter and we're not clear how a reduced
5:59:45
requirement for the first five years would deliver this and boost housing supply
5:59:51
and it also has implications on the government's levers beyond the plan making process to to boost housing
5:59:58
delivery where there's ongoing supply issues and field of housing delivery tests. So it potentially
6:00:05
removes those trigger points from delivering gray belt sites if the council fails to deliver housing in line
6:00:12
with the structure even if it's reduced
6:00:17
as set out in our client's previous representations and those of others. There's there's other sites available
6:00:22
which can be delivered in system occasions which can avoid the over reliance on a large strategic site being
6:00:29
delivered later in the plan period. And these sites that are allocated could be delivered early in the plan period. And
6:00:36
the point was mentioned earlier about the planetary light and green belt sites
6:00:42
um with six being allocated but those six sites in the updated
6:00:49
trajectory contribute significantly to the fiveear supply. So it shows that they can make a
6:00:55
contribution now not in year six forwards. they can make a contribution to years one to five. And just looking
6:01:02
at the um the updated fiveyear supply from the year of plan adoption,
6:01:07
it confirms that the council envisions 367 dwellings being delivered by year
6:01:12
five. So their green belt sites not yet to be allocated which contribute to making that trajectory. So that's clear
6:01:19
evidence to me that other green belt sites can support the vavier supply at adoption
6:01:26
because it's in the plan already which shows that can happen. And then going back to the shortfall of
6:01:33
the updated trajectory talks about 4.4 year supply
6:01:38
um which equates to 261 dwellings. Well, we just heard that the green belt sites are going to deliver 367 dwellings over
6:01:45
five sites. So just two or three more allocations in the green belt addresses
6:01:50
that shortfall and meets the plan requirement rather than introducing a step to trajectory.
6:02:14
Thank you Mr. And is it Mr. C? Is it Cabbury?
6:02:23
Thank you, sir. A number of the points we've raised have been covered by others. Point that I would add is that
6:02:29
there's a reference from the council that additional capacity in the green belt will be subject to the same timing and delivery issues as sites in the
6:02:35
plan. We disagree with that. It's the scale of a site. It's the scale of the infrastructure required to deliver a
6:02:41
site. So there are options available in the green belt which could deliver houses much quick much quicker. We we
6:02:47
sat out in the stage one sessions. We were surprised that we're not aware of any planning pending planning
6:02:53
applications for these significant allocations. We would expect to see that commitment from land promoters to see
6:02:59
progress to demonstrate early delivery. So I think that's just an example where you know sites that could be added to
6:03:05
this plan and deliver quickly and that's where we would sort of differ from Mr. Martin in terms of kind of the
6:03:12
resolution we think that is the the best resolution we are aware of examples where plans have been adopted with less
6:03:17
than a 5year supply and you'll reference in our statement where in that circumstance it's having the clarity of
6:03:24
the reason why and the implications why that's something we would suggest it's carefully considered
6:03:43
Thank you. From that side of the table, if I come around to my left, so I'll start with Mr. Green, Council Korea, and
6:03:50
then Mr. Butler. Thank you, sir. Uh, a step trajectory would in this case be essential. Uh, as
6:03:57
developers are making the assumption that ex exceptional circumstances have been proven to build on the green belt.
6:04:03
They're also missing the fact that the infrastructure which we've discussed this morning is not there to cope with the current demand on the road. Uh I've
6:04:12
been given figures today of the new road figures and if I can just share the total with you sir. I was meant to have
6:04:17
it yesterday. Uh but I've been just being given it this afternoon from the the TADU unit at Gates Head and it's
6:04:25
it's in relation to the A194 the the the road around the plans development on
6:04:31
Felgate. Unfortunately I don't think Mr. Green for this particular session I need to
6:04:36
hear that that evidence. So yeah. Okay. So and there there's another point
6:04:42
I'd like to make sir. Uh I live in Jarro which is part of South Tside you know it's a South Tside local plan. There is
6:04:49
a shortage of housing. There's a massive shortage of housing but there's no social housing in the local plan and the
6:04:55
housing that the developers are planning to build is not the type of housing that's needed in this area.
6:05:01
Thank you sir. Councelor Kil please. So ju just to concur with Mr. in there.
6:05:08
There isn't um that the need that's been demonstrated is is not to be met.
6:05:13
Certainly not by SP8. Um and with regards to the the figures, and I I
6:05:19
understand where you're coming from with regards to the traffic, but it's it's increased significantly.
6:05:26
So, the infrastructure difficulties that we talked about this morning are actually greater um with the current
6:05:32
figures than than would be anticipated. and I have shared that with um with Annette. Thank you.
