30:24
Well, good morning everybody. It's now 10:00, so it's time to start uh this morning's uh hearing sessions into the
30:31
examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. These are the reconvened um
30:36
stage two hearing sessions. Can I just check? Can everybody hear me? Okay. I
30:41
think in this size of room you can probably see me uh okay as well. Um so
30:47
that's good. Uh just to remind everybody, I appreciate it's been a while since the stage one hearing sessions, but I'm still David Spencer uh
30:55
and I'm still a uh planning uh inspector uh appointed by the secretary of state under section 20 of the planning and
31:02
compulsory purchase act 2004 to conduct the independent examination of the South
31:07
Tinside uh local plan. This is a plan published for the c by the council for
31:12
representations in early 2024 uh and was subject to secretary of state
31:18
intervention before being submitted for examination on the 11th of March 2025.
31:24
Can I please ask that people ensure that mobile phones are switched off please or
31:30
on their silent settings. Um,
31:36
can I just briefly check at this stage with the council as we did for stage one just on general housekeeping matters,
31:43
fire alarms, things like that, please?
31:48
Good morning everyone. Um, we're not expecting any fire alarms today. So, if an alarm does sound, please make your
31:54
way to the nearest fire exit, which is just the far side of the room and then to the far side of the hotel car park.
32:00
The nearest toilets are in the corridor just outside of this room. And please note that there's cables taped to the
32:06
floor. So be careful as you're moving around the room not to to trip on those. And if you have a car in the hotel car
32:12
park, please ensure that you have registered your registration number at the devices at the hotel reception.
32:20
Thank you for that. Can I check is there anybody here from the press today?
32:27
Thank you. Can you just briefly identify yourself for my notes, please?
32:45
Thank you for that. Now, these sessions uh are being uh recorded for those who can't attend or wish to observe uh from
32:53
elsewhere. As with the stage one hearings, those uh recordings will be uh
32:59
uploaded so people can uh enjoy them uh at a later date. At the start of each uh
33:05
session over the next two weeks, I will be asking people to introduce themselves at the start of each session. I'll ask
33:11
people at that point whether they want to make their own further separate recordings uh of these um events. We'll
33:18
come on shortly to sort of introductions for matter six uh which is our principal
33:23
matter uh this morning. Uh before I do that, I'm just going to just do a brief
33:28
sort of introduction and hopefully a reminder as to where I think we are with the the plan examination um given the
33:35
sort of the uh the intervening um period. Uh as I sat out a moment ago,
33:40
just to remind everybody, I am an independent uh examiner, a chartered town planner. Um, I work for the
33:46
planning inspectorate. Uh, and although as I mentioned a moment ago through legislation I'm appointed by the
33:52
secretary of state, I will be arriving at my own professional independent recommendations which will be set out in
33:59
a report to uh the the burough council. I alone will be responsible um for the
34:05
contents of the report including any recommended uh main uh modifications. uh
34:12
those are the changes which I feel will be necessary uh for plan uh soundness.
34:17
Uh I'm supported in my role through this examination by Annette Feny who's over to my left who I think most people have
34:24
now met and spoken with. If you need any documents or have any questions matters
34:30
relating to the examination uh please um speak to Annette. Annette is based here
34:35
in the venue whilst we're sitting. Otherwise, her details are on the uh
34:41
examination um website. Now, these stage two hearings were due
34:46
to reconvene in the second half of November last year as previously been set out. There have been genuine reasons
34:52
for moving these dates and I hope that nobody has been significantly uh inconvenienced by the rescheduling.
35:00
I'm appreciative that there has been generally positive feedback that we're sitting again in person now in uh
35:07
January. Uh and I'm grateful to the council that they've been able to quickly reorganize and get us uh back
35:13
into this uh venue for these hearings to take place uh this week uh and into
35:18
next. In terms of the timetable, we've got a fairly intensive program this week. Um that does include uh a
35:26
rescheduling of matter 11 on transport and infrastructure or general policies
35:31
around transport and infrastructure uh which was due to take place Wednesday next week. That's now taking place on
35:39
Friday morning this week. Uh I'm probably getting a little bit paranoid about this, but it is 9:30 on Friday. Uh
35:47
and not previously advertised at uh 10:00. So if you were thinking you were coming for matter 11 for transport and
35:53
infrastructure uh it will be Friday morning uh this week in this room. Now as per the stage one um hearing um
36:01
sessions these hearings are intended to be structured respectful discussions. I
36:06
want to hear from the council and others uh even where people will undoubtedly um
36:12
disagree with one another. Uh I thought everybody was very helpful at the stage one um hearing sessions and I'm hopeful
36:19
that we can proceed in a similar manner uh for stage two. As I set out
36:25
previously, I've got everybody's statements in response to my matters issues and questions. I've got the
36:30
original representations that were made on the plan back in early uh 2024.
36:36
It's not necessary for those statements or material to be read out verbatim um
36:41
to me. Um what I really want to get from these hearings is from those who
36:46
particularly feel that the plan is not sound, why that is the case and what needs to be changed. It is also for the
36:53
council to explain to me why they think they've prepared a sound plan uh and why the policy should be considered
36:59
justified, effective, consistent with national policy uh and positively um
37:04
prepared as per the stage two sessions. if through the discussion with the council
37:10
and others a potential modification is identified. Uh and I appreciate the council has already highlighted some
37:17
through statements of common ground uh and through their hearing statements. Uh I'd like to make a note of that. Um and
37:24
I'll be looking for the council to do likewise. And then at the end of um the hearing sessions, we'll coordinate
37:31
through the program officer what a sort of a running schedule of potential proposed uh main modifications will look
37:37
like from both stage one uh and uh from these stage two um sessions. I think as
37:44
we move forward, I'm looking more now through at potential main modifications
37:50
rather than further action points. So I appreciate there was work and things that were identified as stage one. I've
37:56
got now got a lot of material uh in front of me. I'm moving on more to
38:02
modifi if there's a modification what does it potentially look like rather than asking for more work uh more
38:08
documentation uh to be uh prepared. Um the hearing sessions for everybody uh
38:15
obviously this week and next week will start at varying times. So, please check the um the timetable. The afternoon
38:22
sessions will start at 2:00. Again, similar to stage one, I'm keen not to
38:27
sit beyond 5:00 uh where possible. I'm sure everybody will hopefully will feel similar. But if
38:33
forever whatever reason we have a particular session, we need to go slightly beyond that. I'm hoping that that can be accommodated to conclude um
38:40
the discussion. There will be mid-m morning uh and mid afternoon breaks as
38:46
there were in the stage one um session. In terms of the format and opportunities
38:52
to speak um for each session, um we're going to follow the agenda that's been published now for some time for each um
38:59
hearing session. I'll generally start with some questions for the council and then I'll seek to draw um others in uh
39:06
and if you wish to make a particular point related to your representations as before the convention is to upend your
39:12
name plate and that will signal to me to bring you in at a particular uh point of
39:18
the discussion and and as said at the stage one sessions I invite people to
39:23
just remember that whatever you've provided through your written representations and statements will carry equal weight to what are here uh
39:31
in the room uh this week and next. That concludes my initial announcements just
39:38
on the process uh and the format for these stage two hearings. Are there any initial questions or matters of
39:45
clarification about how these stage two hearings will work? I think looking
39:50
around the table, most people participated at stage one, so you're all
39:56
old hands at this. You know, you'll know what to do. Okay, before we get into matter six and
40:03
um I'll invite people around the table to introduce themselves, I'm just going to
40:08
very briefly go over some just some headline procedural kind of housekeeping
40:14
matters principally more for the council. Uh but they may be of interest for other uh people uh around the table.
40:22
I think there's just a few things I just wanted to bring to the examination's um attention. Obviously
40:29
very little stands still in the world of planning for very long. There have been changes. People will have seen that
40:35
there's been a new draft national planning policy framework document published just before Christmas. Um just
40:42
to remind everybody for the purpose of this examination I am working to the September 2023 version of the national
40:50
planning policy framework in terms of tests of soundness uh for consistency uh
40:55
with national uh planning policy. And doubtly the council and others have
41:01
seen there's been a steady flow of correspondence between the minister and the planning inspectorates
41:08
principally around local plan examinations and government um expectations for that um uh for that
41:16
service. Uh behind all of that is obviously the anticipate well not
41:21
anticipation it is going to have the new system for local plans is coming along um very shortly. Uh and we anticipate
41:28
regulations will be due any time now. I mean they may well be published while
41:34
we're sitting uh over the next couple of weeks. Um
41:39
whilst there may obviously a new system is coming um we've still clearly got to progress plans under the previous system
41:47
um but I'm sure it's not lost on the council that there'll be an expectation to quickly move um to the new system and
41:55
I expect we'll come on to that as part of monitoring and implementation um next week uh and our sort of one of
42:02
our final um sessions allied to this people have seen that the
42:07
legal duty to cooperate is no longer uh being enforced.
42:12
Um I had advised previously in my post hearings letter from stage one that I
42:18
felt that the duty had been met uh in any event. Um so uh I'm not seeking any
42:25
further correspondence or um submissions from anybody on the duty to cooperate
42:31
but in terms of a final report it will probably be addressed as more a matter of soundness rather than legal uh
42:39
compliance. Uh and just bringing some of this all
42:44
together in particular it is in the I have asked for it to be put into the examination uh library. So it is under
42:50
it is available as a post-submission document in particular is the letter of
42:56
the 9th of October from the chief exe uh from the uh from the minister to the
43:02
chief executive of the inspectorate uh a clear message to efficient efficiently
43:07
progress examinations where they meet the kind of quality um thresholds and there's a plan that's capable uh of
43:14
being put in place. So if I come away from this week and next week feeling
43:19
that there is a sound plan um subject to modifications, I think just we'll we'll pick this up
43:26
again with the council next week. But I'm very keen that we move forward at pace um to uh uh move the examination
43:35
forward to its conclusion including modifications. So that's my my clear uh
43:41
goal and ambition. Just very briefly, finally, you'll be
43:46
pleased to hear before I allow others to speak. By and large, the matter two statements came in on time uh at in
43:54
October. Uh there has been some additional evidence. uh I've tried in a note that was
44:00
published on the 29th of October if people have seen it kind of just capture what the council had done in terms of
44:07
responding to various action points and hopefully where people can see where that uh was addressed through the
44:13
council's um additional work where relevant I'll try and pick that up and
44:19
come back to it um at each session uh and I've tried to highlight that through
44:24
the um agendas but I would just like to bring to the examination's attention because I will be referring to them at
44:30
various points. Since the matter two stage, matter two statements were
44:36
published. The council has also submitted a topic paper on strategic playing field mitigation which hopefully
44:43
people have seen. Uh there's a helpful topic paper on the housing trajectory which we'll certainly come back to uh
44:50
various points not least Thursday afternoon this week. Uh and the council has also updated its strategic housing
44:57
uh land availability assessment um to a 2025 um base date.
45:04
The other uh evidence I just wish to people to have a note of um that I have
45:10
that I have accepted into the examination recently have a legal opinion submitted on behalf of Mr.
45:17
Robert Latimer uh on the 15th of December. Unless I'm
45:22
advised otherwise, I probably will be looking to the council to comment on that for tomorrow afternoon session when
45:29
we come to water quality. And similarly, I've also accepted into
45:34
the examination the recent office for environmental protection reports uh into
45:39
the investigations into uh offwalt the environment agency uh and defer uh
45:47
particular focus on the December reports which are described as the final
45:52
concluding um reports. I'll be interested to hear from people around the table what bearing if any they have
45:59
on uh the matters that we have uh under discussion.
46:04
So that concludes um everything that I wanted to just get off my chest uh first
46:10
thing um this morning. Uh apologies that's taken slightly longer um than a
46:15
normal introduction. Before I get into the matter six discussion, is there anything further from the council and
46:21
just in terms of general housekeeping or anything else that I need to be made aware of? No. Okay. Thank you.
46:30
Thank you everybody. Um so we'll move on now please to matter six. Hopefully
46:36
everybody's here this morning. Um we're here to discuss these are proposed housing. These are proposed allocations
46:42
for housing uh and the regeneration areas within the main urban area. So
46:48
these are not green belt alteration sites uh as presented in the plan. I'm going
46:54
to be looking at policies SP4 um and SP5 um this morning um dealing
47:01
with the main uh sites within the urban area and the Brinkb burn sites. Um
47:08
we'll then this afternoon be picking up SP6 which is shoot to read the regeneration sites and then I'm going to
47:14
be returning to a couple of sites that we discussed as part of the stage one uh in light of the additional material and
47:21
evidence that's been provided. So in terms of the recording of this um
47:28
session and for those who want to follow it later and for my benefit, it's probably helpful that we have an
47:33
introduction of who's here and uh representing various um people who want
47:38
to be heard. If I can start with the council and uh is it Mr. Shadow to
47:44
introduce your team please? First
47:49
is it working now? Thank you very much. My name is Paul Shedervian, Kings Council, acting for the council.
47:59
I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the operations manager of the spatial planning team at South Tinside Council.
48:05
Uh Rachel Cooper, one of the senior plan and policy officers at South Tinside Council.
48:11
I'm Jeff Horseman. I'm team manager development management for South Tinside Council.
48:17
Neil Westwick representing Advant Homes. Dominic War representing Bellway Homes.
48:24
Neil Morton from Savos representing Lavric Hall Farm Limited.
48:33
Sorry, morning. Kevin from LG Planning representing Story Homes Limited.
48:39
I'm Dave Herbert, councelor uh in Southside for the Green Party.
48:47
Thank you everybody for that. So obviously we've got a uh uh a reasonable amount to get through um for this
48:52
morning's session. Just a gentle reminder for people uh obviously I can only hear from you where it relates to
48:58
your original um representations made back in uh January March 2024.
49:05
Obviously, as I say, I've got various um statements that people have provided in followup to my um matters issues and
49:13
questions on this uh this particular topic. So, we'll start with matter six
49:18
and it's issue one, the housing allocations within the main um urban area. Um this uh session is obviously
49:25
looking at a number of proposed housing allocations. I think there are 25 sites through policy um SP4.
49:33
Generally there's been very little comment or soundness concern around a number of these sites uh within the
49:39
policy. Um
49:45
but I think a theme that's probably going to uh arise from this week's discussion um culminating on on Thursday
49:52
afternoon is just generally what overall housing delivery is going to look like and ultimately what the kind of the
49:57
trajectory uh will look like. So I'm particularly keen to understand around how these sites are likely to deliver or
50:04
when they're likely to be developed um out. Um
50:09
as I mentioned at the stage one hearings, I'm not really here to look at or examine what's not in the plan. So I'
50:16
commonly referred to as a mission sites but I appreciate um uh this morning's
50:22
session will provide an opportunity for those who feel that the plan uh potentially could be more uh positively
50:30
uh prepared um
50:35
in terms of looking at the various um sites that are that are uh in policy SP4
50:42
where there are no soundness representations or no particular issues have been identified. I've got no
50:48
questions on those. I'm taking those as red as being sound. So, I'm just focusing on those uh where people have
50:54
raised um particular um issues. Uh once we looked at the SP4 sites,
51:00
we'll then move on as say to SP 5 and SP 6, which are the Brink burn and shooter
51:06
Eid sites respectively. I think as part of that discussion we'll then come on to
51:11
um the issue around uh sports pitch um mitigation um and um what the council's
51:18
presented in terms of the recent uh topic paper as well. So what I'd like to
51:23
start with I think turn to the um council uh in the first instance and I
51:30
think uh turns to my um masses issues uh
51:35
questions um 6.1 and it's the first item on the agenda under item um two
51:43
uh a is obviously the plan was uh consulted on a while ago um submitted um
51:51
nearly a year ago. So uh things change uh and what I wanted to understand
51:56
whether there's been kind of any sort of factual updates particularly on the proposed allocations
52:02
within SP4 um that perhaps potentially need to be taken account of as part of the um
52:09
examination process. Uh yeah, so between January 2024 when
52:17
the plan was consulted on and the end of March 2025, which is sort of end of the
52:22
strategic housing land availability assessment period, six of the proposed allocations were granted plan and
52:29
permission and they're detailed in the council's response to question 6.1.
52:34
Since then, so since the end of March 2025, an additional four sites that were
52:40
proposed allocations have been granted plan and permission. So two of those are detailed under our response to question
52:47
6.1, but two of those have had permission since then. So that's
52:52
124 apartments at the SP6 allocation and
52:58
seven dwellings at H19 Land at Trent Drive.
53:21
Thank you for that. And in and in terms of um what's coming forward uh and sort
53:27
of performance against policy SP4, I mean what can be concluded from um the
53:34
the kind of what's being um consented? I mean is it generally that sites are
53:40
going to be delivering what policy SP4 envisaged? Is it higher, lower or
53:51
really what the council say council anticipated? Sorry. Um for the most part it's a very similar capacity. Um there is a table
53:58
under our response to question 6.1 and that kind of compares the estimated capacity against the consented capacity
54:06
and it's largely very similar. Um there's quite a difference between the
54:12
estimated capacity at the Southside College site and the consented capacity.
54:17
Um essentially a larger site area was consented than was originally a proposed
54:25
allocation in the plan. But aside from that, very similar capacities.
54:35
Thank you. And in terms of um if the council can recall at the stage one
54:41
sessions I heard um particular when we were looking at um
54:46
uh I think it was matter uh two and to some extent matter three um there was
54:52
concern from the development sector um that the indicative capacity of proposed allocations in the plan
54:59
including policy SP4 um could be overestimated. Um I think It was put to me there'd be a
55:07
need for kind of on-site open space by diversity net gain. The council's got kind of um optional
55:14
uh standards that it wants to uh introduce for for housing and therefore
55:20
you potentially the plan is going to be sort of overestimating what's um coming forward. What does the
55:27
evidence in table one indicate and I'll come to others as to whether that's a
55:33
reliable going to be a reliable trend. Yeah. So as we discussed at stage one
55:40
the sort of standard methodology for estimating site capacity was used as a baseline um a sort of starting point for
55:48
estimating capacities and then we sort of looked into each site in more detail. If there was sort of information from
55:53
developers, plan and application information, then that was fed into those estimated capacities. And I think
56:00
that's reflected in table one where you can see the eventual sort of consent of capacities are similar to those that
56:07
we've we've put into the plan. Um, and so yeah, I think that just shows that the council have sort of been fairly
56:13
accurate in in those estimations.
56:20
Thank you. If I bring in others because I know this was a concern from um the
56:25
development industry, they might have views in terms of what's now being um put to me in terms of the council's
56:32
evidence on whether from the samples sample size
56:37
we've got so far whether that's a representative and kind of reliable kind of way forward or whether there's other
56:44
things I need to uh bear in mind. So Mr. Westwick first and then
56:49
um And then Mr. Erton, Mr. West, thank you, sir. Mine's more of a factual
56:54
point. I think Mr. Erton's representations picks that point more detail. Um it as you say, time things
57:00
move on, sir. Um and one thing that has moved on is the vant no longer bringing forward the South Tai College site. Um
57:06
and Miller Homes are bringing it forward now and there's a new application submitted um for 100 and less than
57:12
around about 200 units. So um the recent consent for 260 houses will no longer be brought forward by Van Homes.
57:20
Um however the site is progressing and Miller homes have submitted a revised application.
57:32
Thank you Mr. I will come back to site H7 but just on
57:38
the sort of general methodology and approach. Mr. Eton please. Thank you sir. Just on the specific
57:45
point about sites which have been granted permission the the SP4 sites to date from what I could see based on the
57:52
previous shells for 2023 2024 2025 the council had the benefit of knowing
57:58
planning applications were already pending so it's no surprise that the planning permissions align with the
58:04
capacities because the applications are already pending or preaps would have been in so I don't think that's a good sample to predict deliverability on many
58:13
of the other sites uh plan applications are in place and they're not comparable sites. They've
58:19
got more constraints from what I can see. So I don't think the record today
58:24
is a good indicator of deliverability on the remaining SP4 sites.
58:33
Just looking at a quick review of some of the um sites that do have planning permission and I think the plan
58:38
application reference number started with 22 or 23. So they're in preBNG mandatory. Um and again the council
58:45
would have known the the capacity. So that's why the table in SP4 is so
58:50
accurate because they were known
59:15
Thank you. So I think I'm hearing from development industry again I think some
59:20
uh residual concerns about kind of moving forward. I'm sort of mindful
59:26
of the sites about a quarter of the sites in SP4 have now got planning
59:32
permission or making good progress through um the planning um system.