6:05:42
Thank you, Mr. Butler, please. Thank you, sir. Um I'd like to start by
6:05:49
uh directing uh comments to the development industry representatives here and to to ask them to consider
6:05:56
whether they fully understand uh the implications of removing green belt land
6:06:04
uh from communities in the burough and developing them uh in the way that that
6:06:10
they wish that they're now arguing for an acceleration of removal of green belt sites. We've been through a plan process
6:06:18
where there's been considerable responses from our communities opposing
6:06:23
development within the green belt. We're at a stage now where the council has
6:06:28
come forward with a reasonable approach uh uh bringing forward uh some sites.
6:06:35
Now clearly uh um there is still opposition from the communities to those
6:06:41
sites but we're here to try to provide an answer to the problem of meeting the
6:06:47
housing requirement and we believe uh that the council's decision to look at a
6:06:55
stepped trajectory in the circumstances that you've outlined today is the one that should be taken forward. The
6:07:02
conclusion of the trajectory paper talks about uh making sure it aligns with
6:07:07
delivery expectations, the realistic phasing of strategic and complex sites including those in the green belt and
6:07:14
most importantly those requiring infrastructure and mitigation measures. It's not just a question of clearing
6:07:20
away uh the green belt fields that are there. It's about making sure that if we
6:07:27
have development we get enhancements to the remainder of our green belt. and and those places are put in place. So it
6:07:34
needs to be the right infrastructure and that doesn't lead to a poor plan that leads to a plan that provides uh a
6:07:42
compromise of getting requirements of housing need but also provides improvements to our green spaces and
6:07:49
enables the communities to enjoy what's left. So in in that view uh would
6:07:54
certainly improve it and reference has been made to uh Mr. Pennyok's Penny
6:08:00
Cook's letter to um your chief executive and it has been entered in as evidence
6:08:06
and therefore you you clearly feel it's very relevant. He starts that paragraph by saying I very much welcome that in
6:08:13
some cases inspectors are already exercising a degree of flexibility to expedite the adoption of local plans.
6:08:19
Clearly your your task here is to look to see whether we can for soundness adopt a local plan here at last in South
6:08:27
Tide to bring certainty and for that purposes um he also refers to the fact
6:08:33
that uh a stepped housing trajectory may be an option that could be justified and
6:08:39
from that point of view I think uh we would ask you to consider that the
6:08:45
council have brought forward a way of making sure we can adopt a plan now and move forward and not uh to uh have a
6:08:53
situation where we're going to go through a further exercise of looking at other sites uh that simply will provide
6:09:02
the communities with more concerns uh than they have at the moment. Thank you.
6:09:09
Thank you for that. Um I think in terms of those who are advocating that there's
6:09:17
effectively other than maybe for factual updating and rebasing the trajectory to
6:09:22
the 1st of April 2025 but otherwise there are no sort of further changes to
6:09:28
the uh housing trajectory and the requirement remains constant at 309
6:09:35
um dwellings peranom. Um obviously reference is made to other plans where you know a 5-year supply deliverable
6:09:43
supply on plan adoption has not been required. Um but nonetheless a plan has
6:09:49
been found sound. Um thinking out loud I wonder how far a drift they were of a
6:09:54
five-year um deliverable supply and how quickly it could be um recovered. I just wonder
6:10:01
whether here in South Tide circumstances are slightly different. Um I mean the
6:10:07
council's put forward a figure of 4.4 years that it thinks it would have on
6:10:13
plan adoption. More often than not when these are tested uh or want to be tested people
6:10:19
say it's not as as uh positive as that
6:10:25
the council's highlighted the degree of shortfall let alone add on to that the buffer as well that needs to be
6:10:31
recovered. So I'm just wondering whether the circumstances in South Tinside
6:10:38
are too far removed from kind of proximity to a 5year deliverable supply
6:10:44
and whether some of the things that are being articulated in terms of well adopted on this basis gray belts other
6:10:52
sites will come forward quickly and will help kind of recover the situation as
6:10:58
any how practical really that is
6:11:05
Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir. I guess you could look
6:11:10
at it from the other way round that really there given where the position that they're in and history they have of
6:11:17
not delivering enough housing surely then going along this route could
6:11:23
be the sensible way forward. I wouldn't say it's ideal as I keep on saying a
6:11:29
planled system is what we should be doing but I see it as a least worst option uh in this regard. Um
6:11:36
notwithstanding also what Mr. Seb said that you could identify additional sites. That could be another way forward
6:11:43
um to get to that uh get to that uh 5year supply, but does it not given how
6:11:50
far they off does that not further emphasize the fact that they need to be meeting their need and not artificially
6:11:56
lowering the bar for them?