59:38
Um I'll give the council the opportunity to respond to what was raised by Mr. And
59:44
I appreciate the council did do additional work following the stage one hearings when I asked to look again at
59:51
kind of particular uh um the particular uh capacity issue and I think the
59:58
council looked at a small sample of sites in terms of providing some assurance that notwithstanding various
1:00:05
kind of policy requirements that are coming you know these these in mindful they are
1:00:10
indicative um capacities in policy SP before but nonetheless they should be
1:00:16
considered you know reasonably robust for the purpose of plan making. I don't know if the council wants to add
1:00:21
anything further in relation to what I've just heard. Um, not nothing too much further to what you've just picked
1:00:26
up on there in terms of our response to AP7, which I know looked at a relatively small sample of sites, but it was just
1:00:32
sort of to give that feel for the type of sites that we're looking at in the main urban area and the fact that they
1:00:38
are generally sites with a lower BNG requirement and that those indicative
1:00:43
capacities can accommodate additional requirements on the sites.
1:00:59
Thank you. I note the point Mr. and I'll reflect on things uh further just in relation to um
1:01:08
policy H sorry so site H7 um the South Tinside um college site um obviously
1:01:15
that was in that's in policy SP4 indicatively for around about 160 units
1:01:22
um as the council set out in its statement planning permission has been granted for a 260 dwelling scheme And
1:01:31
does that include I might be looking at Mr. Horseman um signing off of section
1:01:37
section 106. I mean that's was it's still pending.
1:01:44
Now when the planning permission was granted um 30th of June last year um yeah there is a a signed section 106
1:01:51
agreement that runs alongside that um sort of planning permission that was completed prior to the um granting of
1:01:58
planning permission. So sit here now there's obviously an
1:02:03
implementable planning consent on that site. Um
1:02:09
just heard from Mr. Westwick that you know things are not necessarily standing still.
1:02:15
Um, is there a basis or um
1:02:23
evidence at this stage for a modification to policy H7 given that the
1:02:29
council has uh found that it is acceptable that could accommodate a higher
1:02:36
capacity. Yeah, I think we picked that up in our hearing statement that the council would
1:02:42
support a modification to sort of reflect that additional capacity at that site. Okay.
1:02:52
I mean obviously what's happening now in terms of is still subject to
1:02:58
you know the due planning process. Would you accept Mr. West there's there's currently an extent planning permission
1:03:03
on that site that has been judged by the local planning authority for for its
1:03:09
reasons that you know that site could deliver sustainably a higher a higher quantum.
1:03:15
Uh yes sir there certainly is um um I think the revised scheme coming over mill homes which we're not acting on
1:03:20
behalf of is for a low number but um yes there is an extent plant mission for 260 houses. Okay.
1:03:27
And just sort of a a general point to the room. I mean, if I was perhaps, you know, thinking along similar lines to
1:03:33
Mr. Erton and thinking, well, maybe there is some potential kind of capacity
1:03:39
um issues going forward. Would that be offset by site H7 if I felt you know um
1:03:49
maybe some of these sites going forward in a policy SP4 might not deliver indicatively as shown in that policy but
1:03:56
as has been demonstrated on site H7 in one site you know an additional 100
1:04:02
dwellings shouldn't necessarily be concerned Mr. moving. I think that's absolutely right. Um um
1:04:10
the fact that permission has been granted is a question of unassalable fact and the figure
1:04:18
um the number of dwellings um the subject of that permission uh is
1:04:24
something which is material and important in the context of this particular policy and the overall number
1:04:32
and that needs to be reflected in the trajectory as well. Um the question is um whether one goes
1:04:40
for that number or um having regarded the fact that
1:04:48
another application might come in for a lesser number. We need to understand why that lesser number is being proposed.
1:04:56
Um and um um but nonetheless apart from that um this table should be updated and
1:05:04
the trajectory also should accommodate a higher number than is proposed. If one
1:05:10
is therefore extrapolating and saying well if there is any doubt about this this site alone has produced a surplus
1:05:19
um which might make up any difference occasioned by constraints on sites in
1:05:25
order to deliver BNG or any other issues that might arise which affect capacity.
1:05:31
Yes. I do you want to say anything about the
1:05:38
permission? Um yes, it's just um just a quick update s on the um new planning application
1:05:44
that was mentioned by uh Mr. Westwick. Um we received this is for site H7. Um
1:05:50
yeah, we received a planning application last week um on the 6th of January from Miller Homes. um that is a section 73 um
1:05:59
application that seeks to f the permission that was granted end of June last year. The permission end of June
1:06:05
last year was for up to sort of 260 sort of dwellings. Um so as I say the
1:06:11
application we've received Tuesday of last week is a section 73 application and it's for um a revised scheme of 198
1:06:21
um sort of um dwellings on the sort of um site. Um the application has been
1:06:26
checked. It is valid. So the application is valid. We're just in the process at the moment of sort of um getting all of
1:06:32
the paperwork sort of colleated and sort of um loaded onto our system and consultation letters sent out and what
1:06:39
have you. But it is a valid application.
1:06:44
Thank you Mr. Thank you. So you pick up in your question about does it matter will will
1:06:51
it be picked up elsewhere? I guess it's more for a point for Thursday, but the directory has been updated and it
1:06:57
already shows a fall in housing delivery supply factoring in that increased um
1:07:02
housing delivery on that side. So I think it is important um and I think whilst most being delivered on that site
1:07:08
because it's a bigger site the size I think probably four heads increased than what's in the table. So um I think it's
1:07:14
important
1:07:23
So I don't know if it's of any assistance but I've just asked about the differences between the schemes.
1:07:28
Obviously in granting planning permission for the first scheme uh that number of houses was found to be
1:07:35
acceptable. The reasons I understand that the reasons why um a lower number
1:07:40
is now applied for uh is to reflect the fact that the houses are larger.
1:07:48
So the capacity is the same but the qualitative element
1:07:54
I the types of housing being proposed has been altered in this new application. So you need to be mindful
1:08:00
of that. Therefore, and having regard to that, um, uh, should planning permission be
1:08:07
granted for the lower number, um, then, uh, in advance of the modifications
1:08:13
process getting to a mature stage, uh, then it might be appropriate to put a range in there
1:08:22
because one doesn't know which of the permissions might be implemented.
1:08:33
Thank you. And just in terms of just thinking through um a potential um
1:08:40
modification if if deemed um necessary.
1:08:45
Uh obviously there's the capacity has increased because
1:08:51
it's it's been uh as I say um judged acceptable to kind of enlarge the site
1:08:59
to include I think an area that was previously or has been shown on the submitted policies map as open space
1:09:05
subject to mitigation um which we'll come on to um in terms of more more
1:09:12
widely playing pitch um mitigation
1:09:17
Does that indicate that there needs to be a change to the policies map to
1:09:23
identify a wider site H7 irrespective of what ultimately
1:09:30
the capacity shakes out. I think the council's indicating something along those lines.
1:09:36
I'll make a note of that. Um I think in terms of the capacity I
1:09:42
think slightly nervous about about a range uh when everything else is
1:09:47
indicative. Um
1:09:54
or one could do it as as up to which is the approved 260
1:10:00
which is the approved. But in terms of your consideration of
1:10:05
the trajectory,
1:10:11
it's clearly obvious that you need to have regard that it might come in at a
1:10:17
lower number. Yep.
1:10:22
Indeed indeed. But trajectories are just, you
1:10:27
know, they are largely an estimate a best kind of estimate of when things can absolutely are likely to come forward. Absolutely.
1:10:34
And um having said that, having regard to it, making it clear have regard to
1:10:40
the evidence before you in terms of an application for a lower number, you would still be entitled actually to take
1:10:46
the higher number as as your baseline for that site.
1:10:52
Okay. We'll come. I'm going to sort of sum up at the end in terms of potential
1:10:58
modifications, but I'm making a note now for policy sites site H7 indicative
1:11:04
capacity of 260 and a note to self that there would probably need to be a corresponding
1:11:10
change to the policies map to reflect uh what's what's occurred on that um
1:11:16
that size. Just very briefly and I don't want to go
1:11:22
and get too much into the the planning history of that but the council will have seen as well as I have that there
1:11:28
is a statement in front of me as part of the matter 2 process so stage two process on matter six from a gene e
1:11:36
echert is that how you pronounce e echert um she's not exercised the right to be
1:11:44
heard but nonetheless I got the statement in front of me just in just in very headline terms the
1:11:51
the issue I think she raises is around what's been secured or not secured in
1:11:56
terms of mitigation we'll talk about the 20 what has now got planning permission the 260 site and my
1:12:04
understanding was that through this uh particular scheme the mitigation secured will be at the is
1:12:11
it called the epony school site and also is it the westto heart
1:12:18
crickets Is that right? The cricket or sports site. I think she's putting to me
1:12:26
that what's what you think has been secured hasn't been secured. I think it's how I'd summarize her uh
1:12:33
representation. I don't Mr. Horseman you can just assist me on that that
1:12:38
particular point. Yes. So in terms of the um plane
1:12:45
mitigation um as as you say the the mitigation is to be profiled on two sites um both of
1:12:52
which are elsewhere within South Shields. One of those sites is the Hart
1:12:57
and Westo Miners welfare sort of um site um which is to the um southwest of the
1:13:06
um existing college campus um sort of um sort of site um that um that mitigation
1:13:13
site is already an existing sort of sports ground that is managed by South
1:13:18
Shields football club quite a long established um football club in the um
1:13:24
sort of down and the the mitigation to be provided on that site. Um
1:13:30
is secured through the section 106 agreement and essentially includes the provision of a new new 3G sort of um
1:13:40
football pitch and a new 9 by9 grass um sort of um football sort of pitch.
1:13:48
Um so that's the first site that provides mitigation. The second site
1:13:53
that provides mitigation is the Epony school sort of site. Um that's um to the
1:14:01
south of the of the college campus again within sort of South Shields. Um it's a
1:14:07
site occupied at the moment by a special needs um sort of school. Um
1:14:13
um the site has extensive sort of um playing fields which are not in kind of use at the moment. Um the the again
1:14:22
provision on that site in terms of mitigation comprises the provision of two cricket pitches um as well as um a
1:14:30
rugby sort of um pitch a junior rugby pitch and um there is also provision um
1:14:36
for a new pavilion um building which provide changing um sort of recreational
1:14:42
bar facilities um on that site. And um the the council is is is working closely
1:14:49
with um um a local sort of um sports organization West um sort of cricket and
1:14:56
rugby club who are looking to basically manage the the Epony sort of site. As I
1:15:02
say, the site is not used at the moment um in terms of the playing pitches, but the council are working with um West
1:15:09
Cricket and Rugby Club um who would take on a lease um on that site and run those
1:15:15
facilities on a on a long-term sort of basis. Again, they're an established
1:15:20
cricket and rugby club close to where the existing college sort of site is in in in West in the West area of South
1:15:27
Shields and as I say, working with the council on those matters. So the section 106 agreement um requires
1:15:35
um South Shields football club to provide the Hart and Westminers welfare
1:15:41
mitigation um within sort of a period of four years from the commencement of the sort of um
1:15:48
housing development on the the college site. And in terms of the EPA sort of
1:15:54
site, um the the section 106 agreement for the housing on the college site as
1:16:00
well as the section 106 agreement um for the new sports facilities at the Hart
1:16:05
and Western Miner site. Both of those agreements provide for the college to make financial contributions to the
1:16:12
council um for the mitigation on the EPAN school site. The council will be
1:16:18
delivering the mitigation on that site as I say with Westo Rugby and Cricket Club looking to take on the site in
1:16:25
terms of management on a day-to-day basis in the longer term. The the section 106 agreements require the
1:16:32
council to commit the monies to provide the the EPA
1:16:38
facilities within five years of the um housing development commencing on the on
1:16:44
the college site.
1:17:02
Thank you. Thank you for uh for that.
1:17:17
It's just on uh still on factual updates to policy SP4. Checking these notes. Uh
1:17:22
in response to my MIQ 6.2, uh the council now says that three sites
1:17:28
are uh now under construction. Um
1:17:34
uh in those circumstances
1:17:39
uh would it be necessary to remove those sites from SP4? I mean they are
1:17:45
unlikely to the principal's been accepted development is underway
1:17:50
um to to a large extent kind of the allocation has gone and presumably they're accounted for elsewhere within
1:17:56
the trajectory on a factual basis. Yeah. So, as we set out in um paragraph
1:18:02
6.10, we would support the deallocation of sites that are under development, the sort of on-site and being delivered.
1:18:28
And just to clarify with the council for those sites that still that had planning permission at the 1st of April 2025 but
1:18:34
had not yet um work has not yet started on those um the council still be a view
1:18:42
that they remain as allocations so that you've got control should a revised or
1:18:47
amended application come in. Yeah, that's correct. We would support retaining those sites as allocations.
1:19:08
Thank you. And then in terms of uh MIQ uh 6.3
1:19:14
uh I've asked is there any additional evidence from generically referred to the latest schlar without the benefit of
1:19:20
the 2025 schlar um coming along uh in terms of u whether there's any kind of
1:19:27
additional sites or potential within the main um urban area. Appreciate we
1:19:33
discussed at some length at stage one the Roman house site in Jarro. So I'm
1:19:38
not revisiting um that discussion, but I think it was more general point as to whether there's
1:19:44
untapped capacity. Uh appreciate um I'm notware aware there's been a kind of a a
1:19:50
further formal call for sites, but I think from reading the schlar, I think the council does have a policy of if
1:19:57
sites are presented, you you're going to be um um considering them. Uh and I
1:20:02
guess the question was whether there's anything else that um needs to be
1:20:08
considered or identified under um policy SP4.
1:20:14
Uh yes. So as you mentioned the schlaw process kind of welcomes sites at any
1:20:20
time and they would be when a site submitted it would then be considered under the next schlaw iteration. Um
1:20:27
there hasn't hasn't been any additional suitable sites identified. Um, so yeah,
1:20:32
like like we set out in our response, there's only that additional capacity at the college site.
1:20:52
Thank you. Um, just come and bring others in. I'll start with councelor Herbert and then Mr. Westwick.
1:21:00
Yes, we feel that uh town centers have areas which could be developed for
1:21:05
housing uh such as the car parks and south shields which are owned by the
1:21:10
council, the lands owned by the council. So there shouldn't be any difficulty in bringing them forward for development.
1:21:16
This would uh align itself with the sustainability policies within the the local plan to uh to use brownfield uh
1:21:24
sites and encourage higher density building in those areas. uh regenerate South Shields Town Center
1:21:31
and the other town centers possibly uh would support the NPPBF uh policy to
1:21:38
make the most efficient use of resources uh and the plan's strategy to prioritize
1:21:44
the use of urban areas. Obviously, car parks are very inefficient use of land to us. Uh we
1:21:50
could build have a car park still and build above it and so you're utilizing the land twice.
1:21:58
uh would comply with the MPPF uh policy to pri prioritize brownfield use uh and
1:22:04
deliver housing with good levels of services and public transport, therefore
1:22:09
reducing the need for car use. The NPPF requires the local authority to show
1:22:15
that all reasonable options have been explored before using green belt. We feel this hasn't been done. This
1:22:21
includes the an uplift in development densities in town centers. Uh the plan would support the increased
1:22:29
footall of an footfall in a town center which is a stated objective of the council but you'll only get that
1:22:35
increased footfall if you actually move people into town centers. Now this is being done in local authorities
1:22:41
throughout the region notably Newcastle Gates Head and Sunderland where they've
1:22:47
used a partnership with Northeast Combined authority and Homes England to bring forward funding and expertise in
1:22:54
bringing projects forward in and around city and town centers. So we feel really
1:23:00
South Tinyside hasn't really got into this uh use of uh these northeast
1:23:08
combined authority funding and expertise and it is set aside around about 50
1:23:13
million pounds for brownfield uh renovation that could actually bring in Roman H as a possibility of being
1:23:21
used in future. So we would ask that you know they really look at the town centers the land around them to bring
1:23:29
forward some development in those areas that would meet all the the requirements within the local plan.
1:23:38
Thank you uh Mr. Westwick. Next please. It's another factual point uh site I am
1:23:45
still acting on. Uh if you may recall we uh spoke about the Cleveland lane industrial estate site which is subject
1:23:51
to an appeal. Um that appeal is not resolved yet. Um the site as it's happened it's due any day now. I was
1:23:57
hoping we have done by now. Uh but it hasn't landed yet the appeal decision. Um and on that basis uh our view is that
1:24:05
should be shown as an allocation rather than commitment in the plan. Um it is a
1:24:10
it is a site which um which is which is uh which is clearly deliverable for housing for 202 units.
1:24:18
And remind me again Mr. So this is in the what we would call the main urban or
1:24:23
it's not within the green belt. It is it is it's within the main urban area. It's um it's um it's in a former
1:24:31
brownfield site. Thank you. If I just come back to the council on those those couple of points
1:24:37
that have been identified. My recollection from the stage one hearings is that a lot of the sites in policy SP4
1:24:44
are burough council sites or areas um the council has looked
1:24:50
at. Um it's not uncommon to hear submissions
1:24:56
views that you know car parks surface car parks could be you know potential sources for um development. Is the
1:25:03
council just able briefly to advise me on to what kind of extent you've looked
1:25:08
at your kind of own land holdings and assets uh in terms of um sites being
1:25:15
suitable, available uh and achievable and whether any of the sort of sites or
1:25:20
areas that councelor uh Herbert sort of generally referred to were looked at and
1:25:26
possibly for whatever reason ultimately kind of discounted at at this moment in time.
1:25:32
Yeah. So, we worked comprehensively with our asset management and regeneration teams to identify council own sites
1:25:39
within the main urban area that could be brought forward. Um, just as an example in South Shields Town Center, there's
1:25:46
car park sites allocated. So, the sites that were picked up in AP7 are largely
1:25:52
um car park council own sites. So we have looked at those type of sites and we have ultimately allocated some of
1:25:59
those sites.
1:26:14
Thank you. The council might not be able to say too much about this um sort of
1:26:20
question off the top of my head. I mean in terms of that kind of d in um dialogue
1:26:26
um again it's not uncommon that some authorities want to retain car
1:26:32
parks as part of a wider vibrant healthy kind of town center. Um
1:26:38
is that something that has kind of raised itself as part of the plan making
1:26:44
process that some some sites or some areas at this stage are just not not available. They're not uh you know an
1:26:51
option for the council to look at at this this moment in time bearing in mind there'll be subsequent plan reviews etc
1:26:57
and more sorry
1:27:02
yeah I think just on on the issue of um car parking provision within South Shields town center in particular um
1:27:09
there is a need to achieve a balance um yes as um Miss Cooper has said certain
1:27:15
car park sites have been shown as proposed allocations in the plan for for
1:27:20
housing. Um but obviously the council is conscious as well of the need to promote
1:27:26
um wider regeneration within the town center. And obviously an example of that is the the South Tside College um sort
1:27:33
of campus um sort of um project which is on site now. I'm sure we'll talk about
1:27:38
that later. I understand it's on the agenda um later um this morning. Um but
1:27:43
again just with that scheme for example, it has very limited car parking within the application site. The expectation
1:27:50
was that there will be a demand from staff and students for to use some of
1:27:55
the existing car parking facilities within the town center in connection with that particular development. That's
1:28:01
just an example of of that need for balance.
1:28:07
Thank you. And just a general question and I will come back to uh the Cleon Lane um site and where that's accounted
1:28:15
for. But in terms of just bringing bringing in others, I think this general
1:28:20
um submissions that are made as part of the the plan process about whether the
1:28:26
plan is positively prepared sort of just bearing in mind we're looking at sort of capacity within the main um urban areas.
1:28:33
Um the schlar has at various appendices I think sites that have been kind of ruled out or will not be meet all the um
1:28:42
the criteria. Um we looked at the site selection process uh as part of the stage one um
1:28:50
hearings but are there any um particular views around the table in terms of just
1:28:55
within the main urban areas whether the schlar has taken uh a justified and appropriate
1:29:03
approach in terms of obviously a number of sites have been
1:29:08
kind of discounted um including within the main um urban area or whether
1:29:15
there's an issue here about the plan could be more positively prepared whether that's along the lines of what councelor Herbert is saying or or other
1:29:24
or other lines Mr. ton please.
1:29:30
I don't think the council can really be criticized for not looking at urban sites. I think they've squeezed every pip in trying to look at available sites
1:29:36
to avoid releasing sites beyond the main urban area in our we think they've
1:29:42
overestimated but I certainly don't think they avoid looking at sites and I think if they felt sites were available
1:29:47
from where I can see they would have included them to to increase those numbers to avoid releasing sites beyond
1:29:53
those areas. So that that's my view on that.
1:29:59
Thank you, councelor Herbert. Again, as regards parking, it's notable that at
1:30:04
the South Shields has no multi-story car park, whereas most of the towns do. You
1:30:10
can have a greater capacity for car parking if you'd have a multi-story car park in the same footprint. So, why
1:30:17
hasn't this been investigated as well? Thank you. I mean obviously multitory
1:30:25
car parks come with a cost um implication.
1:30:30
Um thank you for that. Um I'm not going to
1:30:38
invite the council to come back on that point unless there's anything further. No. Can I just pick up um the point
1:30:45
around um Cleon Lane? This was again identified
1:30:50
and discussed as part of the stage one hearings and I just want it may come back as part of um Thursday afternoon's
1:30:58
discussion. So the council wants to kind of uh hold fire now and come back later
1:31:04
but just flag it up now because I think it was something I'd also kind of mentally made a note of Mr. West
1:31:10
speaking me to it. But just in terms of how this site is potentially accounted for, as I understand it, it was
1:31:16
previously at regula regulation 18 within policy SP4.
1:31:22
I think as we sit here now, it doesn't have an extent planning permission despite
1:31:29
uh a checkered um decision approach to decision on that
1:31:34
site. Bottom line is it doesn't have a an extent permission.
1:31:40
Obviously the appeal process is happening in parallel to where we're sitting today. But nonetheless, unless
1:31:46
the council just to clarify now as a marker from perhaps when we come up to the housing trajectory
1:31:52
um in on Thursday, the council is nonetheless accounting for delivery on this site
1:31:59
within the schlar and the housing trajectory. Yeah. So that site's currently picked up
1:32:04
in as part of the commitments. um at the time of sort of writing the plan the site had a resolution to grant
1:32:11
permission so it was sort of caught up in the commitments because of that um as Mr. Westwick has
1:32:17
picked up um sort of for consistency with the approach we've taken to other sites. Um the council wouldn't have an
1:32:24
issue taking that site as as a proposed allocation rather than accounting it as
1:32:29
part of the commitments.
1:32:40
Thank you. So I'll come come back to this and sort of feed it into the Thursday afternoon discussion because
1:32:46
obviously I'm mindful uh certainly East Balden forum and not here at the table um this morning but
1:32:54
the thought had crossed my mind similarly is how this site is potentially accounted for. I'm not
1:33:00
saying I'm going to definitively recommend a modification that it should be put into part CSP4,
1:33:07
but were I to do so, um, I think I'm getting an an in
1:33:14
maybe slightly unfair, but I think I'm getting indication from the council that that might be a way forward potentially
1:33:20
for this site. Were I to come to my own conclusion, you know, this site seems to be account
1:33:26
seems to be in the schlar seems to be something you're accounting for in your trajectory. Is it a large windfall?
1:33:33
Really, we shouldn't be having those in in a plan system. Is it something that could ultimately go back into policy SP4
1:33:40
subject to what essentially comes out of the appeal uh appeal process? Yeah.
1:33:49
Okay. I've made a note. I'll probably come back to it on Thursday afternoon. Okay.
1:33:59
Thank you. Um
1:34:04
just very just very briefly in terms of I think it's been uh alluded to as part of the discussion um this morning. So
1:34:13
we're sitting here um two years on from when policy SP4 was
1:34:19
presented at regulation 19. As I say about a quarter of the sites now have
1:34:24
planning permission within two years. Three of the sites are now already under construction and I think from my
1:34:30
observation I think work is now starting as well on shoot to read which um we'll
1:34:36
come on to the after lunch. What
1:34:41
perhaps for my my benefit um and sort of just thinking around just wider sort of
1:34:46
soundness issues um what does that indicate? Is there a strong is it an
1:34:51
indicator of strong market demand that when sites are available within the main
1:34:57
urban area they'll come forward? Is it a happy circumstance that these sites have
1:35:03
been in the pipeline a long time and they're now just coming to just happen to be sort of coming to um uh to
1:35:11
fruition? Um I think it's just trying to get a feeling of the kind of when we look at how these sites and wider sites
1:35:17
in SP4 are likely to come forward. Are there kind of reasons for optimism
1:35:23
from what we've seen in a very short period of time with these sites that um
1:35:28
there can be sort of confidence that uh things are going to deliver.
1:35:35
Yeah, as as you alluded to, I think it is a good indication that sites that we have allocated are marketable. they are
1:35:42
in areas where there is a need for housing. Um, obviously we know that
1:35:47
delivery has been sort of below what we would want in the burough. Um, and so
1:35:53
there is a need for housing there. Um, as Mr. Eton alluded to earlier, some of
1:35:58
the sites, you know, we did kind of know that they were in the pipeline already. They were coming forward, but there are
1:36:03
sites coming forward that were just sort of in the schlaw. They weren't
1:36:08
necessarily in the pipeline at that time.
1:36:28
Thank you. And I think I've read from sort of various submissions I think from Mr. Morton for Lavick Hall again Mr. And
1:36:35
I think there's from a wider developer community perspective, there doesn't
1:36:40
seem to be too much issue with the sites that have been identified in SP4. And as Mr. Ein said, squeezing
1:36:47
the pips, we we'll come on to some of the issues around that in terms of a particularly open space um sites in
1:36:54
terms of uh what's been um looked at. So I've made a note of what you've put forward in in your statements. Um
1:37:02
councelor Herbert, come back to you. appreciate you kind of take a different view that you think more could be done.
1:37:08
Yeah. To limit limit the need for ultimately other sites having to be released.
1:37:13
Yeah. The Hawthorne Leslie site was given planned permission I believe just after regga 18 uh brownfield site
1:37:20
indicative of capacity of 450 but that hasn't been brought forward yet. So
1:37:26
where are we with that sort of big development that could be brought forward and saving green belt
1:37:32
development? Thank you. I'm sort of mindful we'll come on to some of this perhaps again on
1:37:38
Thursday afternoon. Obviously alongside the allocations as a consented
1:37:43
kind of pipeline sites have already got planning permission. I think the the Hawthorne Lesley site is identified
1:37:51
within that. Is that a site actually where things are now starting to happen or have I
1:37:58
had an odd dream about that? Um yes so the situation with the
1:38:05
Hawthorne Leslie site um as I say it was a former shipyard site um substantial
1:38:11
issues with ground contamination. Um so um as I say work has been
1:38:16
undertaken on site to remediate sort of ground condition. Um buildings that were
1:38:22
formally on the site have been demolished. So the site is now cleared and essentially ready for for
1:38:28
development. Um again we have a section 73 planning application with us at the
1:38:35
moment um um to to basically um
1:38:40
seeking consent for some changes to phase one of the development. Um but but yes as I say the intention is that that
1:38:47
the the the development of that site in terms of new new build housing will commence of um sort of shortly. Um as I
1:38:55
say we have that current application with us for which we're considering at present.
1:39:04
I just ask I believe there's a 10% uh of sites that don't come forward with plan
1:39:09
permission are actually built out which is apparently quite high and the vacancy
1:39:15
rate of buildings has gone up from I think it was 2.4% 4% to 3% since a reggg
1:39:21
18 application to reggga 19. So that doesn't indicate very strong market to
1:39:26
me. Thank you. We'll come back to the 10%
1:39:31
issue when we look at the housing trajectory and other matters on on Thursday. I've certainly raised
1:39:37
questions about about that as well. So probably part that for now
1:39:43
um counc we'll come on to that um issue about whether that's a
1:39:48
a justified um a justified figure. But I think I'm taking taking your your
1:39:55
general point if I'm uh right council her in terms of you're inviting me to
1:40:00
kind of apply a bit of caution to how these sites are likely to come forward and
1:40:12
uh because you mentioned uh windfall sites uh recently there was a a development
1:40:20
given plan of mission just uh outside Cleven Village on Green Belt because it
1:40:26
was declared as Grey Belt for three bungalows to be built. Now, I assume
1:40:32
they're outside the the local plan, they would be classed as windfalls.
1:40:37
Also, there's now uh a developer looking at an application for 200 houses just
1:40:44
north of Whitburn Village again in a green belt which are trying to m make
1:40:49
into gray belt there. You would have 200 windfalls in that site. So now the
1:40:54
government's declared open season on all land around villages. The green belt is
1:41:00
no longer protected. This could grow like topsy. So we're going to end up with windfalls all over. And it goes
1:41:07
against the the premise that the plan is there to allow planning for
1:41:12
infrastructure to go along with development. That's going to be thrown out completely by these new uh
1:41:19
developments that could happen absolutely anywhere. Ad hoc development. It also redraws the
1:41:26
green B boundaries just in ad hoc ways. So in theory it
1:41:31
could grow expand from villages outwards towards urban areas until it actually
1:41:37
meet the urban areas. So you lose a green belt completely. I think as indicated
1:41:44
the quirk is we are where we are and we're looking at a plan against uh previous version of the national
1:41:50
planning policy framework. Um we will come on to windfall. I'm not necessarily
1:41:56
expecting to hear back from the council on those points that have been raised. We'll we'll be looking at kind of windfall
1:42:02
uh again. I think it's um Thursday um this this week. Um and in terms of the
1:42:10
evidence that kind of informed um the plan making um
1:42:17
I mean it does there are issues around future proofing but I'm I'm taking a
1:42:23
fairly sort of purist line that for consistency with national policy it's the September 2023 MPPF um we'll come on
1:42:31
to moni again monitoring and review uh in one of the sort of final sessions and
1:42:37
where that where that um uh where that leads us. So I I'm not really wanting to
1:42:42
kind of have too much more sort of speculative discussion about what's kind of happening uh out with um the plan or
1:42:51
the current plan um that's um that's before me.
1:42:57
Thank you for those um contributions. Um before we take a midm morning break,
1:43:03
thought we just um get through a couple of the individual sites in policy SP4
1:43:09
um that have been raised. Um starting with I think it's under my MIQ
1:43:15
6.4 uh site H6 which is the former St. Aiden's church site. Uh there are
1:43:22
various representations from historic England. I think they were seeking further detail or further points within
1:43:28
policy SP4 uh under the key considerations
1:43:33
um given I think the site is within the buffer zone um to the world heritage
1:43:40
site at the I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly the arba uh Roman fort obviously
1:43:49
take note of historic England as a statutory um consultee But just whether
1:43:54
it's necessary for soundness to have the further detail or point I think that they were
1:44:00
looking for. I mean I've visited the sites I can see it's surrounded on four sides by existing housing and I think it
1:44:07
has had planning permission in the past.
1:44:14
Um yes there've been a number of planning permissions granted over the the years. The most recent was um
1:44:20
permission granted um 14th of December 2023 um for um 14 apartments on the site. Um
1:44:29
there was consultation on that planning application as as there has been on previous applications for the site with
1:44:35
the the Tania archaeology service. So um one of our key consulties
1:44:40
around kind of below ground kind of archaeology matters. Um so so basically
1:44:46
as a result of the the consultation with them there is a condition on that planning permission watching brief um
1:44:52
condition around um below ground um archaeological um remains but they they
1:44:57
didn't have any objections to to that particular proposal subject to that condition which as I say was added to
1:45:03
the the permission.
1:45:11
Thank you. And in terms of um I say it's recently been granted
1:45:18
planning permission again uh has not yet implemented has been subject to a series
1:45:24
of applications over time. Um the council's confidence is this a site
1:45:31
you're um profiling as being deliverable within the next five years. Is it one that's um
1:45:38
in the developable
1:45:51
Uh yeah, that site is profiled to come forward within the first five years of the plan period.
1:45:57
Okay. Off the back of a de is a is it a detailed planning consent the December
1:46:03
23? It is. Yes. Full planning permission.
1:46:19
Okay. Thank you. I've got nothing further wanted to raise on site H6. Um so we take site H8 and then we'll
1:46:27
have uh a brief midm morning break. So this is the land associated cremaries. I
1:46:32
think on this Edgeon road. Um I had various representations from local ward
1:46:39
counselors with reservations about this site. Um so my I think
1:46:46
uh follow up to MIQ um 6.7
1:46:51
is um is it justified that this site I think is allocated it is a de developable site so it's not a site
1:46:58
you're anticipating in the first five years on plan adoption but is it is it justified as a as a housing allocation
1:47:05
within the plan? Uh yeah so the site obviously is a brownfield site within the main urban
1:47:11
area. It's in a sustainable location with good access to infrastructure and services and sustainable transport
1:47:17
links. Um the permission on the site has lapsed but you know the sort of
1:47:23
principle of development is established on that site. Um the sustainability appraisal um sub3 identifies the site as
1:47:30
having a very positive effect on efficient land use, healthier people and communities and a positive effect on the
1:47:37
housing and sustainable transport objectives.
1:47:44
One of the concerns that's been raised by local counselors is the site is in an existing active commercial use and I've
1:47:50
seen that um myself uh and the impact on those businesses but presumably this is
1:47:56
a site that's been promoted through the schlar process by a site owner. Is it is it in a single ownership?
1:48:03
Um so the site was brought into the schlaw because of the the planning application on that site. Um, as we
1:48:10
picked up in the hearing statement, we've tried to contact the land owner sort of since the last iteration of the
1:48:18
SL and the publication of the hearing statements which we weren't successful
1:48:23
um contacting them, but obviously, you know, the council is still confident the site can come forward.
1:48:30
As noted, it's not in the first five years. It's a reasonable kind of lead in time uh for something to kind of uh to
1:48:37
happen on this um this site, but obviously it's not been identified
1:48:43
as a location that's kind of critical to safeguard for employment purposes.
1:48:48
Obviously, other sites have met that criteria and the plan has safe protected
1:48:54
other employment but not not this one.
1:49:00
In terms of um uh other issues that were identified um for this site
1:49:09
um looking at the uh the figure that's provided um site layout plan uh from the
1:49:18
council as part of the um statement in terms your matter six statement in terms of what was previously granted
1:49:24
planning permission on the site um seems to principally relate to the area that's
1:49:30
covered by the commercial units. When I was trying to look at this on site and with the policies map, the
1:49:37
allocation appears to now extend or include what's a sort of part of a green
1:49:44
amenity space um to the south of those um commercial units. Is that
1:49:51
intentional? Is that something that the council has kind of thought about and want wanted to include within the
1:49:57
allocation and if so are there particular reasons for that?
1:50:03
Um yeah so the site boundary obviously picks up the commercial buildings the the layout of
1:50:10
the previous planning permission on that site. um including those that wider area
1:50:16
just gives an opportunity to provide good quality green space on the site and incorporate BNG into the site.
1:50:34
Thank you. I mean, if if that's um the council's kind of position, um I'll
1:50:41
just put it forward as would it be potential modification to the key
1:50:46
considerations for site H8 to kind of make that clearer that the anticipation
1:50:52
or expectation for this site is that the area that's currently the amenity space
1:50:58
would be either kept as such or as you say, Miss
1:51:03
Cooper is there to kind kind of enhance open space provision and secure biodiversity net gain
1:51:10
that it's it's not under the key
1:51:28
proposeification.
1:51:35
Thank you, Mr. Erton. Please. Thank you. I guess just on that last
1:51:41
point about the area being bigger than the plan application history area and the point that the council haven't been
1:51:47
able to contact the developer who's not been promoting the site as such for an allocation. Question in my mind is do they own the land? Is it available for
1:51:54
B&G enhancement? And immunity space clashes with BNG. So that's a big
1:51:59
question mark in my mind if that's the approach. It's quite a long plan history for what I can see. Um the last approved
1:52:06
scheme which now it's down was quite high density preBNG involved loss of trees. Um little
1:52:13
private no immunity space. So we had permission at a time when
1:52:18
there's high demand for housing. It's not being delivered. Since then constraints and viability and deliverable have increased.
1:52:26
Big question mark. return that with with those points
1:52:32
is that um those qu if there are question marks I
1:52:39
mean is it is a developable site it's not identified for delivery um in the
1:52:44
first five years so there is a leading time for this site I mean the council could argue has taken a reasonably kind
1:52:51
of prudent approach to this site I guess there's there's no set set barrier Barry in terms of when you do or
1:52:57
don't, but I guess there's a lot there against it. Um, and the history and what I've seen in terms of the permissions
1:53:03
and the the lack of contact with the developer. Um, I think you'd be right to question. And it's in terms of well,
1:53:10
maybe not the first five years, but even the 15 years, there's no headroom. So, every site's important. And I guess just
1:53:17
generally we just raise concerns generally that some of these sites won't be delivered. Um, and I think the
1:53:23
evidence here would raise concerns that this good chance that this won't be developed in the in the plan period and
1:53:29
make its important contribution to the housing need.
1:53:38
Thank you. So are you inviting me, Mr. And would you say the plan needs to be changed by taking this part this site
1:53:45
out? Yeah, bet on the on the evidence available.
1:54:11
Thank you. I was simply uh in inquiring of my team
1:54:17
uh what the existing uses were and how they might be characterized in the
1:54:22
context of employment generally within the burough, what it's trying to achieve. uh that's not to devalue the
1:54:29
the contribution they make but but it's of a small scale small business type
1:54:35
nature. Thank you. I mean I should say I've been to the various sites that we we're
1:54:42
discussing um this week today. So I've seen the nature of the the businesses
1:54:48
that are at those those sites relationship to um the existing um
1:54:53
housing. I think if this site is to remain in the plan, I will be looking for a main modifiation
1:54:59
to policy SP4, I think, to just clarify um the extent of the site.
1:55:05
Yes. And what's to occur um to the south, presumably the amenity land area
1:55:12
um my inclination would be to assume that's owned and managed by South
1:55:17
Tinside, but that could be a wild assumption.
1:55:23
I think we would just need to double check but I believe it is. Yeah.
1:55:30
Yep. Thank you, Mr. Horseman. Yeah, just a further observation on the
1:55:36
associated crearyy site. Um um just to make you aware that um you you me you
1:55:41
referred to representations from residents. Um we do have a a current planning enforcement case in respect to
1:55:48
the site. There have been complaints around one of the businesses on the sort of um sort of site. Um um so there is a
1:55:56
question mark over the um that business is is authorized to operate from the
1:56:02
from the site. Um as I say the site is surrounded by residential properties.
1:56:08
Though as I say there are issues around potential bad neighbor
1:56:13
commercial uses obviously adjacent to to residential properties which as I say would would be a consideration for the
1:56:19
council. Um and one of the reasons why as I say we would support redevelopment
1:56:26
of the site forum of housing. Um, as was mentioned earlier, it's it's not a site
1:56:32
that we were looking to retain as an employment sort of site and and one of the reasons for that is the very close
1:56:39
proximity to of the site to residential sort of properties.
1:56:50
Thank you for that. Okay, we're coming up to just gone 25 11. So, I'm going to take a midm morning um German now. Um if
1:56:58
we could be back in this room please at quarter to 12. Um and then we'll resume
1:57:04
discussion on matter 6 with what remains on policy SP4 and then onto the brink
1:57:10
burn uh site SP5. Thank you.
2:16:57
Okay, thank you everybody. It's now just gone quarter to 12. So I'm going to resume these um hearing sessions just to
2:17:04
finish off on uh policy SP4 uh site H20. This is land at the Perth
2:17:13
Green um youth center. I think this is probably a site where events have kind of overtaken
2:17:19
where um the regulation 19 plan was a couple of years ago. So I understand
2:17:25
planning permission has now been granted on this this site. This was a site I
2:17:31
think that Sport England had raised representations on the plan uh back in
2:17:38
uh early 2024. Bluffsy matters have now
2:17:43
um moved on. Yes, that's correct. So um plan
2:17:48
permission was granted for 50 units on this site in December 2024.