6:12:04
Thank you. I think there's a lot there for me to uh
6:12:09
to reflect on. Um just a final point before I bring the
6:12:15
trajectory um discussion to a conclusion. There's obviously a trajectory b uh
6:12:22
presented within the plan. I mean one of my uh points on the agenda is around the
6:12:27
level of detail. I think I turn to the council in the first instance.
6:12:32
um whatever form the trajectory takes, I would be looking for perhaps a more
6:12:38
detailed um trajectory within the plan. Whether it's still presenting at
6:12:46
uh figure two, a sort of a head I'll call it a headline trajectory, but
6:12:52
whether within an appendix to the plan, there's the detail that kind of goes behind that. um whe there's a more
6:12:58
detailed trajectory so that people can see where key sources of supply are
6:13:04
likely to deliver. So in particular in relation to this plan it would be in my
6:13:10
view some of the strategic sites particularly site SP8 SP7A or what will
6:13:16
become site SP um 7A so that people can perhaps see more transparently
6:13:23
how the plan is intended to kind of perform and deliver. Yeah, as we set out in our um hearing
6:13:30
statement, the council will be happy to update that figure two in the sort of main body of the plan and then provide a
6:13:36
more detailed trajectory probably as an appendix to the plan. Okay.
6:13:44
Are there any further points in relation to housing supply trajectories that people wish to make?
6:13:52
I've obviously got the submissions from the council. I don't think looking at Mr. Shadowavian and Mr. Cen, nothing has
6:13:59
changed in terms of the exchanges that I've heard that the council's evidence
6:14:04
and the position it's put forward in the topic paper is for a a stepped
6:14:09
trajectory as a main modification. That that's correct and I no way want to
6:14:17
add to the evidence which we have submitted by providing um
6:14:23
further justification. However, I think it's important that now it's been drawn to your attention, i.e.
6:14:29
the evidence that other inspectors um have recommended adoption of plans with
6:14:34
less than a 5year supply um that you're direct towards those decisions
6:14:42
so that you have some reference point by which to judge
6:14:47
the submissions made to you. And I think Mulvin is one of those. I'm not sure
6:14:52
what if there are any others. That's the first point. Second point is
6:14:58
to judge actually what the deficit was in those cases as you indicated earlier.
6:15:07
I won't say anything more than that because that means me giving more evidence on behalf of local authority
6:15:12
but I think it's a matter which you should give consideration to.
6:15:18
Thank you. I think that's something I am I said at the start of this stage two sessions I wanted to kind of limit the
6:15:23
uh amount of new evidence but I think it'd be helpful for me to see some
6:15:29
compar some other uh reports that have concluded along the lines I think that
6:15:35
Mr. Martin and others Mr. Dickinson um referred to so I can just see a sense of
6:15:41
how that compares with the circumstances here in South Tinside and it's not just about figures.
6:15:48
Okay. Um one has to consider other circumstances too.
6:15:55
Obviously I've heard the council's submissions in terms of a step trajectory. I've asked specific
6:16:00
questions about it and have the topic paper. I'm clear on alternative positions to a step trajectory. If I do
6:16:08
go down the route of a step trajectory, I probably want to look a bit more closely at where that is. Picking up Mr.
6:16:14
Martin's point about how things potentially step. If I accept the
6:16:21
principle of it, I think there may still be some further assessment of just the the detail.
6:16:27
But if a step trajectory is accepted as a main modification, obviously that is something that will flow through in my
6:16:33
mind in terms of what's in policies SP16 making that clear that there would be a
6:16:38
step trajectory. Obviously the trajectory in the plan would change. Table two would be a further part of
6:16:45
that modification and there would be the de as I outlined earlier the detail within an appendix so that people can
6:16:51
see through where specific sites are anticipated to deliver um against that
6:16:58
um that that trajectory. So people if that goes ahead people will
6:17:05
obviously all will get an opportunity to comment on that as part of the main modification um process. Are there any
6:17:12
further submissions people wish to make in relation to housing land supply?
6:17:19
No. Well thank you everybody for your contributions uh today for those who've
6:17:24
been here all day today since uh since uh half past 9. Uh we are still sitting
6:17:31
this week. So we're back in this room half past 9 tomorrow morning where we're looking at the general policies and
6:17:37
evidence around the burrowwide policies for infrastructure and transport but we
6:17:43
finished slightly earlier half 3 today. Thank you. Thank you.