2:17:53
Um and through I know sport England have sort of made representations um to the plan
2:18:00
application at that point in terms of the loss of playing field land. Um but through the plan preparation process as
2:18:07
set out in the MI miq response it had been assessed as meeting the open spaces
2:18:12
that's had been documented through various evidence-based documents since the early 2000s. Um and as we've set out
2:18:19
that's sort of been resolved through the the plan application process in terms of a a financial sum was agreed with Sport
2:18:26
England in terms of mitigation for the loss of laps playing field um
2:18:33
provision on that site. So from that, Sport England had kind of
2:18:39
made the distinction and I think it had recognized that it was lapsed that it there's a kind of a
2:18:46
thinking of other sites we've been discussing back as part of stage one that they made a differentiation between
2:18:52
something that was kind of actively in use and something that had fallen out of that that use but
2:18:59
nonetheless was undeveloped open land within the urban area.
2:19:05
Um yes, that's correct. I think it's also worth to note that sort of directly adjacent to the the application site
2:19:11
there was a new 3G pitch as well. So it wasn't there was a loss of plane pitch provision within that um the sub area as
2:19:19
identified within the plane pitch strategy. Um so I think the the financial contribution is to sort of be
2:19:25
used on other facilities elsewhere within that sub area in terms of um provision to improving um existing uh
2:19:33
pitch provision.
2:19:52
Okay, thank you. I've got no further um questions. Um I'll pick up on H20.
2:19:59
Um thank you for that. Um so just sort of bringing things to
2:20:06
conclusion on policy SP4. Um if I just bring the council to MIQ
2:20:14
um 614. Um and just looking at uh
2:20:22
sort of in advance of we come back to this on Thursday just the general
2:20:28
uh what sites are likely to contribute towards deliverable supply within um
2:20:33
site uh policy SP4. We've touched upon a number of sites that um currently have
2:20:39
um uh planning uh permission. One of the other sites uh that's identified there
2:20:46
is site H18 land at Dean Road. I mean it's a relatively
2:20:51
well it's a site that can yield a reasonable number of units 62 units. What's the council's kind of confidence
2:20:57
or evidence that that site is going to help contribute to deliverable supply?
2:21:03
Um so the vision for that site would be extra care sort of apartments which is why the yield is so high on that site.
2:21:11
Um there is developer interest in the site and the council are working proactively to bring that site forward.
2:21:17
Um it's one of three extra care schemes that are sort of in the pipeline. Um one
2:21:22
of them is the tutor read site which is obviously coming forward. What was the first
2:21:29
sorry yeah there's new town which is on site now. So this is kind of the next site in that process.
2:21:45
Thank you. Am I right thinking site H18 is not a council owned site. This be a site the
2:21:52
market will would bring forward in terms of that extra care provision.
2:21:59
council. Oh, it is council end. Okay,
2:22:11
thank you. Um, so are there any further points people wish to make in relation to policy SP4 and sites in the main
2:22:18
urban area? Um, Mr. and I'll come back in again. Just
2:22:24
mindful Mr. Woff, you've I don't know if there's anything you wanted to say on this particular point this morning. No,
2:22:30
no. Just make sure before I I move I move on and move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move on to other isues so Mr. Please.
2:22:38
I think you've noticed that some of the um some of the sites are including the 5year supply in the in the um trajectory
2:22:45
and I think we've now got again the benefit of the 2023 Schlad the 24 and a 25 one and just looking at those it's
2:22:51
quite interesting that quite a few sites are being pushed back a year from 2023
2:22:56
to 2024 in terms of starting delivery and then from 24 to 25. So already two
2:23:02
years in um sites are being pushed back and just having a look at the
2:23:08
developable supply the 15year supply in the schlar I think I think 42% of the
2:23:13
sites being pushed back a year from the previous one. So I think that just goes back to our general point is there will
2:23:19
be slippage. is already evident in the evidence base that's been presented since the start of the local plan preparation process and with constraints
2:23:27
on the size we've discussed and which had a bit more detail in our submitted statement on each of the SP4 sites which
2:23:33
would have seen we we just we're very nervous that we there will be
2:23:38
slippage um in the plum process and I think that's already been evidenced in the first two Obviously
2:23:54
the council has um obly been updating it schlar um through the examiner and
2:23:59
including through the examination process that uh have to say from experience elsewhere that doesn't always
2:24:04
happen and some some authorities want to rely on uh more aged kind of schlar
2:24:10
evidence just sort of being devil's advocate perhaps with you Mr. Erton before perhaps give the council an
2:24:16
opportunity to come on this through again reviewing and looking at the schlar you you'd like it's kind of
2:24:23
interpreted as slippage um but is it kind of the council just being more
2:24:29
prudent and realistic uh about when sites are likely um to come forward or
2:24:35
do you think there's a a wider picture or pattern here? No, I think I
2:24:40
think they are reflecting to the evidence and if they've not come forward, it needs to be updated in the schla. I think the point we've always
2:24:47
our clients always made since the start of the local plan process is that they've been over too optimistic and relying on the capacity and
2:24:52
deliverability of these urban sites. These sites aren't related to come forward. They could have come forward
2:24:59
previously. They're not in the green belt for example and they've not come forward. And the reason I expect would
2:25:05
be because of viability. There's been high demand for housing. and they've not come forward. So as more
2:25:11
sites becoming allocated the plan has adopted that demand is going to go down and in the meantime constraints cost
2:25:18
bill cost have all gone up. So if anything the likelihood of some of these sites coming forward and the challenges
2:25:23
they now face just deal with plan application on a daily basis brownfield sites urban sites
2:25:30
the viability challenges with those increase every day you know from month to month sites have become more
2:25:35
challenging. So I do think that in practicality in reality these sites will
2:25:41
have challenges and our concerns remain um as we set out throughout the process
2:25:51
and just summing up from where we started from in terms of the pro um as I sit here now and thinking about you know
2:25:57
potential modifications I'm I'm assuming Mr. And you say the sum
2:26:02
of that if there's going to be slippage and concern about deliverability then the way forward is to identify
2:26:10
more deliverable supply. Yeah. But being positive and and realizing there's a constraint there. I think evident you know just history in
2:26:17
South Tide um um the headroom's tight.
2:26:22
Um even without challenging the numbers and capacities the headroom's tight. So
2:26:28
it needs more of a buffer there because history tells us where we are now. Um sites that are being delivered, sites
2:26:34
are coming forward because of capacity issues and availability issues and the green belt is a significant constraint to that. So there's no flexibility going
2:26:40
forward to to address that. So the plan to to to address that now
2:27:04
thank you. Can I just clarify with the council and there might be not be a straight a straight answer
2:27:11
right right now and it might be something to sort of think about. Are any of these sites in SP4 kind of rolled
2:27:16
forward from the the last site allocations development plan document or are they
2:27:22
largely new sites that have come forward within the urban area?
2:27:27
Um there are some that have been rolled forward. I don't have the list to hand. Um but for the most part they are new
2:27:33
sites. We can give you those
2:27:39
and I said I don't I don't want too much more information. I think that would be it should be a short short list.
2:27:45
Y
2:27:59
thank you. Are you with us Thursday afternoon Mr. introductory? Yeah. Okay.
2:28:05
Okay. and just sum up on then on SP4 uh as I see it again as said at the
2:28:11
start I'll um confirm things for a sort of note through the program officer for the
2:28:17
council but I think in terms of where I think we've got with some of this discussion um today is that there are
2:28:22
various sites within policy SP4 that are now under construction modification that they'll now come out um because they are
2:28:30
clearly going ahead um uh
2:28:37
the extent and capacity of site H7 which we discussed at the former college campus site is clearly changed. this
2:28:45
needs to be uh reflected uh and the clarification around the site um
2:28:52
considerations for site H8 terms of it overlapping or how it's going to treat
2:28:58
the um uh open space um area um to the
2:29:03
south uh south of that sites. Obviously, there are some sites that
2:29:10
have recently got planning permission. I'll reflect on this further
2:29:19
in terms of quite how they're handled in terms of
2:29:24
um policy SP 4. I'm sort of keen we don't sort of get
2:29:31
when we sort of come to the trajectory we've been not doing sort of partial kind of updates sites that are very
2:29:37
recent I think you referred to I think three sites that have been or two more sites that have very very recently been
2:29:43
granted planning permission obviously postates the schlar 2025
2:29:51
version um so obviously I think for the purposes of trajectory I think I'm still going to
2:29:56
treat those as allocations unless persuade myself otherwise.
2:30:04
That's entirely rational. Uh otherwise, you're underestimating the contribution
2:30:09
of those sites to the five, 10, and 15 year supply.
2:30:17
If there's nothing further then on policy SP4, I move on to policy SP5. So, this is the Brinkburn uh comprehensive
2:30:25
schools site. uh got various representations including from the Green Party on this particular
2:30:33
um proposed allocation. Um just wonder if just by way of a scene
2:30:40
setter for me council just reorganizing themselves.
2:31:11
Okay. So, stop policy SP5 Brinkburn.
2:31:16
I've spotted two new people at the end of the council's um team. If they're going to contribute to this discussion,
2:31:22
I'm said earlier obviously these sessions are being recorded. It's probably helpful for me if I just understand who's now joined um the
2:31:29
council's team to my right. So starting with you, sir. Charles Higgins, the property services manager.
2:31:40
Sorry, Charles Higgins, property services manager.
2:31:52
Thanks. and Trevor Male, service delivery manager for strategic transport of the council.
2:32:01
Thank you. I just wonder by just by way of appreciate the council's uh answer various kind of MIQs uh on this site
2:32:09
just as an introductory kind of scene set to this discussion if the council could just provide a sort of just a
2:32:14
brief overview of the background to this site. So presumably it's been surplus to educational
2:32:20
um requirements. There's some community use on the site at present from what I've seen from
2:32:27
visiting um uh visiting the site and that's partly used by is it a charitable
2:32:33
organization that are currently on on the site. So is the council I guess one
2:32:39
of my sort of first sort of questions is where where does this site kind of sit in the process? Is it a site that the
2:32:45
council's has disposed of or will be disposing of and it's sort of just
2:32:51
general background
2:32:58
um to confirm it's a council um owned site with a community group in situ um
2:33:05
and discussions are ongoing about um potential um reprovision of community
2:33:11
use at the site which I think's been set out in the proposals that have been provided.
2:33:22
Thank you. And in terms of um the evidence that's um before me, the site
2:33:29
has been subject to uh feasibility work, I think that's been provided now into
2:33:35
the um examination process. I've got it as document post sub um 45
2:33:43
um I think people haven't
2:33:49
aware it's the PNHS architects um document um I mean what's the council's
2:33:56
vision for the site were you trying to achieve through um site SP5
2:34:02
obviously there's some housing developments is that envisaged as being enabling or in terms of the community
2:34:09
use uh and obviously some form of improved
2:34:14
um pitch uh provision on the site as well.
2:34:20
Uh yes. So I think that the first thing to set out is obviously this site has been identified in accordance with the
2:34:26
the spatial strategy for the local plan. It's a a brownfield site within the main
2:34:31
urban area which could deliver a significant amount of housing. So it is a site that we do consider to be
2:34:36
important in terms of the spatial strategy. It was considered throughout the plan process like I say through the
2:34:42
schlaw and through the sustainability appraisal as well. Um the schlaw identifies a site um to be delivered
2:34:49
between years 6 to 10 and that sort of links to the the plane pitch mitigation which will be required on that site.
2:34:56
Terms of the feasibility paper um which was undertaken that was um undertaken um
2:35:02
to sort of give an idea of what the options were on the site. Obviously there is that community association on
2:35:08
there and there strong links to um having a strong role within the community. Um so we want to sort of see
2:35:14
if we can retain that um element on that site going forward. Um also again in
2:35:21
terms of the plane pitches um we know through the plane pitch strategy that there there aren't surpluses and plane
2:35:27
pitch capacity within serving side. So the retention of pictures is also something that's quite important in
2:35:32
terms of um the site coming forward. And we also know they are those pictures are
2:35:37
in use unlike some of the other sites within the local plan uh where pictures are disused or have been or lapsed and
2:35:44
are not currently in use. That's not the case on the Brinkburn site. So again that was another consideration that's
2:35:50
been taken into account through that process and through the options that were considered through the feasibility
2:35:55
paper as well.
2:36:12
Thank you. for the council in terms of looking at that kind of um options assessment work and what the site could
2:36:18
potentially kind of yield in sort of regards to kind of the various things um that the council um wants to achieve on
2:36:25
that site that generally listed under the first kind of criterion within policy SP um SP5 is the figure ofund
2:36:34
approximately 150 dwellings reasonable um justified
2:36:41
uh Yes, we consider it is like I say that figure has been informed through the feasibility paper and option C. Um
2:36:48
that paper you know took into account um the the policies that were available through the the draft um regulation 18
2:36:55
local plan also to sign take in account BNG and also um national um space
2:37:00
standards for the housing. Um and it also like I say tries to keep um some community facilities on that site and
2:37:07
retain plane pictures as well.
2:37:16
Thank you. So I think from some from the council's evidence once you kind of net off those are the things that you want
2:37:21
to achieve on that site. You look at about 150 houses, it's around
2:37:28
30 to 35 dings per hectare would be achieved on on that site. And is that a
2:37:36
kind of a a justified and sort of appropriate kind
2:37:41
of um response to the kind of character and area given as you say slam that's a um
2:37:50
brownfield previously developed site within the urban area. Yeah, I think we've acknowledged in our MIQ response
2:37:55
that the proposed density on that site is slightly lower than what we would normally um identify for Brownfield um
2:38:01
sites um particularly within the density report. But I think what's important is
2:38:06
what's being proposed reflects the council's ambitions for that site in terms of the retention of the community
2:38:12
facilities and also plane pitch provision as well.
2:38:52
Thank you. So in terms of understanding, see this is identified as a developable
2:38:57
site. So it's not in the first sort of five years, but as we sit here now, this is a site that's in the control of South
2:39:03
Tide. So the council would be kind of in have uh the responsibility of
2:39:10
when it was came forward uh released to the market. Um there are no other issues
2:39:19
that potentially affect its deliverability other than as you say m lamb the kind of sequencing around kind
2:39:26
of sport pitch um mitigation. Yes. So like I've mentioned the sort of
2:39:31
the the PL pitch mitigation is sort of the the key issue in terms of um why the site's been identified within the six to
2:39:38
10 years. Um obviously there will also be um stuff to be sorted out with the
2:39:44
community association as well um during that process as well. Um but again that's sort of why we've positioned it
2:39:51
within that time frame within the trajectory.
2:40:05
I'll just ask about the sports pitch provision and then I'll bring others in on this particular um site. So obviously
2:40:11
I think as you referred to Mr. Lam there's evidence buroughwide of a shortage of um playing field provision
2:40:18
to meet needs in the burough. Obviously say the Brinkburn site has various pictures seen
2:40:24
uh seen those on site including I think the rugby pitch um other sort of
2:40:30
football pitches. Um I note from the playing pitch strategy that the site is generally
2:40:37
regarded in terms of quality terms being relatively poor in terms of um pitch
2:40:43
provision. Um in terms of say my it was my MIQ 615
2:40:49
was really understanding is there effective mitigation available um for this site in terms of the loss of um
2:40:56
playing uh pitch provision. I appreciate the policy is seeking to mitigate some
2:41:03
of that onsite but presumably there's still a balance that would need to be mitigated elsewhere. Um it's probably
2:41:11
both for this site and for shooter to read when we come on it this afternoon kind of the the
2:41:18
reasonleness and a sort of assurance as we can at this stage through plan making
2:41:25
um that there are kind of feasible kind of mitigation options available. I think
2:41:32
as I understand it for this site the focus is on potentially the temple park location which is obviously not that far
2:41:39
from this this site. Yes, that's right. So the the the site
2:41:45
as it stands at the moment supports 5.8 hectares of playing field land. Um
2:41:50
option C as we've identified um through the feasibility study and has informed um the preparation and policy SP5 um the
2:41:58
amount of plane field land which would be retained on that site uh would represent 1.3 hectares um which we would
2:42:05
expect to be to to be retained and that would um accommodate um an adult football pitch, a junior pitch and a
2:42:12
mugger as it stands as set out in the feasibility study. Um and that information has been sort of taken
2:42:18
forward through the plane pitch strategy and has informed scenario testing which has taken place. Um on that um the topic
2:42:27
paper identifies um the amount of residual playing field land which would
2:42:33
have to be um replaced in the corn. So MPPF um which is 4.5 hectares and that's
2:42:40
what we are looking to to offset at Temple Park. Now
2:42:46
the Temple Park um topic paper obviously sets out that the the mitigation that would be taking place there would be
2:42:51
through a combination of um reprovision of uh pictures on existing land and also
2:42:57
where possible bringing forward pictures on land which has not been previously used of playing pitch um use on the
2:43:03
temple park site as well. I think it's um the top of paper's quite clear in the fact that you know in terms of like for
2:43:10
like quantitive um provisionary provision that would be challenging because um we don't have
2:43:18
well we know but this the burrow is quite constrained we don't have a surplus of land to to provide plain
2:43:24
pitches but I think what the topic papers really sort of trying to to come across is that there will be a significant qualitative improvement in
2:43:31
terms of the pictures that are provided and in terms of the number of pictures as well which could be provided on the
2:43:37
temple park site in terms of what could be lost at um Brinkburn.
2:43:45
I suppose what the net impact will be is that you'll have more usability
2:43:51
greater usability than than currently exists even if the overall quantitative
2:43:58
um element is slightly reduced um on a net basis.
2:44:03
uh that's something which we can cover uh when we come to deal with that at the time.
2:44:08
So um I expect your question was prompted also by the fact that um um the
2:44:16
policy itself doesn't state what how much is to be retained or what the expectation is about retention in terms
2:44:22
of the area. So that's something we can give consideration to. Yeah. I mean I I was kind of thinking
2:44:29
does the council I think in drafting the policy was the council looking for a degree of kind of
2:44:34
flexibility um rather than sort of you know tie yourself down to I appreciate option C
2:44:41
has given a reasonably specific figure but it may be that in the full fullness
2:44:46
of time you want the kind of flexibility it might change so um but if there is a
2:44:51
if we if we um propose a modification which makes it plain that
2:44:57
we expect some retention. And then we can think about um words which would
2:45:02
provide one a reasonable certainty that there will be retention and that the retention will optimize the amount
2:45:10
subject to other um factors including um the um requirements of one and two i.e.
2:45:19
150 residential units and community provision.
2:45:24
If I recall from the statement of common ground with Sport England, was this a
2:45:30
policy where there was a proposed modification to um
2:45:36
uh is it a mitigated um to replace or retain?
2:45:42
Yes, that's right. It was just purely to sort of reflect the MPPF wording um rather than use of the word mitigate.
2:45:48
MPPF obviously uses replace. So, it was just for consistency. I think is currently worded. What
2:45:54
worries me is that DM stage if you if you look at one and three it has only
2:46:00
occurred to me since you asked the initial question if you look at one and small three enhancement of any on-site
2:46:06
plan fields that are retained or reprovided and it doesn't actually make a requirement for any retention. So if
2:46:13
someone comes forward with a proposal which doesn't have any that's not caught by that provision and neither is um two
2:46:20
which deals with the loss. So essentially um if you want to come forward with proposals for the whole
2:46:27
site without any retention it means you've got to mitigate the whole lot under two
2:46:32
and that may not work. So so we need to to be clear about how that's structured.
2:46:47
Thank you. I'll bring in others, but yes, I think can I leave that with the council in terms of there's not going to
2:46:52
be an unintended kind of consequence. Exactly. Yeah.
2:47:32
Thank you. Um
2:47:40
in terms of um just thinking again the the time frame
2:47:47
for this this particular site if it goes forward in the way that the policy subject to modifications is envisaged.
2:47:55
Obviously, policy SP5 and policy 37 of the plan kind of come together to kind
2:48:01
of um uh hopefully secure the the mit uh the the replacement. Just just linger on
2:48:10
this Temple Park issue in terms of just the uh the practicalities
2:48:16
um of what's being proposed. As I say, it's it's reasonably nearby. So, you
2:48:22
know, spatially it's um potentially in in a in a good location.
2:48:27
Obviously, there are things there already at the Temple Park site in terms of parking access. There may be views
2:48:34
about how how um adequate that all is,
2:48:39
but just thinking in terms of where the council's looking at it um delivery on this site uh in sort of 2033
2:48:49
2034 in practice. Is there enough evidence before me in terms of assurance
2:48:54
that the Temple Park is a um a realistic and reasonable
2:49:03
location um to provide um additional um sports
2:49:08
pitch provision. There's obviously work currently ongoing presumably this again is a site that's under the council's
2:49:16
control in terms of what happens at the Temple Park site. Yes, that's right. Temple Park is a
2:49:22
council on site. Um I think in terms of um what the development what the
2:49:28
mitigation could look like will be informed obviously by um the amount of
2:49:34
playing field land to be provided dependent on the plan application that comes forward at that point. Like you say that 1.3 figure is sort of
2:49:41
indicative at this point in terms of the feasibility um study that we undertook. But also I think it's probably important
2:49:47
to sort of um realize that at that point of when a plan application comes forward there could be sort of updates in terms
2:49:53
of plane pitch provision and um capacity within the burough at that point which we would expect to be taken into account
2:50:00
um updated pl studies um which are more relevant. we've sort of already touched on um slightly this morning sort of the
2:50:07
the um improvements at Epony and um Ed Harton Western miners which also
2:50:13
contribute in terms of the overall pitch provision for the burough um and we'll I know we'll come on to sort of the the
2:50:18
tutor to read and the specific mitigation um which is being identified for that site as well which can all sort
2:50:24
of inform what the actual mitigation could be which needs to be delivered at Temple Park at that time and I think
2:50:31
we've been quite clear that we'll engaging with sport England to sort of make sure that what is proposed on that
2:50:37
site um is what is required for the burough but I think as temple park in
2:50:42
principle is a useful mitigation is that you see it's an existing um hub site in
2:50:48
terms of pitch provision it has supported a greater amount of pitches um in the past which have fallen out of
2:50:54
favor which could is where we were looking to to reinstate those pitches as well. So in terms of um the principle of
2:51:03
that site being used for sport and use it is a valid site and that's also
2:51:08
support through um policy SP23 as well where it is identified within the policy
2:51:14
text as a hub site for provision in the burrow. So when I was looking at the um the
2:51:20
mitigation paper I was kind of working it through in terms of what potentially could be secured at Temple Park.
2:51:26
thinking well this looks quite promising. There's a lot of capacity potentially here. Uh and then obviously
2:51:33
the paper ultimately concludes by an element of caution that at the end of
2:51:38
the day there's an there is potentially a quantitative issue not withstanding
2:51:44
the point Mr. Joe Raven made about you know qu overall qualitative um improvement
2:51:50
in terms of ultimate kind of figures for Temple Park
2:51:56
just so I get my head around this correctly that's in relation to the council's kind of discount to so these
2:52:01
sites that were formally in pitch use coming back in are not being counted as
2:52:07
net new additional even though they might have been out of use for some for some time.
2:52:16
Yes, that's correct. Um I think the um the topic PIP identifies that if you
2:52:22
include the lander area for the sites which have been sort of disused um that is 14 hectares by itself which obviously
2:52:28
quantitatively exceeds what is being lost through bring and tared.
2:52:42
Thank you. So bring in uh other people at this point. Can I start with the the the Green Party first because when I
2:52:49
looked at your original representations in relation to Brink Burn, we'll deal with the per deal with the open space
2:52:56
issue first and there I know there are other other points in relation to this policy.
2:53:01
Is it still the kind of green party's position that any kind of open space on this site playing pitch should be kind
2:53:07
of excluded and any development at Brinkb burn would be on areas that
2:53:14
are currently not in kind of sports pitch use? Yes. Is it help if I introduce myself
2:53:19
first? Um I'm Rachel Taylor, counselor and um leader of Southside Green Party.
2:53:26
Um yes it is the the Green Party's position still regarding open space. Um
2:53:32
obviously for the NPPF it's important to preserve as much open space as possible and in the town we have lost a lot the
2:53:39
whole bone development specifically as well. Um but every bit of open space is is vital to preserve.
2:53:50
And in terms of kind of potentially taking um a sort of a holistic view, I've heard from the council that whilst
2:53:58
there would, you know, there would be um a degree of retention on this site, obviously it wouldn't be uh everything
2:54:05
that's there. Um the evidence that's before me is that, you know, some of those pictures are in poor condition,
2:54:12
potentially being overused. There's an opportunity here um to secure
2:54:19
um replacement, better quality um provision elsewhere, but it it might
2:54:25
need a degree of development to uh enable that to happen.
2:54:31
Well, I don't think that Temple Park is a suitable area to use because it it might be council managed, but my
2:54:38
understanding is it was gifted to the people of South Shields um following the Second World War and on the provision
2:54:45
that nothing was built on it. And since we've had um obviously the leisure center in the um fire brigade as well
2:54:51
the the um hub and um yeah so I know um
2:54:56
there's it should definitely not be used for um anything else you know I know we've got the the current pictures that
2:55:04
one of my children used to use that was for the dog excrement and all sorts. So the the only thing I can think it would
2:55:09
work that way for is it 17 to 20 proposed football pitches in Temple Park is if they put like barriers around them
2:55:16
to stop people using it for like a dog toilet and that would be really the people of South Shields wouldn't want
2:55:22
that wouldn't want like fences around all the pictures and that's the only way I think it could it could work you know
2:55:28
but yeah that that land is meant to be for the the people of South Shields that it wouldn't be um built on
2:55:36
e even through what the council I think are putting forward in terms of what the options they're looking at temple park
2:55:42
even if it was used for kind of sports provision for for people within the burough
2:55:48
well if it was as is and it's just the grass with posts um I don't see how we
2:55:55
could have any more than what's there now because the whole area is full of trees hedge things like that and in fact
2:56:01
part of the um the council's um ecological and climate emergency You can
2:56:06
see we've been planting hundreds if not thousands of trees on Temple Memorial Park. And Temple Memorial Park is what a
2:56:13
lot of people call it, not Temple Park. So Temple Memorial Park, it's absolutely full of trees. There's been um whips and
2:56:21
standards planted for years and years now. And the tree team have been doing
2:56:26
it in local schools, community groups across the whole area. And we've been told not to plant in certain areas
2:56:32
because the land's actually contaminated as well. Um, so that's something also to to bear in mind and to bring to your
2:56:38
attention. But um, yeah, the the land's used for um, you know, recreational purposes currently. Um, it's well loved
2:56:45
by the local community and it hasn't got the the to have 17 to 20 proposed
2:56:51
pictures. I'm sure you'd have to fill a lot of trees and you know, it's it's like saying we'll be we're planting all
2:56:57
these trees. to plant, you know, the council's ambition of planting hundreds of trees, but then actually down the line we're going to be removing them all
2:57:04
for football pitches, you know, um it's it's quite it's counterproductive. Not
2:57:09
Yeah. So, just so I'm clear from um the Green Party's uh position, obviously
2:57:15
this the site is submitted in the plan, let's say, um around about 150 houses.
2:57:23
If it's your your position that the the open space the pictures on there should
2:57:28
be retained presumably it's then follows that the site would if if there's to be any kind
2:57:34
of development on that site it' be a smaller number of houses or no the site
2:57:39
shouldn't be considered at all and removed from from the plan and just
2:57:44
identified as as open space. Do you think I'm just trying I think I
2:57:51
think from reading your your representation it seems as though you just exclude the playing field areas from from the site. So I'm just trying
2:57:57
to understand is that then I ideally would like to um also keep the community
2:58:02
facility that's there currently and I'm aware a lot of it's been knocked down already and there's just a you know a funny little bit left. Um but that's
2:58:09
valuable for the local community and um schools use the um swimming area and everything and yeah the the swimming
2:58:16
pool it's it's really vital and I'm concerned that even though it says you know in the plans that the retained
2:58:22
community facilities I don't know if you're aware but it also said that in the um one in the extra care the
2:58:30
retained community facilities are one room inside the the building that's the retained community facilities and I
2:58:36
think that's It's kind of just a bit of a box ticking exercise allowing these things to happen like oh well we're
2:58:42
keeping that but in reality it's of no great importance to the local community because how many people's going to use
2:58:48
it?
2:58:54
Thank you. And just f finally the for the green party and sort of thinking about alter potential kind of
2:59:00
alternatives for this site if it was kind of felt it was necessary for soundness kind of perhaps retain it as
2:59:05
open space presumably that would then fall to the burough council potentially to invest in this site to address some
2:59:12
of the kind of issues that have been identified in terms of from the plane pitch
2:59:18
strategy that the council's produced alongside this plan. I think it's accepted as being, you know, I say in a
2:59:25
poor, it's well used, but it's it's in a poor condition in terms of just overall
2:59:30
kind of quality of facilities. Well, no, I I think obviously you'll you'll have read the plane pitch
2:59:36
strategy, and it shows that overall um it's 6.4 hectares are going to be being lost in plane pitches in the council
2:59:43
have only got replacement for 3.1 hectares. Um so just barely over half.
2:59:48
Um and so clearly we're kind we're kind of be losing any pictures and um the
2:59:54
college site that was the section 106 delayed that whole plan application you
3:00:00
know coming to like um a conclusion because of the plane pitch thing and trying to juggle where we're going to
3:00:06
squeeze playing pitches in and all that and that's and now we're looking at more playing pitches at bringing burn and tar
3:00:15
and we just haven't got you know I think you know the council's failed evidence that the playing fields can be suitably
3:00:21
relocated. I think that that is clear despite the best efforts but we just kind of do it you know um there's no
3:00:28
deliverable replacement provision you know for the loss unfortunately
3:00:33
um you know h so
3:00:38
thank you if I can bring in others and then I'll come back to um back to the council so
3:00:45
Mr. W and then Mr. Thank you, sir. Um I think there's a a I
3:00:52
think it's common ground between everyone around the table that that we cannot mitigate the quantitative loss of
3:00:58
playing pitches. And I think for me it comes back to the the choice of changing the word from mitigated to replaced at
3:01:06
Sport England's request. And I do envisage a problem at planning application stage if we've got a policy
3:01:12
that requires um you know whether it's on Brink burn or any other side for playing pitch loss to be replaced. It
3:01:20
suggests a quantitative replacement which I believe it's common ground at this stage that actually we can't
3:01:27
mitigate the quantitative loss of playing fields if we are obviously to include landlast uses playing fields
3:01:33
because a lot of the mitigation involves bringing former playing fields or land last users playing fields back into use.
3:01:39
Um and I'm I'm questioning whether changing the word mitigated to replace is going
3:01:45
to have unintended consequences at planning application stage.
3:01:52
I mean the council obviously already referred me to the wording that's in the national planning policy framework and
3:01:58
that's obviously what sport England uh have been uh looking for as part of the the plan
3:02:05
making process um from your perspective and I appreciate
3:02:12
might come on to this this afternoon as as well um is it a kind a qualification
3:02:17
to the phrase replace or some further detail in the plan. This
3:02:23
is something we haven't touched upon yet, but I think alongside what Sport England was saying in terms of and the council were looking at in terms of the
3:02:30
statement of common ground, not only the word replace instead of mitigation, but I think some further detail potentially
3:02:36
in the supporting text of what that could could look like.
3:02:41
Yes, I I think it would have to be in the supporting text to the policy because if you were to sort of go into
3:02:46
the detail of Sport England's own playing pitch policy, they do acknowledge themselves that um qualitative improvements can sometimes
3:02:54
outweigh the quantitative loss of playing pitches. Um so I would certainly welcome something in the accompanying
3:02:59
text to acknowledge that that point especially when we know at this stage that actually um the quantitative loss
3:03:06
cannot be mitigated based on the evidence which is available.
3:03:12
come back to that because I think we'll pick it up now if the council's has been picked up. So I think that's a reasonable approach.
3:03:19
Um and certainly we can think along those lines of dealing with the lower
3:03:24
text in that context so we understand what is meant by mitigation.
3:03:30
Thank you. I think in relation to this site, I'm just obviously I'll leave this
3:03:36
probably with the council in terms of precisely what that that change would look like. I think obviously other sites
3:03:42
have been referred to and it feels to me that there's a more obvious or clear-cut kind of mitigation
3:03:48
probably shouldn't use that word replacement or improve enhancement kind of solution. come back to where I
3:03:53
started with this site whether there's perhaps more flex just trying to think of an
3:04:00
appropriate balance between there's some evidence that's before us in terms of
3:04:05
the temple memorial park but there may need to be some flexibility around
3:04:11
precisely what that um replacement could
3:04:17
look like given this is a site that's not anticipated to come forward in the near near future in any any event a lot
3:04:24
of water could pass under the bridge, but it presumably it could at least at
3:04:30
this stage allude to or refer to, you know, Temple Park is probably
3:04:36
the the the the prime candidate for
3:04:41
uh enhancements for the loss of what's on this site.
3:04:47
Mr. Aton, please. Thank you. I guess the first point is
3:04:54
probably clarification as as I understand it sport England object to this element. I think the last statement
3:04:59
of common ground from July refers to them objecting to the scheme. So I guess the first question that do
3:05:04
they maintain the objection as it stands to to the policy. Um because from what I've seen that their concern is the
3:05:10
quantity point. They're saying if you don't replace the quantity we're going to have concerns with it in terms of the
3:05:17
MPPF requirements. Um and as we've heard the the the addition more recent
3:05:23
evidence confirms that quantity provision will not be met at the currently identified mitigation
3:05:30
proposals. Um so there's a big question mark there in terms of do sporting objectives if they do that's going to be
3:05:36
followed through at a plan application stage. Um and from experience that will delay and um might impact on capacity of
3:05:43
the site in terms of how to overcome that objection if that's maintained and also deliverability.
3:05:49
Just looking at the trajectory I think it's eight years time that will come go quite quickly I suspect and my
3:05:56
understanding is where mitigation is identified the starting point is that is
3:06:01
provided before you start development on a site. So that in itself also has an implication on deliverability and when
3:06:08
that may happen.
3:06:25
Thank you. So just again getting my head Mr. around potential what kind of
3:06:31
changes people are looking for in the plan. Is it your position that well if this site remains in the plan it needs
3:06:37
to be sort of pushed further back or there's too much uncertainty at this stage again it's another site to remove
3:06:44
from what I see there's mitigation there which isn't supported by sport England as it stands um and the statute consult
3:06:50
application plan application stage um so that's a big a big constraint on the face of it um and again the
3:07:00
the schlars kind of deliverable and developable supply needs every site to deliver what it say is going to
3:07:06
deliver to get to meet to meet that trajectory. Um so again it goes back to the point about potential for slippage
3:07:14
in the overall suite of sites that have been identified.
3:07:42
Thank you. Just if I can just clarify with the council, pick up the point from Mr. and you know the position of Sport
3:07:48
England. I mean the Sport England statement of common ground is July 2025.
3:07:54
These were two, we talked general times about two modifications, one to this
3:08:00
policy, one to supporting text. And I think the council's going to just look again at just ensuring that part one um
3:08:09
uh of the policy sort of ties up with what's kind of envisaged on the site.
3:08:15
Obviously, I've got that statement of common ground in front of me. I'm trying to recollect. I mean, do those modifications
3:08:21
overcome or address Sport England's original representations or concerns
3:08:26
with this policy or is there still a residual objection?
3:08:32
I think it it's still a residual objection. Those modifications are sort of tweaks to provide extra clarification
3:08:38
um to to provide more context around um the policies. Um but the sporting
3:08:43
objection was a almost a blanket objection to any sort of um allocation
3:08:48
in the plan which included playing field land primarily based on the fact that the plane pitch strategy obviously does
3:08:55
not show surpluses in pitch provision.
3:09:12
Thank you. And presumably for this site, it's more of an issue given the pictures are in use. So whilst I kind of think to
3:09:20
Perth Green and think, well, there's a solution found there doesn't necessarily follow
3:09:27
for this site or there's a higher bar potentially. Yes, that's right. Right. And I think
3:09:32
that's sort of why we've tried to set out in the the topic paper as far as possible what our intentions are in
3:09:37
terms of the mitigation um that can be taken place by either you know retaining
3:09:43
some provision at the site and also through um improvements at Temple Park.
3:09:58
Thank you. It's been put to me as part of this discussion that um potentially a
3:10:03
reliance on Temple Park could be misplaced for a variety of reasons. Are
3:10:08
there any in principal barriers to um securing plane pitch provision at
3:10:16
Temple Park? Presumably some sites were were previously in playing pitch use. that's not
3:10:23
too difficult to bring those back into to use with qualitative improvements.
3:10:29
Um yes, there have been prior use there and um bringing those and new areas into
3:10:36
usage is um considered um possible solution. Um, and I think there would
3:10:44
need to be consideration to the fencing issues that um, councelor Taylor mentioned, but they're not
3:10:49
insurmountable.
3:10:56
Thank you. Is this presumably scope at Temple Park? I mean, various discussions when we've been looking at playing pitch
3:11:02
provision at other parts of the plan is around kind of quality of facilities. Again, does the Temple Park option
3:11:09
provide for that in terms of changing or the scope for changing room facilities,
3:11:14
other things that you know teams, sports people would perhaps anticipate?
3:11:22
Um, yes, there are existing facilities in leisure center and the ability to enhance those
3:11:45
Thank you councelor Taylor again please. Thank you. Um yeah, just regarding the
3:11:52
um the playing pitches. Um so
3:11:58
about five years ago, the rugby club wanted to put some rugby pitch there and
3:12:04
there was a huge public outcry and there was a petition I believe signed by a lot of the community. Um and people were
3:12:11
really opposed to that. Um that was I don't know how many pictures it was, one or two. It was it was a smaller area. um
3:12:19
just off Nevinson Avenue space which is already like green flat area people just didn't want it. sort of think that
3:12:25
happened then you know and there's a a friends of the park group who who you know are passionate about things and I
3:12:32
know there'll be a public campaign I highly expect there'll be a public campaign um in uproar about these
3:12:38
proposals um and you know that's that's foreseeable that's going to happen
3:12:44
because of the fences around it again I'll say and because of the potential tree loss as well and um effect on
3:12:51
biodiversity in the area and of course that's against the council 's own ambitions, you know, because Temple Moy
3:12:56
Park seems to be a um a quick way of getting a bit, you know, kudos kudos for
3:13:03
doing these good things. And then if we're going to be just flattening it all for 17 to 20 football pitches, it's
3:13:10
Yeah, it but there is going to be public outcry because it's a a war memorial effectively the whole area and we don't
3:13:16
want fences all around 17 to 20 new pictures.
3:13:22
I mean it is a large uh park site. Um covers a large area.
3:13:29
Um I just don't know if that's I mean I've obly come to my own judgment as to
3:13:35
whether that's a fair kind of assessment. The whole area would be covered with um with um sports pictures.
3:13:41
Obviously the council to date through some assessment work has started to
3:13:47
identify potential areas. There are presented in the temple park feasibility um study
3:13:54
they seem to be areas that are closer to the existing leisure center and car park. So presuming that still leaves a
3:14:01
large balance of the park site uh that would not be that the council's
3:14:08
not looking at for sports pitch provision. That's correct. There would still be an area um to the south of um what's
3:14:16
identified as area nine in um figure seven of the the topic paper and also to
3:14:21
the west um of area one as well which is still forms part of the the wider park
3:14:29
area but is not being looked at for plane pitch provision.
3:14:54
Okay, thank you. Are there any further points people wish
3:15:00
to raise in relation to sports pitch provision at Brinkburn?
3:15:07
No, thank you for that. So, I come on to other issues um um
3:15:16
in relation to the site. I think it was my uh MIQ uh 618.
3:15:23
Uh at the moment the site I certainly got to the site from Harton Lane, but
3:15:29
that assuming the part of it was a school, you could also get to it from going pronounce this incorrectly, Macan
3:15:37
Avenue. Um there are various kind of representations before me I think
3:15:43
concerned about the impact on the highway network uh and also by
3:15:49
association and air quality. Um appreciate the council's responded to
3:15:54
my MIQ on this but Mr. mail from a transport planning perspective.
3:16:01
Obviously, there was an existing use on this site. Um, but in terms of what's being proposed, would it give rise to
3:16:08
severe impact on the local highway network? I think at this moment in time, any
3:16:13
subsequent application that comes forward will be subject to a detailed transport assessment. Um, as it stands,
3:16:20
we believe that there will be capacity on Horton Lane and indeed the surrounding roads. um that's been
3:16:25
resulted in the local modeling undertaken to date. Um as for the concerns with air quality, I think we've
3:16:32
demonstrated in our response the range of continuous monitoring and non-ontinuous monitoring sites in and
3:16:38
around the vicinity of the site. Again, there's no cause for concern in terms of those figures. Um certainly fall well
3:16:46
below the threshold for where you would consider an air quality issue. Um and I
3:16:52
think from our perspective we would encourage any suitable development to to consider the sustainable transport
3:16:58
improvements and act of travel corridor improvements um coming forward as part of that detailed transport assessment.
3:17:05
Thank you sir.
3:17:18
Thank you. Is there anything any uh councelor Taylor on transport and air quality?
3:17:23
Thank you. Um regarding air quality just to direct play to the uh developers
3:17:28
really um obviously tree vital to maintain mature trees. If um at the very
3:17:34
basic of um checking any kind of area could please work around any healthy existing mature trees you know that
3:17:41
would be wonderful. Thank you.
3:17:46
Um thought just uh on policy
3:17:51
uh SP5 I think I've heard from the council I've got there their their statement again I've visited the area in
3:17:59
terms of how it is related to um existing um uh facilities. Uh just
3:18:12
okay just remind myself what's at criterion three of the the policy. Okay.
3:18:21
Are there any further points people wish to make in relation to the uh the Brink burn site?
3:18:33
No. in which case obviously there are a number of small number of uh potential modifications there uh through the
3:18:42
statement of common ground with um sport England um and I take the point I think
3:18:48
from Mr. Shadow Ravian around just just looking again at particularly that first part of the policy that there aren't
3:18:54
kind of unintended consequences and that
3:18:59
okay very good. Thank you. I had nothing further on policy SP5
3:19:06
in which case uh we'll conclude this morning's session. It's 10 to 1. Uh the
3:19:13
afternoon session will start at 2:00. We'll reconvene with the shooter Eid site, briefly look at some of the
3:19:19
regeneration sites, and then probably have another quick break, and then we'll
3:19:24
come back to look at um two of the sites that were discussed at stage one in
3:19:29
terms of what's happened over the last few months with more evidence. Thank you. So, uh back here in the room at
3:19:36
2:00. Thank you.
4:29:56
Okay, good afternoon everybody. It's now 2:00, so it is time for me to resume these uh local plan hearing sessions uh
4:30:03
into the examination of the South Tside local plan. Um to everybody who's in the
4:30:09
room. I think there's some new people from this morning just to uh reintroduce myself. My name is David Spencer. I'm
4:30:14
the planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination of the submitted
4:30:21
South Tinside uh local plan. Uh I've
4:30:26
been advised although we've got microphones around the table, they're not actually going through a speaker.
4:30:35
So hopefully everybody can hear me. Okay. And I think generally just advised
4:30:40
to people although we are using the speaker system and it is beneficial to people who are watching the live stream
4:30:46
or be watch or watching the recording uh for today. It's got no um effect or
4:30:54
power in terms of uh uh broadcasting to in the room. So u just bear that in
4:31:00
mind. still please use the microphones when you're making submissions but uh you might have to keep uh uh voice
4:31:07
levels uh at a reasonable uh a reasonable volume
4:31:12
for this morning uh for this afternoon session. We still got to finish off some matters under matter six. So I'll be
4:31:18
continuing the discussion with those who are around the table for that. Uh then be a brief break. We'll have then move
4:31:25
into matter seven where we're going to be picking up a couple of sites that were discussed uh as part of um the
4:31:34
stage one hearings and I'll ask people who join us for matter seven to
4:31:41
introduce themselves when we get to um to that point. So I'm going to carry on
4:31:47
and uh conclude the discussion under matter six first which is the main uh or
4:31:52
sorry proposed housing allocations within the main um urban area.
4:31:58
Um I probably should do for health and safety just ask or invite the council we
4:32:03
do a fire test or anything this afternoon. Nope. Okay. So if the alarm goes it is for real. Uh we'll use the
4:32:13
exits go that way out into the car out into the car park.
4:32:18
Okay. So I turn to the agenda item uh that we reached which was the shooter
4:32:25
Eid site policy SP6. Uh and um turn in the first instance
4:32:36
um to the council. I won't go straight into the open space issue um but just
4:32:43
just in principle I think similar to the um uh the Brinkb burn um site in terms of
4:32:50
the justification or reasoning for allocating um this site in fact I think
4:32:56
things have moved on uh in terms of planning permission being granted on part of the site already.
4:33:09
Okay. Yes. So, um like Brinkburn um as we discussed this morning, the site's been allocated in accordance to our
4:33:15
spatial strategy which seeks to maximize use of brownfield land in the urban area and again has been fully considered
4:33:21
through the the schlawar and SA process in terms of the plan preparation. Um the
4:33:26
site in the schlaw has been identified to be delivered within the first five years. But I say there has been a
4:33:31
planned application um on the first phase of um the tutor read site which has been for 124 um apartments as part
4:33:39
of an extra care facility um on the site.
4:33:49
Thank you. And then presuming that that reflects the policy requirement in terms I think it was looking for about approximately 120
4:33:57
apartments or units on this this site. Yes, that's correct. Okay.
4:34:06
And in terms of the site's capacity and ability to um assist housing delivery
4:34:13
over the plan period, again, is this a site that is owned or controlled by the burough council or is it in a separate
4:34:21
ownership? It's owned by the council. Yes.
4:34:40
Thank you. So, looking at the council's um response to my MIQ 619, there's
4:34:46
approximately just over three hectares of the site that remains following the grant of planning permission. In terms
4:34:54
of that remaining uh land supply, the policy will require the delivery of I
4:35:00
think it's another 70 dwellings, community provision
4:35:05
um and presumably some form of open space or replacement open
4:35:12
space. Yes, the intention is um to deliver um
4:35:20
at least 70 units with ancillary facilities support to support the um
4:35:26
sporting provision on plane pitches are retained there. And those are the plane pitches that are
4:35:33
kind of to the south. Yes, they're of the site. South um running parallel to the um red
4:35:39
line boundary that's been provided in the documents.
4:36:07
And in terms of the site, uh, having viewed it, there's obviously the western half of what remains, um,
4:36:17
uh, is kind of to a sort of a
4:36:22
Sorry. Okay. Uh the western half of the site is kind of a grass kind of area. I think
4:36:29
it's kind of um acknowledged or recognized as having some kind of open space
4:36:35
uh sports pitch functionality in the past that will need to be either
4:36:40
replaced or mitigated. Are things for this site perhaps clearer or the the
4:36:49
yeah the mitigation that's required kind of um
4:36:54
more clearly identified and that's a combination of improvements enhancements to the land to the south
4:37:02
and is it the temple park uh park junior junior site
4:37:31
Thank you. there any um modifications required to the uh the policy? I think
4:37:39
obviously there's been a statement of common ground with um Sport England. Is this again another
4:37:46
uh area that needs modification uh in terms of either the wording of
4:37:52
policy SP6 or specificity about where the mitigation will be secured?
4:37:59
Yes. So the the mitigation that's been proposed in the statements of common ground relate to what we've touched on
4:38:05
with bring burning in terms of replace mitigate and there's also proposed changes to the the supporting text uh
4:38:12
which um provides a lot more clarity in terms of the mitigation that we're expecting to be um used um for to to
4:38:20
offset the loss of the playing fields at Tutered um and that's um clearly identifies the land at um former Temple
4:38:28
Park Junior tool which again is identified in policy SP23
4:38:33
um as well as a site for playing pitch improvements.
4:38:47
Thank you. And in terms of the effectiveness of that mitigation, is the Temple Park school site again another burough councilowned
4:38:54
asset that you have control over in terms of delivering? Yes, it is. Yeah.
4:39:19
Thank you. And in terms of as we discussed on other um sites of similar
4:39:24
nature or character um mitigation in whatever form that takes kind of being
4:39:30
sequenced um in terms of when that's um when that's secured in terms of the
4:39:37
delivery or developability of the kind of the remaining part of this site can the council remind me when you think the
4:39:44
sort of the 70 houses are likely to come forward.
4:39:50
Um at present the western areas a good section of it being used as a compound for the development of the extra care
4:39:56
site um which is expected to take approximately two years to complete. Um,
4:40:02
and once that compound has been released, then we'll bring the rest of the land forward.
4:40:51
Thank you for that. So looking just briefly then at the delivery of the shooter Eid site, it's obviously
4:40:58
accounted for in the schlar. It's described as excluding the Briden Court
4:41:03
site. That's something something else. um it's got um a small amount of the
4:41:11
development coming forward 60 units in years one to five and then the remainder in years 6 to 10. I mean, do you think
4:41:18
that fairly reflects where we were where we where we are or
4:41:24
what the evidence was at the time of compiling the schllar? Because presumably the the consented scheme will
4:41:29
come forward if it's apartments relatively
4:41:34
well tend to be sort of quite um
4:42:05
And it could kind of be brought forward a little bit.
4:42:21
Thank you. Is that something I can leave with the council in terms of when we come back again to the overall
4:42:26
trajectory that might it's a probably a relatively small change in the grand scheme of things but to kind of just
4:42:31
pick that pick that up as part of that um
4:42:36
discussion. I mean, it strikes me that obviously
4:42:44
given what I've heard in terms of the kind of the um the delivery of the current scheme, then obviously a process
4:42:52
of presumably disposing of the remainder of the sites. Would that potentially be
4:42:57
to a separate developer? Uh yes, that's still to be determined.
4:43:03
Okay. So it could well be the balance the 70 is into the kind of the developable
4:43:08
period in terms of years 6 to 10.
4:43:34
Thank you. Are there any submissions people wish to make around the delivery of this site before I go on
4:43:41
to kind of highways issues for this site? Mr. Aton,
4:43:46
thank you. Which is picking up again from um probably the Brinkburn conversation and it was my understanding
4:43:52
that there was a residual objection from Sport England this site still, but I wasn't clear on that. I guess that's
4:43:57
more of a question um in terms of the mitigation and the playing pitch um delivering Temple
4:44:04
Temple Park as it stands. I think there's still an objection from them on that point but it's just clarity that
4:44:10
really I think turn to the council similar question as for for Brinkburn. I
4:44:16
appreciate you've entered into a statement of common ground with with sport England.
4:44:22
Yeah, that's correct. So the the objection to the site still remains as is the same with Brinkburn in terms of
4:44:28
was a blanket objection to the allocations in the plan which included playing field land.
4:44:38
Thank you. So I presume Mr. similar points apply. It's it's the same point. Yeah.
4:44:52
just to jog my memory. I mean, how when did the kind of the education use cease on shooter Eid? Is anybody able to
4:45:00
advise me on that from the council's perspective? Um, haven't got an exact date, but it
4:45:08
was um in excess of 10 years.
4:45:13
Okay. I'm just thinking out loud about Sport England seems to take an approach for some sites. You know, the use has
4:45:20
elapsed and therefore some sort of form of mitigation is more acceptable. Presuming that was what was
4:45:26
negotiated at Perth Green and whether this is a site
4:45:31
where uh the path might be less less difficult
4:45:37
because there are uh pitches or an area directly adjacent
4:45:42
to the site. again in poor condition. Um an opportunity through this allocation
4:45:48
to uh certainly see qualitative improvements and potentially some
4:45:53
additional pitch provision. Yeah, that's correct. So um in the topic
4:45:58
paper we set out in a little bit more detail that the the proposed mitigation for this site is the former park junior
4:46:04
school which be approximately 1.2 hectares of new playingfield land which be brought into use. Also alongside that
4:46:12
um enhancements to existing playing fields that are directly adjacent to that site and so the southwest corner of
4:46:19
the the wider Temple Park um area and also again we've said that the the two
4:46:25
pitches the two 111 football pitches to the south of the cheet site would be we
4:46:30
would be looking to enhancements to those pitches as well. So there would again be a qualitative improvement in
4:46:38
terms of the the plane prepar plan provision subsequently on the back of
4:46:43
this development. Um just also to note as well that um for the the planning
4:46:48
application for the the extra care scheme the sport England did not object to that application.
4:47:11
Thank you. Uh, councelor Taylor, please. Thank you. Um, regarding the train, it
4:47:17
was my understanding as a school it did close a long time ago, but it was training and education and things up
4:47:23
until 2024 for for Ted Community Center, just for your information. And um
4:47:28
another thing as well, I had a question just for some clarity for myself as a I'm a ward counselor for this ward
4:47:34
whichever it is and it was my understand as counselors were told there was actually no plane pictures to be removed. So just while we're here, can
4:47:41
it be clarified how many plane pictures will be removed, please?
4:47:48
Thank you. Yes. So the area that we're talking about here is 1.9 hectares um to the to
4:47:55
the west of what was the the bu the buildings. It's dissued playing fields. It hasn't been in use for some time. The
4:48:02
two pitches to the south of the of the the red line boundary will be retained.
4:48:08
So but they are classed as plain pitches to be removed because the last use was Planefield land
4:48:13
as far as we're aware associated with the um education center. Thanks,
4:48:33
Mr. Green. Yeah, just to repeat what was the uh
4:48:39
biodiversity neck gain that would be achieved from the site I missed it. Was it 1.3 hectares?
4:48:45
So the mitigation for the bi diversity net gain I don't recall the biodiversity net
4:48:51
gain. I mean the issue we're talking about is obviously part of this site I think as Mr. Lamb said about just under
4:48:57
two hectares. If you think of the site it's um on the western side is kind of
4:49:02
laid out at the moment to grass. I think the last use that that area was for the sports pitches that will need to
4:49:10
be or there's an issue around you know how how uh development of this site
4:49:15
deals with that particular issue whether it's through kind of replacing it somewhere else if that can
4:49:21
be achieved together with mitigating if you think of that area there are the two kind of football pitches
4:49:28
just to the south that um I think from sorry I've
4:49:34
forgotten you the gentle 's name the property uh Charles Charles Higgins Miss Higgins was saying
4:49:40
I mean part of the policy requirement as well is around community facilities or community uh facil community facilities
4:49:49
not necessil to this but I think there's a reference to there's potential for kind of facilities on this site that
4:49:56
could help support better use of those those adjacent pictures.
4:50:01
Yes, that's the intention. Okay. Are there any further points people wish
4:50:07
to raise on the principle of this site before I just move on to the highways
4:50:13
issue? I mean obviously a large part of this site has now got planning permission. It's it's kind of gone in
4:50:20
that sense from the from the plan and I think as I said from the last time a site visited it it appeared to
4:50:26
construction has now started on site. So presumably
4:50:32
initial conditions are being discharged and that's that's that's
4:50:37
going to go ahead. Yeah. Councelor Taylor, please.
4:50:43
Thank you, Mr. Inspector. I'm not sure. I've got lots to say on it, but I'm not sure if that's to come or so I'm a bit
4:50:49
confused as to if I'm meant to be seeing all my bits now or if you're going to be on this for quite some time. So do you
4:50:55
want to I think at this Y that's probably uh my my handling of the um the agenda. I
4:51:01
think at this stage uh I was looking at the kind of the principle of whether this site is acceptable to kind of be
4:51:08
redeveloped. Obviously some of that has gone because planning permission has now been granted. There's still
4:51:14
uh parts of the site that need to be um that don't have planning permission that
4:51:20
are covered by the allocation. Um the issues as I saw it that were
4:51:25
raised in the representations particularly from Sport England were about the loss of um open space land
4:51:33
that was formerly in sport pitch use on the education center
4:51:38
site. So I think at this stage if there's any sort of further sort of in principle
4:51:44
um concerns about this site now is the time to raise them. Before you do that,
4:51:50
just as a thought crosses my mind, just to clarify with the council, was this a site that was allocated as part of the
4:51:56
last local uh as part of the site allocations development plan document?
4:52:03
It was. Yes. So to some extent I appreciate different times, but the
4:52:09
principle of was it housing development at that time of a similar?
4:52:15
Yes. So it was allocated under the site specific allocations for for residential development.
4:52:22
Don't know if that helps. Councelor Tyler, it does. Yeah, I think I'll I'll see what I've got to say now then. Um yeah, so this is the only green space in the
4:52:29
whole of a very very deprived ward, but it but it calls the most deprived um area in the whole of South Tide. Um and
4:52:36
this is the only green space and um you know sports pitches and open fields. Um
4:52:42
and it's um yeah so removing the only green space from a deprived community
4:52:47
you know exacerbates inequality rather than reducing it. Um and I think the
4:52:52
spatial strategy concentrates harm where resilience is lowest as well. You know it's like the people of Bol have got so
4:52:58
little and now the only green space can be taken away from them as well. Um, now
4:53:04
I grew up in Bitall and when there was going to be an old people's home built there about 30 years ago, there was
4:53:09
uproar from a very small people's home. So now to be here and have to be fighting to save all of Cheetah Reed,
4:53:17
it's it's really sad quite honestly from the history I've got from the area. Um, but yeah, just um like you know, health
4:53:25
and well-being. Um, access to green space is fundamental, you know, to mental and physical health as I've put
4:53:30
on me submissions. But um it's it's just really worrying that the impact of this
4:53:36
and I did object to the extra care at the planning stage um for for the same reasons. Um but this this site isn't
4:53:44
suitable to be in the local plan in my view. It should be preserved for the the local community. We should be if you put
4:53:50
anything back there, it should be a standalone community facility, not extra houses. You know, that's what the community needs. We don't need to be
4:53:57
shoehorning all these houses in. Um and of course it backs out to Newton GS which is in the council's um like
4:54:03
climate ambitions for the BNG where they're using you know allowing planners
4:54:08
to develop elsewhere if they're putting the points in that area to to that just backs onto that but my my issue and tell
4:54:16
us if I'm saying it at the wrong time I will say it later on is the um effect of building on I read how that's going to
4:54:22
then have a knock on effect and and um this isn't this isn't mentioned in the
4:54:27
council's um plan that I can see, you know, the cumulative impacts of this
4:54:32
development and the north farm development across the way and how that in turn could feed into traffic data to
4:54:40
push the um possible tile shed fly through which has been temporarily shelved which I know I mentioned in
4:54:45
stage one as well. Um but the extra traffic data could push that through and
4:54:51
that's going to decimate a tripless eyesight, a wildlife corridor. Um all the trees from the great north forest
4:54:57
have to be felled. Um yeah it's and then it's going to affect the great crested nute habitat and negatively affect um
4:55:05
tile sheds pond as well. All this is to do with cheetah reed site it's directly
4:55:11
impacted and now if we we've got the extra care already happening and then if we have at least 60 houses we've seen
4:55:17
with the college site an extra hundred was there there is more land here to possibly shoehorn more and so will there
4:55:23
be more houses and then there'll be more cars more um vehicles to push that data through and it was the data that stopped
4:55:29
the flyover actually happening because that should have already been built by now the council did get a huge amount of funding to get that done Um but yeah
4:55:38
that because of the data I didn't um allow that through but now we could allow that through. So we've got to
4:55:43
think of all the this cumulative impact on things you know um you know the plan considers sites in isolation rather than
4:55:49
cumulative harm and I think that should be noted
4:56:22
Thank you. when you referred to the was it Newton G is that the area so I'm
4:56:27
thinking of looking in this site the former education uh center site
4:56:33
um and the boundary is is literally around that that site and say this grass
4:56:39
area to the west so the football pitchers are not in this are not in the sites and then there's kind of grassland
4:56:45
beyond that is that Newton G Newton go is where you've got the um the metro line the train
4:56:52
up to the grass area where it's more the trees and hedge and things.
4:56:58
Yeah.
4:57:06
And inspector that that would be where the fly would go over that area as well. Okay.
4:57:34
Thank you. I think at that point I will come on to the highway and air quality issues because I think they were raised
4:57:40
uh obviously by councelor Taylor there and I've seen seen them in representations as well. the policy itself
4:57:47
uh I think Mr. mail. Similar to what you were saying in relation to the Brinkburn site, obviously there'll be a transport
4:57:53
assessment. I'm presuming there's been a there would have been a transport assessment, no doubt, with the um the
4:57:58
the flats scheme is requiring a look at particular parts
4:58:03
of the nearby road network including the Balden um level crossing. I know as part
4:58:09
of this uh local plan I think network rail also have concern or want maybe
4:58:15
tile sheds as well kind of brought into to scope I heard about this flyover um
4:58:21
issue at stage one as well I can't see in the plan where there's a commitment
4:58:26
to that but just in terms of this site and I think similar question uh for the
4:58:32
as as per print as per brinkburn is there any evidence as we look here now for plan making that development at this
4:58:39
size um would have a severe impact on the road network or whether mitigations are
4:58:45
likely to be needed. Thanks. I think it's important to raise that the level crossings are an asset of
4:58:51
network rail. So they are part of any they will be an independent consulty of any subsequent plan application. Um as
4:58:58
for the local highway network, I think we've done some detailed modeling already to date that's demonstrated that
4:59:04
you know for the large part the network will will sort of be consistent. Uh
4:59:09
there will be u mitigation plan no doubt um that will come forward but again it's
4:59:15
relevant to a sight specific uh transport assessment for this site. Um I
4:59:21
appreciate the the conversations around cumulative impact but the local modeling does take heat of all sites that are in
4:59:26
the local plan to date um and has suggested where mitigation is indeed required.
4:59:32
Um in terms of the the flyover, obviously the council did have plans some years ago to to construct um a
4:59:40
flyover, but I think it reserves the right to state that any type of intervention coming forward be at the
4:59:45
discretion of Network Rail rather than the council. Um, it is indeed Network Rail's asset. Um, we work considerably
4:59:53
well with Network Rail as a as a partner. We meet on a quarterly basis and we have done for almost 5 years now
4:59:59
since I've been in position. Um, as it stands, there's no plans to construct
5:00:05
such a flyover by Network Rail, but if that was to subsequently change, then obviously we can it'll be Network Rail's
5:00:11
discretion as to what needs to be done at those proximities.
5:00:17
Thank you. And I don't recall from reading the representations there's um uh an objection from Network Rail to
5:00:24
this allocation. My recollection was that they may want a reference to tile sheds as well as Balden.
5:00:31
So that's correct. Obviously the Balden level crossing is on Benton Road itself. Um it's called Balden which is quite
5:00:37
confusing to the to the sort of general terms of things but the talshed level crossing is the the next level crossing
5:00:43
down if you travel down Benton Road into New Road and then turn left towards Cleon. So I think we recognize as a
5:00:50
council that we take heed of those comments that any subsequent um transport assessment should indeed
5:00:56
determine the impact both at the border level crossing and indeed at T sheds.
5:01:07
But as as it was stated, they didn't object to the first phase as in the the residential units which you've rightly
5:01:12
pointed out.
5:01:21
Okay. Thank you, Councelor Taylor. Is there anything was that from previous? Okay,
5:01:29
thank you for that. Um is there anything further people want to
5:01:35
say in relation to the shoot Eid site as visited the site mindful it has
5:01:42
uh as we sit here now it's an an allocation within the current adopted local uh development plan as part of the
5:01:49
site allocations DPD. Um in terms of going forward then I
5:01:55
think just for my note I think there are a couple of small modifications I think have arisen from the um the sport
5:02:03
England statement of common ground. Um and I think also the reference to the tile
5:02:10
shed level crossing within criterion five uh to pick up network rails I think
5:02:16
representations. Um
5:02:21
we have had the issue before about where things are kind of happening whether they kind of remain allocations and
5:02:28
whether we take out the 120 um extra
5:02:33
care residential units given they're now under construction. But might um
5:02:44
I'm probably not minded to have that as a a main modification to kind of see the policy in the site in its kind of in its
5:02:51
completeness as to what's what's going to happen there. Councelor Taylor,
5:02:56
thank you. Just for clarity, the um the extra care as well that was on the um the footprint of the car park in the
5:03:03
building. So actually no no uh well very little um fields or open
5:03:09
space was removed. So taking the fly a bit out of consideration um and just you know wanting to keep it for the the the
5:03:16
people of the um area for the the green space and everything that wouldn't be something I would ask to then be
5:03:21
rescinded now at this stage it would be more building on the rest of the the grass that I would rather that stop. So
5:03:28
reduce the number maybe but just for clarity but thank you.
5:03:35
Thank you. Are there any further points people wish to raise in relation to the shooter Eid site?
5:03:42
No. In which case to finish off on matter uh six. Uh we're looking at issue two.
5:03:50
There are a number of regeneration areas and sites that are uh put forward in the
5:03:55
um the local plan.
5:04:23
Got two more people from the council joining us for for this bit. It probably be helpful to me and obviously for the
5:04:30
recording again just to remind me who's who's joined us at the table uh for this this issue.
5:04:37
Hi uh Lucy Rage, historic environment officer.
5:04:45
Matt Clifford, senior planning policy officer. Okay,
5:04:51
thank you. Now there's series of regeneration areas and sites that are uh put forward within the plan. Um
5:04:59
generally attracted a a relatively low level of representation back in 2024.
5:05:06
We just work through them um in order. So the first area um site SP10 which is
5:05:12
the riverside regeneration area. I think a large part of this now is consented
5:05:18
under construction. Um there were concerns I think raised by Port of Tine given that part of this
5:05:26
regeneration site kind of borders um their uh land holdings uh and the
5:05:33
time dock enterprise site site E19 uh and the relationship there. I mean
5:05:39
obviously I've been on site housing is is built closest to that part of the
5:05:44
site already. Um but just in terms of port of time's concerns is it Mr.
5:05:51
Clifford? So the proximity issues between housing
5:05:59
and SP10 and Port and River related employment issues
5:06:04
um in relation to Tyandoc Enterprise Park have been addressed through the
5:06:11
planning application process. Um, Hob Hoborn, Middle Dock, and Wimble
5:06:17
Hill, Wimmill Hill are full planning permission for 299 dwellings.
5:06:23
And development of this site, as you've obviously noted, is is already well underway.
5:06:28
So, phase one, which is the land south of Lgate Street, um,
5:06:35
and is the development that is closest to the Port of Tine, is fully implemented.
5:06:40
Um, and some dwellings are already occupied. and phases two and three are already
5:06:47
under construction. So this was an issue that was debated through the planning application process
5:06:54
and the determination was made obviously to grant consent. Um you know the the
5:07:02
concerns of the port of time were considered but um
5:07:07
it was decided on balance that the benefits of the scheme outweigh
5:07:14
um those concerns.
5:07:20
Thank you. Thank you for for that. And in terms of the site itself, um, as I'
5:07:26
just been referred to, um, and I've seen myself, it's it's under, um,
5:07:32
construction in terms of profiling, uh, what's likely to be delivered on
5:07:37
SP10. Um, seems to me it's it's it's really sort of going to carry on at quite a
5:07:44
rate over the sort of next four or five years. And the sort of the confidence behind
5:07:50
that, please. Yeah. So, there's been 96 dwellings built on that site so far with
5:07:56
203 left to be delivered. Um, that's profiled in the trajectory to kind of
5:08:02
continue around 50 dwellings per hectare between now and 2029/30.
5:08:20
um the deliverable supply in the schlaw. I mean this is probably one of the single largest um contributors. So is
5:08:26
this one single developer or a couple of developers who's who's building out
5:08:33
uh the burn site?
5:08:39
There's two developers on that site.
5:08:50
Thank you. And then in terms of the site itself, obviously there are a number of
5:08:56
um heritage assets um on within the wider SP10 and no doubt um uh within its
5:09:05
immediate um environs. I think Historic England were looking at some further detail within policy SP10 and I think
5:09:13
the council's uh has been in sort of further dialogue with Historic England to agree potential
5:09:20
changes. I think I raised this under my MIQ 6.25.
5:09:25
Yes, that's correct. We've uh we've agreed a a number of changes to the um the text to make it more consistent with
5:09:32
the national policy.
5:09:41
the wording kind of more aligns with what's in the MP so the national planning policy framework
5:09:46
that's correct and then to add in some further detail about
5:09:52
some of the listed buildings are these these are on so this is in the setting
5:09:58
are these on within the site itself or uh they're within the setting Okay.
5:10:23
Thank you. I've got no further questions on site SP10. um subject to obviously there are a
5:10:30
couple of modifications to pick up the heritage um issues. So I'm adding those to my list going going
5:10:37
forward. I'm not anticipating to hear from anybody else on SP 10. So I'm going to
5:10:43
move on to SP 11. Um
5:10:50
so this is the South Shields Town Center College Regeneration Site. Um again I
5:10:56
think Historic England were looking for further um detail
5:11:01
within this this policy and I think the council's minded to to accept that again
5:11:07
is this for kind of consistency with national policy or Yes that is correct. Okay.
5:11:14
I mean to some extent I mean is things now moved on with is this a site that is now under construction for the college?
5:11:23
Is work starting on this site?
5:11:28
Yes. Um there is construction works undertaken in the town center at the minute on the the college site itself.
5:11:38
Is the council of a view that still wants to retain a policy for this area? I mean, is is
5:11:45
what's taking place there now going to be in effect what policy SP11
5:11:52
were seeking to do? Is there still Yes, I think policy 11 is in line with
5:12:00
what the council's ambitions are for the for that area. Um, in terms of retaining
5:12:05
the policy, um, I don't think we have any sort of preference either way. So
5:12:12
whether we're it should be Depends if the
5:12:25
Thank you. I mean seem to be uh happening on the site and
5:12:32
I just wondered whether in the the the grant of a college scheme that effectively fulfills the allocation. Um,
5:12:40
but if the council's I think indicated to me it probably still wants to retain that policy, then it would be subject to
5:12:47
the modification with Historic England, but it it may be a a site that quickly
5:12:54
uh reaches its ambition and is is developed accordingly. What we'll do is check it out and see
5:13:01
because it might be that by the time we get to and through the mods process, it's no longer needed. So, we'll see.
5:13:11
And then finally in terms of the regeneration sites, the council's um broadly identified the foreshore um
5:13:19
improvement area. Uh, I think again this is a question picking up from um
5:13:25
Sport England who I think were sort of questioning what was going to happen to the um the recreation
5:13:31
uh the Ben Park recreation fields and the Gypsy's Green um uh facility
5:13:39
uh in that area. Um, I think the council's under MIQ 627 has indicated
5:13:46
it's probably going to add a bit of detail into some of the supporting text.
5:13:52
I don't know how legitimate the Sport England concerns
5:13:57
were in terms of that area, whether there was any ever sort of any ambition or objective to kind of lose or
5:14:04
redevelop those kind of green spaces. No, I don't think there was. I think the
5:14:10
Sport England's concerns were raised because it does obviously wash over um areas of playing field land particularly
5:14:16
Gypsy's green area where there are um sports um facilities there there's athletics track and also a plane pitch
5:14:22
there as well. So um I think the intention um behind sport England's
5:14:28
objection was to seek clarification in terms of the protection of those assets
5:14:33
um notwithstanding the the designation itself. Um I think that's why we have
5:14:38
provided the the support and text modification just to say that obviously yes the designation washes over those
5:14:45
areas but any sort of um development process which affect playing field land
5:14:50
will be subject to policy 37 and the requirements associated with um impact
5:14:56
on open space. And for completeness, if anybody was looking at the policies map, it would
5:15:01
show these as open spaces or does is it more that p the primary
5:15:08
designation over these is the SP13?
5:15:13
I would have to double check just to remind myself another inset map within the policy um in the plan itself does
5:15:20
show wash over of the designation, but I'll have to double check to see what is shown on the policies map itself.
5:15:33
Thank you. That's that's helpful. I have to say it's a very um busy policies map
5:15:40
in particular locations. It's quite challenging to work out what what
5:15:47
applies to what. But I don't have any remit to uh re recommend modifications
5:15:52
to the policies map. But I'm sure through technology some of these issues can
5:15:58
it might be possible to have insets where there is clear difficulty in interpretation. So we'll look at that.
5:16:06
I think further people wish to raise in relation to the regeneration sites areas.
5:16:12
Nope. In which case what I'm going to suggest now that's brings matter six to
5:16:18
a conclusion. Um, thank you everybody for your contributions on that. We're
5:16:24
now going to pick up a couple of sites that were discussed as part of um, stage
5:16:29
one where further work has been done, it's an opportunity for me to discuss that with the council and those who have
5:16:37
an interest in those sites. So what I'm suggesting if you've around the table and you came for matter six and you now
5:16:43
wish to leave won't be offended. For those who are now going to join us for matter seven. There's two sites, the G1
5:16:50
at Heburn and the G3 town end farm sites. Now is an opportunity to come to
5:16:57
the table. It's just gone quarter to 3. Uh I'm going to suggest um so just a
5:17:03
quick five minute or so break. So I'd like to be back here at 5 to 3 and we'll
5:17:09
work through and conclude um today's hearing session on those two sites. So
5:17:15
uh we'll come back in 5 to 3 and we'll start matter 7 discussion. Thank you.
5:25:53
Okay, it's just come to 5 to 3. So, welcome back. Uh we're now discussing
5:25:59
some items under matter seven of the examination which is effectively a
5:26:05
follow on from matter five from stage one but I'm feeding it in now to
5:26:11
uh housing delivery and numbers. Um welcome to those who've just joined the
5:26:16
table again uh recognize some faces from stage one but just to reintroduce
5:26:22
myself. My name's David Spencer, planning inspector uh undertaking the independent examination of the um South
5:26:29
Tinside uh local plan. Could please ask if you weren't here for earlier introductions, I'm sure that mobile
5:26:35
phones are switched off uh and on their silent settings, please. Um, I am
5:26:42
advised hopefully the speaker in the room now works. So, it's a good test for
5:26:47
for the rest of the week that we're uh we're going out in stereo. Um,
5:26:56
I'm sure for those obviously attended the the earlier sessions, we're going to have a discussion about kind of the
5:27:02
various uh sites. I'll try and bring you in but if you obviously you want to say something particular upend your name
5:27:08
plate and that will bring me in on the particular uh point but obviously these are going to be relatively um focused um
5:27:15
discussions we're going to deal first with site J1
5:27:21
which is the former South campus site in Heburn is that Mr. Murphy, are you joining us
5:27:28
for that on behalf of um by way you are you at PE Pegasus? That's correct.
5:27:34
But actually what I should have done of course because of course there'll be people watching this recording is ask
5:27:39
people to introduce themselves um for this particular session. So invite Mr.
5:27:46
Shadowan for the council please. Yes sir. Good afternoon. My name is Paul
5:27:52
Sherevian KC for the council. Deborah Lamb, operations manager of the
5:27:58
spatial planning team at South Tai Council. Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy
5:28:04
officer at South Tai Council. Chris Smith from Lichfields on behalf of
5:28:09
Helen's Land. Mark Murphy at Pegasus Group on behalf of Belway Homes.
5:28:17
Richard Garland, managing partner GFW LLP representing TJ Jacobson Will Trust
5:28:23
for Town in Farm. Uh Dave Green, representing Steve the
5:28:29
Felgate Working Green Belt Group.
5:28:37
Thank you. So if we start with um site GA1 which is the heaven campus site um
5:28:44
obviously discussed this at stage one uh sport England were if people recall were
5:28:50
there for that particular um session um there are a couple of action points
5:28:55
that arose from that and I've tried to reflect that in my MIQ um 733 but we
5:29:01
just kind of recap from um I think the stage one um discussion is obviously
5:29:08
this was a site um that was last in use uh for sports um or playing field um use
5:29:17
albe it some time ago obviously you go to the site now it's well last time I was there it was being grazed by horses
5:29:24
um but there was a discussion nonetheless obviously it's a green belt alteration site um so there are allied
5:29:31
issues around securing kind of compensatory um provision or
5:29:36
improvements as as well uh around what could be reasonably
5:29:42
secured in the vicinity of the site um versus as well as potentially could be
5:29:49
um mitigation that could be um provided further a field. The council responded
5:29:55
and provided me I think with information about Heburn Riverside um location as a
5:30:00
potential opportunity that if presumably financial contributions are secured
5:30:05
that's a location that could be uh the recipient for kind of investment
5:30:11
in improvements um at that location. uh but also I think uh Pegasus I think
5:30:19
leading for Belway but I think also the council were involved in that note as well
5:30:26
on the basis of the plan as submitted and I I appreciate Mr. Murphy, your your clients would prefer something else at
5:30:33
this location, but if it stays in the plan as as shown, whether some sort of
5:30:39
form of sports provision could be provided um adjacent in adjacent to the
5:30:45
site in the area that would be proposed to be retained uh as part of the green belt. So, I'm fairly clear on kind of
5:30:53
the technical work that's been done. Um I'm not so clear on whether it actually
5:31:00
leads to any further modification or whether it's just further
5:31:05
evidence clarification that um this is potentially what is feasible at this
5:31:12
location. I'm not aware there's been an updated statement of common ground between the parties. It's just been a
5:31:17
case of well we've gone away, we've looked at the work, we've seen what's feasible on a kind of technical basis.
5:31:24
Here it is. Uh, and I wonder if perhaps as as part of this afternoon's
5:31:30
discussion whether there are potential modifications that arise from that or
5:31:35
whether it's no, this is evidence that shows what could be achieved, but the policy framework to do that is as shown
5:31:42
in the submitted plan and nothing further needs to be um needs to be
5:31:48
modified. Perhaps if I could start with the council, I'm mindful it's your your plan. Um,
5:31:55
does the council see as a result of kind of the further work think about um I'm thinking about my MIQ 733 about whether
5:32:02
there are further things that need to be modified or clarified in relation to
5:32:08
site GA1. Yeah, I think um the the information has
5:32:14
been provided as part as of part of AP 10 and AP 11 um help provide a bit more
5:32:21
evidence like you're saying in terms of what can be delivered on that area to the south of the site. Um modification
5:32:28
that has sort of come from this we have proposed the inclusion of Heaven Riverside in policy SP23
5:32:34
again sort of identifying that as a site for pitch improvement. So that will
5:32:39
again gives a little bit more sort of certainty or a little bit more weight about uh plane pitch mitigations coming
5:32:45
forward on that site. Um as within the broader context of plane provision
5:32:50
within South Tinside um we haven't provided any modifications to G1 as it
5:32:57
stands at the minute. Um I think our our position is that the
5:33:03
policy remains as it is.
5:33:12
I think one of the things that sport England I think sorry
5:33:20
no yeah no conferring is allowed. Um,
5:33:25
one of the things obviously Sport England I think were looking for as part of potential um, modifications was
5:33:32
whether uh, again it's coming back to wording instead of in the key considerations for this site instead of
5:33:39
mitigate replace um, uh, existing
5:33:44
uh, sports playing field provision.
5:33:50
I think again this is an area I would want views or clarifications on. Um
5:33:57
I think Mr. Maguire when he was here for Sport England I think fairly recognized that this is a site that's long not been
5:34:04
in active sports use. I come back to it again. I don't know if the the approach
5:34:09
that's been taken at site H20 at Perth Green is an indicator of where Sport
5:34:14
England might view things where the use has lapsed.
5:34:19
Um but if Mr. Edson was here, he'd probably say, you know, is is this what you sit here now? What's the sort of the
5:34:25
black and white um position of of um Sport England?
5:34:33
I have a think about that. You know, the the changing of that that wording. I'm assuming from Mr. Murphy, your client's
5:34:40
position is still you would not want to see that wording change from mitigate to
5:34:45
replace. That's correct, sir. So, looking at
5:34:50
their their own response within the the statement of common ground between South Council and Sports England, they've even
5:34:56
recognized um so I'll just read this verbatim. Whilst noting that replacing a a playing field with a playing field is
5:35:03
not compliant with PL playing field policy, Sport England, the council have agreed in principle to explore the potential of bringing disused playing
5:35:09
field sites across Heburn back into use to mitigate for the allocation. So
5:35:15
although they've requested this change about replacement um within their own statement of common ground with the
5:35:21
council they've they've acknowledged that this is mitigation. Um so I think
5:35:27
it requires careful review because it will have implications of how planning applications are um processed by the
5:35:34
council uh when they come to be submitted. Um and ultimately it's yeah it's whether
5:35:42
if there's conflict at the planning application stage whether you have to bring in planning balance arguments
5:35:49
rather than just being in conformity with the plan at that stage. That would be my only um my only my only issue that
5:35:56
I'd like to raise. But in principle as long as um the development achieves the same thing then there's no there's no
5:36:02
issue. Okay. Mr. Council's pointed out obviously it's
5:36:10
looking at or it's suggesting a modification to add the the Heban Riverside um location to policy SP23. So
5:36:18
note that as a potential um modification other sites in the plan we just talking
5:36:25
about shoot I mean there is a little bit more kind of detail. I appreciate
5:36:30
there's a slightly different relationship. Those plane pictures are directly adjacent to that site. Um but
5:36:37
if this policy remained as mitigate is there any evidence or sufficient
5:36:43
evidence at this stage to kind of add something further whether it was in the supporting text or the policy itself as
5:36:49
to where the mitigation could be secured or whether there's a preference you
5:36:55
still want kind of flexibility and there's just just saying there'll be um
5:37:02
mitigation in accordance with policy 37 and the latest playing field strategy
5:37:09
is justified. I think that it would be beneficial to have a degree of flexibility. I think
5:37:14
sort of going back to the the playing bit strategy itself that does sort of identify um the clock and also Heaven
5:37:21
Riverside as sort of mitigation options at that point. So I think the fact that the plane pitch strategy reflects that
5:37:28
you know there's options in terms of how mitigation for the site can be developed
5:37:34
it can help benefit the policy in terms of justifying that flexibility and approach. Um like you say the
5:37:42
plane pitches in South Tide um we are quite constrained in terms of providing new land and also there's a lot going on
5:37:50
there you may have picked up in that from the plane pit strategy that there's new pictures new provision being
5:37:55
identified um across the burough. So the the interplay of all how all those work out obviously would affect what
5:38:02
mitigation could be required at the point of planned application depending on the evidence in front of us at that
5:38:08
time. I mean, one of the things that came out of the additional work alluded to
5:38:14
earlier, there's obviously been a lot of analysis about what could potentially be accommodated on a wider site. I think
5:38:20
that reflected kind of some of the discussion we were having at stage one. Obviously, not all of the land
5:38:27
uh under Mr. Murphy's client's control is allocated. A balance remains within
5:38:33
would remain within the green belt. Whether there was scope within that area to accommodate
5:38:41
something. Um, and um, I don't know if you were here at the stage one discussions, Mr. Murphy, but
5:38:48
your your previous colleague or Mr. Martin who was here. I mean, there's kind of I think
5:38:55
an identification obviously is it St. Joseph's
5:39:01
Academy? Yeah. Is relatively is relatively close. So you start to kind of build up well
5:39:08
that's not a million miles away. There's an area here that could be largely retained in open use but for the kind of
5:39:14
sports provision and whether as a result of the additional technical work that's been undertaken whether that's either
5:39:24
a modification to the plan to amend the site boundary but with kind of detail
5:39:31
that that particular area is to remain open and to be provided for sports pitch
5:39:37
provision or the site allocation remains as it is, but there's something within GA1 that says
5:39:44
um that that um sports provision potentially could be accommodated to the
5:39:51
west of the site.
5:39:57
So in respect to Belway's aspirations, I think their intention is always well
5:40:04
they've undertaken discussions with the college as to um
5:40:09
how replacements sports pitches might be managed, might be accommodated within the site. Um we're aware that they would
5:40:17
like to construct a 3D G pitch within their premises. Um so whether
5:40:24
Bel make a contribution to Hebin Riverside or make a contribution to the provision of this um this additional
5:40:31
five 5G 3G pitch facility. Um they would their preference would be to
5:40:38
have it directly related to the site itself. Um the the the form of
5:40:44
mitigation that is incorporated within the development they'd like that to be related directly to what is taking
5:40:49
place. So their preference would be to uh to make a contribution towards um St.
5:40:56
Joseph Academyy's uh playing pitch uh sorry 3G pitch. However, that's not to
5:41:02
suggest that we're against um provision being made towards Heaven
5:41:09
Riverside. Um it just depends on how discussions take place with the academy
5:41:15
and the relationship that happens between um when we come to submit a planning application and what state the
5:41:20
local plan is at. So could I interpret Bellway's pos I
5:41:26
mean the council saying uh to me this afternoon you know it's got a policy in
5:41:33
terms of what it set out for key considerations for J1. They're reasonably flexible.
5:41:39
A bellway of a similar view the depending on where whether it went to
5:41:45
St. Joseph's or to to Heaven Riverside that's the kind of the preferred approach to mitigate rather than
5:41:52
it's a preference rather than a like an imprincipal we would like contributions to be made
5:41:58
towards St. Joseph. We're happy for it to be flexible. Okay.
5:42:03
Right. So the policy could largely stay as is.
5:42:09
I'm just wondering now whether all the technical work on whether a sports pitch
5:42:14
to the west is bit of a culdeac might not happen unless I ultimately conclude
5:42:21
along sort of Belway's original lines that the allocation should be widened. Know the council at the stage one view
5:42:28
is obviously not articulating that. I mean in terms of that area to the west I
5:42:33
mean presumably I mean this is a green belt alteration it's going to have um national policy and certainly policy SP7
5:42:40
under which this sits seeks compensatory improvements um to the green belt and the council's
5:42:47
got um you know views an approach on that. So presumably
5:42:53
this area immediately to the west if it stays within the green belt would be a candidate location for compensatory
5:43:00
improvements and whether the policy needs to say
5:43:06
anything about that Mr. Murphy. So I was just going to ask a question.
5:43:13
So when you're referring to the area located to the west, so this
5:43:19
call miss um these and this is one of the issues that arose at at um
5:43:26
stage one. So the
5:43:31
land in question if you look at the the totality of the land parcel goes all the
5:43:36
way across is it wardly wardly lane. Um so but effectively it's it's
5:43:43
straightening off one edge and then you're left with a a kind of a res a residue area between what would be the
5:43:49
edge of the proposed allocation and wardly lane which is so yes though sorry I I misinterpreted
5:43:56
that so the areas to the southwest that kind of that potential area that's not
5:44:02
included within the allocation. So where within that area we're proposing to include 11 by 111 football pitch within
5:44:08
that area. Okay. In addition to the um contribution to
5:44:16
either Heaven Riverside or um St. Joseph's Academy.
5:44:23
I see. Okay. So, right. Apologies. Maybe I should have said Southwest. But so I
5:44:29
think I'm now thinking is this was it such a culdeac or whether there needs to
5:44:34
be something whether there should be something in the plan about as well as potentially mitigation offsite
5:44:42
uh at potentially various locations. There's also scope to do something immediately adjacent to the site albeit
5:44:49
it may be within the green belt and whether there should be something within the policy.
5:44:56
Key considerations for site GA1.
5:45:09
I I think um I've just had a brief word
5:45:15
and I think the policy can be enhanced to incorporate some further um guidance
5:45:22
or criteria to that effect. So, um, we'll put our minds to it. I'm
5:45:27
not going to volunteer any immediate drafting as I did this morning, but I'll put my mind to it with with the team and
5:45:34
come back to you and of course the promoters.
5:45:40
Thank you. I mean, I think I think what I'm taking away from this discussion is there needs potentially be some
5:45:46
flexibility about where off-site mitigation, I call it wider off-site
5:45:52
mitigation is secured. could be at St. Joseph. It could be at Heaven Riverside
5:45:57
and perhaps for reasons at the moment people don't want to might be best dealt with in a supporting
5:46:03
text but there is scope at this particular location. Uh sounds like a happy man. Um
5:46:13
um the scope at this location given the evidence given the concerns I'd heard
5:46:18
from Sport England they've I come to a view that you know this the green belt remains as is
5:46:25
nonetheless it wouldn't be an incompatible option to look at some
5:46:32
sports pitch provision that's accepted and we could include something
5:46:37
not now on the hoof but something along those lines. within J4. Great. Thank you.
5:46:46
I think those were the only residual issues in relation to site G1. I
5:46:51
appreciate you, Mr. Murphy, from your client's perspective in terms of wider plan soundness.
5:46:57
There were obviously original representations and original view that you know the whole site should come out
5:47:02
from the from the green belt um uh and potentially accommodate um
5:47:10
uh something else. Um in terms of just to
5:47:17
clarify whilst we're here before we get on to um sort of housing trajectory
5:47:23
discussions on Thursday. So potentially there looks like there'll be some modifications to this policy which
5:47:31
obviously go out to consultation in in due course in terms of first delivery or
5:47:37
completions on this site is this this is one of the sites that's potentially can can deliver within the first five years.
5:47:45
That's correct. Uh so uh probably quite a unique situation for some of the allocations within the um the emerging
5:47:51
plan but uh it's in freehold ownership by Belway. Uh the intention is to uh
5:47:57
submit a planning application as as soon as we can. Um so an already green
5:48:03
mechanisms by which offsite contributions could be delivered. So uh in terms of delivery I don't see any
5:48:10
impediments to that taking place within the identified time frames.
5:48:20
Thank you. Okay. Okay. I've got nothing further I wanted to say on site J1. Is
5:48:25
there anything further from you, Mr. Murphy, that's been helpful this afternoon? Nothing for me, sir. Okay. Thank you.
5:48:34
If I may, to site G3, Town End Farm.
5:48:43
I'm hoping, Mr. Murphy, you're not strategically positioned.
5:48:48
Between two thoughts. I was hoping there's a if I'd read a
5:48:54
statement of common ground correctly that things are in a hopefully a positive um position. Um so, moving on
5:49:01
to site G3, Town End Farm. Again, this is a a site that was subject to some
5:49:07
further work since the stage one um hearings obviously in receipt of a um a
5:49:15
response to the action points that I'd raised, excuse me, and a revised statement of common ground. And I
5:49:21
appreciate that's also supplemented by a statement of common ground with Sunderland City Council in terms of uh
5:49:29
additional or clarification on the the access um arrangements.
5:49:35
Um if I invite the council first and then others can come in to perhaps just
5:49:40
confirm and clarify with myself what the outcome of that is. It appears to be there will be a separate or
5:49:48
put to me a modification for a separate strategic policy for town end farm which
5:49:53
will set out its own criteria um for this site and how it should how it could come forward. So turn to the council
5:50:01
first and I'll come to Helen's land and then to Mr. Garland. Yes. So that's correct. So following the
5:50:08
the stage one's discussions and there was um talk at that time about taking um
5:50:13
the site out of SP7 and creating its own standalone policy with the requirements
5:50:19
for a master plan. Um and that's what has been produced um since um the stage
5:50:25
one hearings themselves. Um and that is set out within um our action point response to 1617.
5:50:32
Um and also alongside a statement of common ground like you say with with the land owners as well. Um the the draft
5:50:38
policy is set out in appendix one of the statement of common ground and and that
5:50:44
sort of addresses um most of the issues which were discussed at stage one and
5:50:49
also the points regarding um bolden downhill and um area of landscape as
5:50:54
well. And as I read the appendix to the statement of common ground. So the the m
5:51:02
the main modification would comprise so there'll be a new policy a new strategic policy what I
5:51:08
think is the second largest green belt alteration um in the plan.
5:51:14
There'll then be a alongside it an inset plan that would kind of show some of the
5:51:19
key kind of considerations or be very high level i.e how the site can be
5:51:24
accessed broadly where um kind of areas be retained uh uh as
5:51:32
open and then the way I'm seeing it from there on in is what would be sort of the revised supporting text that would sit
5:51:39
alongside that policy. Yeah.
5:51:45
Good. So I mean that could have all presented as one composite main main modification for people to to comment
5:51:51
on. In terms of the modification and what's
5:51:56
been agreed bearing in mind I think that the issues were not necessarily I put it
5:52:02
in these terms one of the kind of principle or the suitability of the location for development more the
5:52:07
mechanics of how it could come forward and be deliverable. How do the parties
5:52:13
think they've found a way forward in relation to that? If I start with Mr. Smith first and then Mr. Garland,
5:52:21
please. Uh yeah, thank you sir. Um there's nothing much further to add from what the council reported. I think felt feels
5:52:28
like a quite a while ago and now the parts have have cooperated following the the sessions um in during the summer. I
5:52:35
think as you will recall sir I think we we how things were left was we felt that
5:52:40
the site whilst part of SB7 just because of the size and and the potential for it
5:52:46
to come forward via more than one plan application it was felt that perhaps there could be a bit more detail to the
5:52:52
policy and and that's something that we've gone away worked up um you'll recall this discussions around um the
5:52:59
prepar preparation of a master plan as well I'm sure Mr. Scarlet will will come on and add some some more points in
5:53:04
relation to just about giving a bit more of an idea of where things like access um can come from too. So all in all I
5:53:12
think all parties are are content with the way forward and from Helen's land perspective in terms
5:53:19
of that uh contentment in terms obviously policy uh so the first criteria of the policy is looking for
5:53:26
kind of a master plan that's going to uh help shape and kind of coordinate
5:53:32
development on this this site signed up to statement of common ground to that effect. So
5:53:39
there's no anything in terms of think about deliverability that's that's an understood
5:53:45
yes yes full understanding of what what the requirements of that um poly policy
5:53:50
expectation is that the the key parties will will work together over the preparation of that that master plan
5:53:56
which will then accompany that initial planning application.
5:54:01
Thank you. And then to Mr. Garland obviously I recall quite clearly
5:54:06
from stage one your concerns on behalf of your client. So if they presumably through the signing of this statement of
5:54:13
common ground have been yes I'm pleased to say we're far more
5:54:19
comfortable with the revised drafting it addresses the collaboration point and the accessibility points that were our
5:54:26
main concerns last time. So I'm grateful to everyone for their time and working on the revised efficiency. It we're
5:54:31
entirely happy with this now. Okay. And in terms of those access arrangements, so this is a particular interest or
5:54:39
concern to you would be the access from Boston Street in Sunderland. Yes, it's the connectivity back into
5:54:45
town for from particularly from Boston Street. Yes. Um fairly clear from reading the
5:54:50
statement of common ground with Sunderland that they raise no sort of in principle issues with that access point.
5:54:57
I've had an opportunity to look at it myself in terms of I appreciate it's a high level plan in terms of how where it
5:55:04
could come out. So, uh appreciate that that statement of common ground has been secured obviously
5:55:11
given it's a kind of quite literally a crossboundary um boundary issue.
5:55:18
In terms of the policy itself and the statement of common ground um largely it
5:55:23
all reads um quite harmoniously
5:55:28
until I get to paragraph 4.9 of the statement of common ground um where the
5:55:34
part parties still generally in agreement but I think they're um
5:55:41
the trustees understand that the council intend to demonstrate to the inspector through the next round of the EIP which
5:55:47
is where we are um that the contributions sought through the policy. I think this is really in relation to
5:55:54
compensatory um green belt compens compensatory
5:56:00
provision will meet the necessary tests. I mean from a starting point obviously
5:56:05
national planning policy looks for compensatory provision
5:56:11
um within the remaining green belt. So um can I perhaps understand from the
5:56:19
site promoters concern I don't know who's principally uh behind this whether you both share
5:56:25
this view about whether the requirements of the policy are going to meet the necessary
5:56:30
kind of lawful tests. Um, so I think the background to
5:56:37
this and I think it's fair to say that both sides have asked the council a question just in relation and and you're right sir is is is in relation to
5:56:43
compensator improvements. I think obviously in some ways sometimes it's done on site. I think in in this context
5:56:50
I think the expectation is that there's there's offsite schemes that have been identified and it'll be contributions
5:56:55
towards those. So I think it has just been the simple question of the idea of the the kind of amounts that we're
5:57:01
talking about at this stage. I think you know the feedback we've had is that that that that'll be further work that's that's fed back and then comes through
5:57:08
the plan application process. I I'll probably will pass over to Mr. Garling. I think the reference in par 4.9 is does
5:57:14
reference to trustees which is an abbreviation of um the Jacobson trust.
5:57:21
Uh thank you Mr. Smith. Um yeah I think that that's that's entirely correct from our point of view. was just checking
5:57:27
with a unquantified um mitigation that that's going to actually satisfy the appropriate tests.
5:57:34
We've have accepted that the amount isn't known at the present time. Um I
5:57:40
expect it will have to be um assessed at such a point in time a planning
5:57:45
application comes forward which I think is how it's drafted. So I think we're comfortable in principles obviously just making sure that that satisfies the
5:57:52
basic tests. Well, there are three basic tests.
5:57:57
Uh the SIL regulations set those out and when it comes to negotiating section 106
5:58:04
contributions, um the amount sought will be governed by
5:58:09
that criteria. Um so it's something which can't be determined now. It has to be determined
5:58:15
at that stage. But in principle and this will apply to
5:58:22
other sites. And I appreciate the council has done in a further action note in relation to compensatory um
5:58:29
improvements. I've got various statements common ground particularly in relate with the church commissioners um
5:58:34
for felgate is perhaps it was clearer through the policy uh for that site but for this sites I mean obviously various
5:58:41
things will be potentially provided on site in terms of keeping areas open
5:58:47
um but it's still the council's view and in fairness this was how policy SP7 was
5:58:53
originally drafted that compensatory improvements would be secured from all of the sites that were originally within
5:58:59
SP P um SP7. So just so I perhaps I can understand it's
5:59:06
it's not a case of when I look at the inset plan for the site and I sort of see you know various areas being left or
5:59:14
to be retained open. I appreciate that's probably for other reasons in terms of the setting of the Balden Hills, but
5:59:19
still the council's view in light of your green belt evidence and other things that you're going to need
5:59:27
further offsite compensatory improvements at this stage until
5:59:32
Absolutely. What Thank you. One could easily just include the word where nec necessary.
5:59:42
That's one of the tests. So if there is on-site provision
5:59:50
um then that can be as it counted in as it were.
5:59:57
So we could add where necessary to criterion five. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely.
6:00:08
I think if we move forward on that basis, put it out for consultation
6:00:14
and I'll take a view on what what comes back. Um there is one other um slight
6:00:20
change which um we've discussed today with the promoters and it's something
6:00:25
which um we reviewed as a team after I had another look at it and um um we're
6:00:33
we're of the view that and it's agreed um that paragraph three of the policy
6:00:39
um ought to be refined a little. So at the moment it's drafted as all development
6:00:45
proposals shall accord with the master plan as approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6:00:53
Well um whether or not they do is a matter of law at the time. M
6:00:58
so rather than that formulation um it was acknowledged that what the um
6:01:03
promoters wanted here is to embed in the policy the notion
6:01:09
that the master plan as originally approved is not set in stone.
6:01:15
So if circumstances change and the uh local planning authority agrees an
6:01:22
alteration to that then of course it follows that any subsequent reserve matters approval or subsequent
6:01:28
applications made under its umbrella will accord with the master plan as
6:01:34
subsequently varied and approved. So all we've done is simply uh to to engage
6:01:40
that flexibility in the policy simply rewarded to say all development proposals shall accord with the master
6:01:47
plan as approved or such variations thereto as may subsequently be approved
6:01:53
by the council.
6:02:01
So that won't affect any pre-approved
6:02:06
details which may have been built out and it and it adds that degree of flexibility.
6:02:11
Okay. Perhaps look to uh Mr. Smith and Mr.
6:02:18
Garland is yes. So that that's accurate reflection
6:02:24
discussions of have taken place before the session today. We've seen and outside of that wording and confirmed
6:02:29
that we're content with that as have we.
6:02:37
Thank you. And in terms of the deliverability developability of this site um I think after the stage one
6:02:45
hearings uh issued a post hearings finding. I think this was one of two sites where I felt
6:02:52
in terms of the the trajectory to take a a more um uh sort of cautious
6:02:59
view, move things back by about a year just to kind of give things time in terms of master plan um first
6:03:07
applications etc. I think that is now reflected in the statement of common ground. I mean obviously if things
6:03:14
happen differently things can come forward more quickly
6:03:19
all well and good but I think for the purposes of the trajectory and sort of best profiling how this site could come
6:03:25
forward um I think that is largely agreed between between the parties and the site
6:03:32
would still be fully delivered within the plan period on that basis there's still
6:03:39
kind of time to do that yeah about 40 houses a year.
6:03:46
Yep. Okay. Are there any further points people wish to bring to my attention for
6:03:53
um site G3?
6:03:59
No, that's definitely a main modification in terms of a new policy SP7.
6:04:06
Uh so with the further revisions that we've kind of discussed in our I'll confirm that.
6:04:13
I think there's nothing further I was going to raise. I'm sort of sitting here looking at Mr. Green and thinking, have
6:04:20
I missed something? We've got questions later on in in the
6:04:25
we just keeping them for then. But thanks. Okay. Because obviously we're we're obviously coming there's various
6:04:30
sessions. We've got uh return to Felgate on Thursday morning.
6:04:36
Yes. Yeah. And we've also picked up a lot about the bio diver, you know, the mitigation for that. So, yeah, we got
6:04:42
all written down here. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Right. Uh, I think that brings to a
6:04:48
conclusion what I was going to discuss today. So, we're finishing slightly earlier. People will be pleased to hear. Um, we're back in this room. I think
6:04:55
it's a 9:30 start um tomorrow morning. We've got housing policies
6:05:02
for the morning and then in the afternoon we've got uh various policies around climate change, flood risk,
6:05:10
water, waste water. Um uh yep. So um a full day tomorrow. I
6:05:19
think we've got uh people coming to watch us. So that'll be fun as well. Okay. So I'll adjourn for today and I'll
6:05:26
see some of you again tomorrow morning half past 9. Thank you.